Applicants v. Society, 2014 CFSRB 17

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

Applicants

v.

Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: April 2, 2014

Citation: 2014 CFSRB 17

Indexed as: Applicants v. Society (CFSA s. 68)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an application under s. 68.1 (4) 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R. S.O. 199 c. C11 (“Act”). The Applicants allege that the Society did not provide them with reasons for decisions affecting their interests regarding the Society’s involvement with their family, commencing on July 18, 2013.

2The Board must decide whether the Society met its obligation to provide the Applicants with reasons for decisions affecting their interests over the course of their involvement with the Applicants and the mother of the child, an adult relative who was not fully capable and who resided with them.

3The Board heard the application on March 18, 2014. The Society originally challenged the Board’s jurisdiction because the Applicants are the uncle and grandfather of the child and never had a child in their care. The Society later withdrew its objection to jurisdiction and the Board has proceeded on the basis that the Applicants received a service from the Society.

4The Board has determined that the Society has not met its obligation to provide the Applicants with reasons except in relation to the delay in DNA results.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicants are the grandfather (Applicant) and uncle (Applicant uncle) of the child (jointly: Applicants). They are the father and brother, respectively, of the child’s mother. The mother resided with them. When the child’s mother was pregnant, they contacted the Society about kinship placements for the child because of the mother’s mental health needs. They wanted the Society to place the child with a family in their religious community. The mother was suffering from serious mental health issues and was not accepting that she was going to have a baby. The kin arrangements with the family worker (worker) went well and the Applicants had no concerns about kin placement. However, the worker raised with the Applicants that the Applicant’s ex-spouse, the maternal grandmother alleged that both of them had sexually assaulted the child’s mother. The child was apprehended at birth due to the mother’s mental health and the kin placement plan in the community was put into place. The worker remained involved with the mother and took a series of actions and related decisions that involved the mother’s relationship with the Applicants. This included follow up on DNA testing, advocating for the mother’s belongings when she went to live with friends and attendances at the Applicants’ home. Some of her actions occurred when the Applicant uncle was out of the country on a religious pilgrimage. When the Applicant uncle returned, he complained to the worker’s supervisor and the worker’s involvement with the Applicants stopped.

6The Applicants filed their complaint with the Board on December 6, 2013.

ANALYSIS

7The Board had to decide whether the Applicants were provided with reasons for decisions that affected their interests over the course of the Society’s involvement with their family under s. 68.1 (4) 5 of the Act.

8In making its decision that the Applicants were not provided with reasons for most of the decisions affecting their interests but were provided with explanations about the delay in getting the DNA results, the Board took into account the purpose of the participatory rights in section 68.1 (4) of the Act. In P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33, at paras. 13-14, the Board described the purpose of s.68.1(4).4 and 5 as follows:

The obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 reflect the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. This is facilitated through genuine communication, giving applicants the opportunity to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to, or accept decisions.

9The “right to reasons” under the CFSA, means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8 at para.13, the Board held that:

With respect to this section of the Act, what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A complainant must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

10This is an unfortunate case in which emotions and stress levels of everyone involved were quite high. The allegations against the Applicants were very serious and came at a time when the mother required a lot of support and when the uncle had an important pilgrimage planned. The worker testified that overall, when she spoke with the Applicant uncle, he interrupted her frequently and she felt she was not heard when trying to provide explanations. From the Applicant uncle’s perspective he and the Applicant were simply trying to explain their point of view: that they had been cleared of these allegations by the Court and that the grandmother who had made them had a history of making multiple allegations against them and others. The worker conceded that in retrospect, given the nature of the allegations, she could see how they may have made someone defensive. In any case, the worker testified that her communication with the Applicants was “normal” and that she had skills she used when communicating in stressful situations to get her information across. Further, much of her interaction was with the Applicant alone and she did not assert that he interrupted her.

11The Applicants had several contacts with the worker, commencing in July when they found out the mother was pregnant and wanted to start planning. The first meeting that was contentious was on July 18, with the Applicant uncle. The baby was born on [ ] [ ] 2013 and there was a contentious meeting on September 6 and a call with the Applicant uncle on September 13. The Applicant uncle then left for his pilgrimage and returned at the end of November. In the meantime, there were several events that are at issue involving the Applicant and the worker. When the Applicant uncle returned, he complained to the supervisor and that interaction ended in mid- January 2014.

