CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
Applicants
v.
Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society
REASONS FOR DECISION
Indexed as: Applicants v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicants filed their application under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act on the February 14, 2014. The Applicants were foster parents under contract with [a residential services agency] and were fostering [ ] (the “child”) for the Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”). The Child had been in their foster care for 15 months when she was removed on February 3, 2014.
2The Board determined that the application was eligible for a review under section 68.1(4) 5 of the Act. After receipt of the Society’s response, the Board decided to proceed to a teleconference hearing on jurisdiction which was held on March 31, 2014.
3The Board rendered an oral decision at the hearing on jurisdiction. The Board determined that it did not have jurisdiction to proceed with the application. The reasons for that decision follow.
ANALYSIS
4The Board has jurisdiction over applications where a complaint is about services sought or received from a Society. The relevant sections of the Act are as follows:
68.1 (1) If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may
(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 68 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section.
68.1 (4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section
- Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
5The Applicants alleged the Society did not provide them with the reasons why the Child was removed from their care. The decision the Board had to make was whether the Applicants sought or received a service from the Society. The following sections of the Act are relevant to answer that question:
3 (1) In this Act,
“service” means,
(a) a child development service,
(b) a child treatment service,
(c) a child welfare service,
(d) a community support service, or
(e) a youth justice service.
“child welfare service” means
a) a residential or non-residential service, including a prevention service,
b) a service provided under Part III (Child Protection),
c) a service provided under Part VII (Adoption), or
d) individual or family counselling.
“foster care” means the provision of residential care to a child, by and in the home of a person who,
(a) receives compensation for caring for the child except ..(non-applicable exceptions)
is not the child’s parent or a person with whom the child has been placed for adoption under Part VIII.
“service provider”
……does not include a foster parent.
“parent”
(2) In this Act, a reference to a child’s parent shall be deemed to be a reference to,
(a) both parents, where both have custody of the child;
(b) one parent, where that parent has lawful custody of the child or the other parent is unavailable or unable to act as the context requires; or
(c) another individual, where that individual has lawful custody of the child,
except where this Act provides otherwise. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 3 (2).
6The Applicants as foster parents do not fall within the definition of a parent. They are in fact providing foster care which is defined as a residential care but are specifically excluded from the definition of service provider. Foster parents have contractual relationships with societies which limit their participatory rights under section 68 of the Act.
7In certain circumstances however, foster parents may be in situations where they are receiving a service from a Society and would be entitled to reasons for a decision made by the Society that affects their interest. As noted by the Board in H.L.B v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s.68), 2012 CFSRB 4 (para. 51)
Looking at the statute, the Society’s obligation to provide reasons in section 68.1 (4) 5 is not confined to “parents”. If that were the case, the obligation would be associated with section 2 (2) (a) of the Act, like the right to be heard. The right to reasons for decisions that affect one’s interests is broad and recognizes that there may be persons other than parents who are involved with children under the Act and whose lives may be impacted by Society decisions. For example, the Board has held that foster parents or teachers who are the subject of an investigation by a society are receiving a service and are entitled to reasons relating to the decisions made in the investigation. The Board has also held that grandparents who have sought access to their grandchildren from a society that controls access have a right to reasons.
8The Board has found investigations to be a service because they are an integral part of the child protection services offered by societies. In fact, investigations are a core function of the Society. Section 15 (3) of the Act provides that:
15(3) The functions of a children’s aid society are to, investigate allegations or evidence that children who are under the age of sixteen years or are in the society’s care or under its supervision may be in need of protection.
9Investigations are the subject of legislative provisions and must be completed in compliance with mandatory Child Protection Standards in Ontario and the Eligibility Spectrum. The evidence at the hearing on jurisdiction was that the Applicants were not the subject of a child protection investigation before the removal of the child. The Child was removed because of alleged issues in the relationship between the Applicants, the ERS and the Society. Based on the Board’s interpretation of the legislation and the facts of this case, the Applicants have not received a service from the Society. The discussion around the reasons for the Society’s decision to remove the Child falls within the contractual relationship between them and [the residential services agency] and the Society.
DECISION
10The Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the application. The file is closed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
11Pursuant 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.
Suzanne Gilbert
Suzanne Gilbert
Associate Chair
Dated in Toronto, Ontario on 4th day of April, 2014.