12The Board will address the instance in which the Society complied with its s. 68.1 (4) 5 obligation first. The Board will then address the other decisions and the Society’s failure to provide reasons for them, together.

DNA testing-Delay in results

13The Applicants themselves requested that DNA samples be done because they were aware of the allegations against them. They made the request at the first meeting with the worker at the hospital on [ ]. The tests were done in the worker’s presence, on September 6 and the DNA company representative explained that the tests would take about a week. The Applicant uncle asked the worker to mail him the results. On September 13, the worker called the Applicant uncle and explained that the DNA testing would take longer than normal because of the closeness in the DNA samples.

14In late September, the worker got verbal confirmation of the DNA results. She did not call the Applicants. Her testimony was that first, at that time the Applicant had told her not to contact him and second, she thought the DNA company was going to send them a copy. When the Applicant uncle called the supervisor in early December, he advised her that they did not have the DNA results. The supervisor followed up with the worker and the Society sent the results to the Applicants, by mail on December 9. The cover letter dated December 9, 2013 explained that the Society had been under the impression the DNA company had sent the Applicants the results.

15The Board sees the decision not to call the Applicants when the Society got the verbal DNA results as part of the decision relating to the significance of the DNA to the allegations and deals with this below. In terms of the actual delay, the Society explained the expected delay on September 13 and later, when they discovered that the Applicants had not received the results from the DNA company. The Society explained that they had assumed the Applicants already had a copy from the DNA company and thus, the Society told the Applicants what had happened. The Society provided the Applicants with reasons for the delay and thus met their obligation under s. 68.1 (4) 5 of the Act.

Allegations and the Society’s role

16The worker testified that at the July 18, 2013 home visit meeting with the Applicant uncle, she told him that the maternal grandmother had told her about the allegations against the Applicants. The Applicant uncle, who was a law student at the time, explained that the court had cleared them; that there was no evidence to substantiate the allegations and that they had been fighting this and similar allegations for years.

17The worker testified before the Board that she had made a decision that it was more likely true than not that the abuse had taken place by the Applicant but that she was unsure about the Applicant uncle. She did not testify as to how she reached this conclusion. She did not advise the Applicant uncle of this decision or how she arrived at it. She countered his explanations with the comments about the difference between criminal court and the child welfare approach.

18The Applicant uncle testified that the first half hour of the meeting was about the kin issue which is not contentious. Then, the worker raised the allegations, which he responded to. According to the worker, the allegations came up when she was discussing the child protection proceedings and the need for a substitute decision maker for the mother in the proceedings. She told him it could not be either Applicant because of the allegations. She also testified that she told the Applicant uncle that the allegations could impact on the health of the child as the child could have medical needs if related to the Applicants. She also told him that she was concerned about the mother’s deteriorating mental health. Her evidence was that the Applicant uncle interrupted her and it was hard for her to get her point across because he was reiterating that they were exonerated and wanted to move on.

19The Applicant uncle testified that he understood the worker’s duty to be regarding kinship for the child and nothing further. However, he still felt he needed to explain about the allegations, despite how difficult and private it was.

20The Applicants were asked to meet the worker and the supervisor on September 6, at the hospital. The Applicant uncle thought it was about kinship but the meeting was about the allegations and about where the mother would live after discharge. The worker testified that she explained the court process and that they were involved with the mother during that process. She would visit the mother at least once a month and work with the family as needed.

21Both Applicants questioned the Society’s ongoing role at the meeting. They both expressed their belief that since the baby was going into kin care and not the mother’s care, the Society’s role with the mother was finished or ended. The worker’s testimony was that the Applicant mentioned that with the baby going to kin, her involvement should end. She testified that she wasn’t asked directly why she was still involved.

22The Applicant uncle testified that he directly challenged the worker about her role: she denies this but agrees she was indirectly questioned about it. She felt the Applicants understood but would not accept her ongoing role. According to the Applicants, when the worker was asked about the reasons for her involvement with the adult mother, she said that she was concerned for the mother’s mental health. The Applicant uncle did not feel he got a straight answer or explanation why, even given this concern, the Society remained involved when the child was to be placed with kin and the society’s mandate is to protect the child.

23The worker testified that she explained her role “for sure” by telling them about the matter being before the court. There was no social worker from the hospital or anyone else (an adult protection services worker, for example) at the meeting about the mother’s ongoing care.

24In terms of the sexual abuse allegations, at the September 6 meeting, the Applicant testified that the worker told them that she “believed [his] wife” (the maternal grandmother and his ex-spouse) but did not say why except to say that it was “her moral obligation to believe her” (about the Applicant having abused the mother). Both Applicants heard her refer to her moral obligation. The Applicant uncle testified that he again tried to explain that the allegations were baseless and not accepted by the Court. Again, the worker responded by saying that even if the criminal process didn’t find guilt, it didn’t mean the allegations weren’t true. The Applicant uncle thanked her for her services regarding kinship but said that they wanted to move on and did not wish to meet further with the Society about the ongoing care of his sister, the mother. He asked her not to raise the allegations with them in future.

25The worker’s supervisor was at this meeting. She did not testify that the Applicant uncle interrupted or acted in a way that prevented the worker from talking. Her evidence was that the worker told the Applicants that she was concerned for the mother’s mental health and her ability to care for herself. For the supervisor, the allegations were relevant to the mother’s needs for stability and support. She did not mention the child’s needs. Further, she testified that they did not discuss the worker’s role during the September 6 meeting because she believed the worker’s role was done. The worker’s evidence was that she had explained her role “for sure”; that the September 6 meeting was the last time she discussed her role and that she only discussed the allegations when someone else was present, including her supervisor on September 6.

26The uncle testified that the worker again raised the allegations in a phone call on September 13, 2013 which lasted for some time and is not fully reflected in the worker’s case notes. The worker testified that this was not a lengthy call and that she talked about the criminal versus civil standard of proof. The Applicant uncle states that when he pointed out that his sister was an adult and that she had no legal authority, the worker responded: “you are correct but this is my moral obligation”. The Board is satisfied that the worker referenced her moral obligation on either September 6 or 13 or both as she does not dispute using those words and both Applicants referenced this language.

27With respect to the significance of DNA testing, the worker’s evidence was that she told the Applicants the results could impact on the care of the child. She told the Board that this was the child protection concern in the matter. The worker admitted that she did not explain her perspective on the lack of significance of a negative DNA test to the Applicants. She acknowledged that the results were important to the Applicants. For the Applicants, a negative result would be evidence that the allegations were not true.

28The results showed that neither Applicant was the father of the baby, which was information that was very important to the Applicants as they felt it exonerated them. The worker did not view this information in the same way. In her testimony, she explained that, for her, while it alleviated the medical concerns for the child, it did not prove that the Applicants hadn’t abused the mother. She never explained this to the Applicants at any time. When she got the call with the results, she did not call the Applicant and the Applicant uncle was on his pilgrimage. On September 13, according to her case notes, the Applicant uncle had advised her that she should call the Applicant about paternity issues, in his absence. Although the worker did assume they would get a copy of the information from the DNA company at some point, at the time she learned of the results, she herself had not been sent a copy. She could have called the Applicants in a timely manner to tell them about the results and explain their lack of significance for her, but she did not.

29The worker made a very significant decision: to believe the grandmother and not the Applicants that the allegations against the Applicant were true. She never advised either Applicant of this decision. This decision informed her subsequent actions, which will be addressed below. This decision also informed how she communicated with the Applicants and her perception that she wasn’t heard. The Board does not accept that the worker did not have an opportunity to explain her decision. This is not borne out by the evidence of the supervisor who was at the September 6 meeting and who did not note any interruptions on the part of the Applicant uncle. Rather, the Board believes the parties were at different stages of the process; the Applicants’ communication focussed on clearing themselves and the worker had made up her mind. Had the worker clarified her decision and how she had arrived at it, beyond the superficial reference to standards of proof, there would have been more meaningful and genuine communication. It is not surprising, that in this context, the parties were speaking at cross purposes. The worker did not inform the Applicants of her decision. The one point of explanation she gave about the standards of proof could not be meaningful because it was tied to discussions of allegations and not a firm decision that abuse had occurred. There was no information about the actual factors that the worker took into account in making her assessment that the abuse by the Applicant had occurred but that she was uncertain about the Applicant uncle. She obtained the DNA results after she had made her decision and she provided no explanation to the Applicants either then or in advance about her view that this did not change her decision.

30Further, there was no meaningful explanation throughout the process of the Society’s role that was responsive to the Applicants’ understanding and expectations of the child welfare process. The evidence about actual explanations of her role at the September 6 meeting is minimal. The supervisor’s evidence was that they did not explain her role because her role was over. Even if we accept the worker’s evidence about what she did explain, we are left with very basic information that boils down to there being a court proceeding, concerns for the mother’s well- being and care in light of the allegations and her mental health and the worker’s “moral obligation”. This falls far short of a meaningful explanation for her involvement with the family. Particularly so since the baby was going to kin care and the Applicants and it appears, the supervisor, felt that the Society’s role was over.

31After September 6, 2013 the worker took an even more intrusive role and it is her testimony that she did not discuss her role after that date and therefore, could not have offered further explanation. The comments about “moral obligation” add nothing to the factors informing her decision that there was a role for her given that there was no child protection investigation and the plan was never for the child to have ongoing access with the Applicants or to live with them.

32At the time events were unfolding, the worker took significant steps and made decisions, linked to her decision that the Applicant had abused the mother and that the Applicant uncle had, possibly abused the mother.

33These decisions were:

• Not allowing the uncle to see the baby once

• Alerting the hospital to the allegations

• Asking for the return of the mother’s belongings

• Calling the police about the belongings

• Calling the Applicant grandfather’s landlord

• Going to the home when the Applicants weren’t there with the grandmother and the mother regarding the belongings, without notice to the Applicants.

• Going to the Applicants’ home to see the mother, unannounced and returning with the police who took the mother to the hospital under the Mental Health Act

34These decisions had a significant impact on the Applicants in terms of their privacy and their relationship with the mother. Except for the first decision, these decisions did not involve a child under the age of 18 but rather, an adult mother who did not have her child in her care.

Request to see the child once

35The Applicant uncle advised the worker on September 5, over the phone that a traditional part of their religion was to have the father do an Islamic blessing with the child. Since the child had no father, he requested that as a male in the family, he be permitted to do so. Alternatively, he wanted to see the baby once- even if through the glass. The worker did not respond but he assumed that this would occur the next day when they met at the hospital. When he went to the hospital the next day and asked to see the baby, hospital staff (and not the worker), told him that the worker had said he could not see the baby. He asked the staff to call the worker twice and each time, the answer was the same. The hospital staff passed on to him after talking to the worker that it was a no because the maternal grandmother had spoken to the worker.

36The Applicant uncle raised wanting to see the baby at the September 6 meeting. The worker consulted with her supervisor and told the Applicants there would be no access. At most, according to the worker, she mentioned having consulted with her lawyers. The Applicants did not testify as to having heard mention of lawyers. The Applicant uncle testified that he asked why he couldn’t see the baby even through the window, from a distance and her response was: “there will be no access”. While the Applicants made it clear they did not want ongoing contact with the child, the Applicant uncle made a very specific, time limited request and was denied, without explanation.

37The Society gave no reasons for denying the one time visit and thus, did not meet their obligation. They did negotiate an alternative that the new kin father would do the ceremony; however, this solution is not a substitute for the obligation to give reasons. Nor is it responsive to the request to see the baby somehow. The worker testified that given how the hospital was set up, seeing the baby through glass might not have been feasible. There is no evidence that she told this to the Applicants who then, in the spirit of genuine communication, may have been able to suggest another option.

Alerting Hospitals

38In October, the Applicant came to visit the mother when she was at the first hospital. He was told by the hospital that he could not see his daughter because the worker had told them he couldn’t. He was only permitted to bring her food. The same thing happened at the second hospital. When he called the director of the second hospital, the director told him that the worker had called the hospital and told them about the allegations and that the worker should not have done so. After the grandfather explained himself, the director allowed him to see his daughter. The child was not in her care at this time.

39The worker denies telling the hospitals about the allegations. Instead, she says she alerted all three hospitals that the mother was in, to check their records for information about the Applicant and that the information was on their records. Either way, the worker made a decision to alert the hospitals to start an inquiry into the Applicant ’s personal information, without informing him. She took intrusive steps, without informing him of her decision. Again, this total information vacuum meant she did not meet her obligation to provide him with reasons for taking steps that impacted on his privacy and his relationship with his daughter. She testified that she had a consent to access the hospital information. There was no evidence that this was a consent to discuss or raise information about the Applicants with the hospital.

Belongings and Housing

40On September 17, 2013 the worker contacted the Applicant and asked for the mother’s identification, which he held as her father had power of attorney, given her mental incapacity. She was in the hospital at the time. According to the Applicant, the worker stated that he could not see his daughter any more because of the allegations. He told her that his daughter still lived with him and he had been cleared. He testified that the worker said: “we can do this the easy way or the hard way” and that she could call the police. She did not admit to or deny this comment. The worker’s evidence was that the Applicant told her “she had no business with his daughter and not to call him any more”.

41The Worker decided to call the police. She tried to contact the Applicant to tell him the name of the officer but he did not have voicemail. After he heard from the police, the Applicant hired a lawyer to deal with the requests for belongings, with the police. Despite his having a lawyer who was dealing directly with the police, the worker made the decision to further assist the mother in obtaining her belongings and to involve the maternal grandmother in this. She got a letter from the mother, authorizing her to get the mother’s belongings from the Applicant. She did not tell the Applicant about the letter.

42She also decided to contact the Applicant’s landlord, without advising the Applicant, to obtain information and to advocate about the lease. He and the mother were both on the lease-he more recently than the mother. She obtained a letter from the mother, giving her permission to speak to the landlord about removing the Applicant from the lease and from the home. She never told the Applicant about this decision to take active steps regarding his housing arrangements.

43On November 25, the worker also made a decision to go to the Applicants’ apartment with the mother and the grandfathers’ ex-spouse, the maternal grandmother, with whom there was obvious conflict. At the hearing, she provided an explanation for this decision: to obtain identification needed that day to get a new bank card; however, she never conveyed this explanation to the Applicant. Further, she chose to attend with the mother and maternal grandmother’s when she knew the Applicant would not be home and without letting him know. She was present when the mother and the maternal grandmother searched the apartment for the mother’s identification, including searching through the Applicant’s belongings. When the Applicant got home that night, he saw that his papers and apartment had been disturbed and he did not know what was going on; he thought that perhaps someone had broken in. The next day, he spoke to the mother who told him they had been at the apartment and that she wanted to come home. She had been residing with a family friend at that time. She returned to their apartment on November 26.

44The worker testified that she had a scheduled visit with the mother on November 27 at the friend’s home. The worker decided to go to the scheduled visit at the Applicant’s and mother’s apartment without advising the Applicant that she would be attending. When she attended, he was not expecting her. She asked to see the mother. He went in to the mother’s room and came back and advised the worker that the mother had been sleeping and did not want to see the worker. The worker told him that if she did not see the mother, she would call the police. He replied that she should do what she needed to do. The worker left and returned with the police. There was some interaction that included the police threatening to evict him, and discussion by the worker of the mother’s health and well-being and medication. This culminated in the police taking the mother to the hospital under the Mental Health Act. The worker was an active participant in this interaction.

45Despite her best intentions for the mother, the worker had not met her obligation to provide reasons for her decisions to the Applicant. She had not told him that she was coming, or why. She had told him that she would call the police if he did not let her see the mother and had explained some of her concerns to him about the mother, but she had not explained how, she, as a Society worker, had a right to come into his home and insist that she see an adult (and not a child). Thus, while he was given some explanation of some of the events, he was not provided with meaningful explanations for the decisions taken that day that again, were linked back to the decision he had not been made aware of: that she believed he had abused the mother.

46The worker testified that she did not advise the Applicant about her decisions to advocate with the landlord and to take steps outlined above to get the mother her belongings, because he had told her on September 17, not to call him anymore. The Society adopted the position before the Board that therefore, they did not have to provide any further explanations. The Board does not accept this submission. The right to reasons in section 68.1 (4) 5 is unqualified. Further, it seems evident that when the Applicant asked the worker not to contact him, it was because he felt she had no “business” doing so. He could reasonably expect that the Society would have no further role. Moving forward, the police and his lawyer were dealing with the belongings. On September 17, the mother was not living with him. How could he have anticipated that his request for the worker not to contact him would have meant she had free reign to talk to his landlord and bring his ex- spouse to search through his apartment? Following the request for no contact, which clearly could have ended all further involvement with the Applicant and his life, it was incumbent on the worker to provide the Applicant with reasons for her ongoing involvement in his life. When she continued her involvement, she knew that he had a lawyer who was talking to the police about the belongings and negotiating with them. The Applicant’s request for no contact was not, contrary to the Society’s position, implied consent not to tell him about decisions that affected him. The worker’s ongoing decisions and resulting actions warranted meaningful explanations.

47The Applicant did not have voice mail and did not always answer the phone, which was an impediment to contact. However, the worker could have made attempts to leave a note explaining her next steps and asking that he contact her. She was obviously willing to come to his location to talk to the landlord and could have attempted to speak with him. When she did attend at his home—even after he had asked her not to call him, he answered the door. There was no evidence that she was unable to contact him at work. Instead, she actively took steps behind his back.

48The Applicant uncle cut his trip short because of his father’s distress and returned on November 28 or 29, 2013. On December 1, he called the supervisor to complain about what he saw as the worker over-stepping her authority through her various actions. The supervisor’s evidence was that she was not aware of all of the worker’s actions but she was aware the worker was going to try to get the identification and that she was working with the police. She did not review the worker’s notes for supervision until the end of November. When the Applicant uncle called the supervisor, she asked him to put his requests relating to his concerns in writing. She told him she would see what she could do. She followed up on the DNA results. She also told the Applicant uncle that the worker would no longer be involved with him and his father. She did not explain her decision. There was no further contact by the worker. The supervisor and the Applicant uncle had approximately three conversations and the Applicant uncle emailed his requests to the Society on December 20.

49The Applicants filed their complaint with the Board on December 6, 2013. The Society did not respond to his complaint until January 16, 2014 and in their reply, they relied on their response in the CFSRB matter. They offered an explanation for not providing what the Applicants had requested, by saying the Applicants had not received a service from the Society.

50Regardless of the content of the letter, it was not timely and did not constitute a meaningful response to the Applicant’s concerns because it was provided a month and a half after the Applicant uncle had raised the concerns and almost a month after he had made his requests in writing. The supervisor did not explain her decision earlier in December to stop the worker’s contact with the Applicants. While it was a decision they wanted, they were not told why it was made. Further, at no point did the Society clarify the worker’s role, which was at the core of the Applicants’ service concerns.

51The Board is still not clear on the worker’s role. Her explanation at the hearing for being involved after the kin placement was in place and when she was not working with the mother to have the child returned to her care was not satisfactory in that it did not address the society’s statutory mandate or the context of this case. Similarly, her explanations to the Applicants were to the extent they existed, simplistic in this regard and deflected the issue. There is still no meaningful explanation of why, given the Society’s statutory mandate, the worker was so actively involved as an apparent advocate for the adult mother.

52This is exacerbated by the fact that after the Applicant uncle returned and complained to the supervisor, the worker and the Society had no further involvement with the Applicants. Was this confirmation that the worker had exceeded her role or had something else happened that coincidentally ended the role? While it is not for the Board to assess whether or not the worker exceeded her role, it is the Board’s job to assess whether reasons were given for the role she exercised in the context of the Applicants questioning her role in light of the child-specific focus of the CFSA.

CONCLUSION

53In conclusion, the Society met its obligation to provide reasons to the Applicants in terms of the delay regarding the DNA testing results. This aspect of the application was not successful and is dismissed. However, the Society did not provide the Applicants with reasons for the other decisions taken in the course of its involvement with them. The Application under s. 68.1 (4) 5 is granted (successful), in part.

54The Board therefore orders that, within 20 days of the date of this decision, the Society shall provide the Applicants with detailed written explanations, with sufficient information about the factors taken into account to enable the Applicants to understand how and why the decision was made regarding the following, with specific reference to the Society’s mandate under the Act:

1. The decision that the Applicant and possibly the Applicant uncle had sexually abused the mother and for any decision that this was ongoing. The impact of the DNA results, if any, on this decision and why.
2. The decision not to permit the Applicant uncle to see the child either to perform the prayer or from afar or otherwise, with supervision.
3. The decision that the worker had an ongoing role in circumstances in which the child was not to be placed with the mother or the Applicants and an explanation of what that role entailed.
4. An explanation for the worker’s decisions, including her authority to contact the police and landlord and attend at the Applicant’s premises without his permission or knowledge and then, on a second occasion, without notice. Why was this approach taken and what alternative approaches were ruled out and why?
5. A description of the worker’s contact with each hospital, what she alerted them to check and why and why she did not inform the Applicants.
6. The supervisor’s decision that the worker’s role would end after the Applicant uncle complained to the Society upon his return to the country in December of 2013.
7. A specific response to each of the Applicant uncle’s December 20, 2013 requests with reasons for the response from the perspective that the Applicants were receiving a service from the Society up to the date of the worker’s last contact with the Applicants.

55The Society shall provide a copy of its reasons to the Board.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

56Pursuant to Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings.

SHEENA SCOTT

__________________________

Sheena Scott

Vice Chair