CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
Applicant
v.
Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington
REASONS FOR DECISION: WRITTEN REVIEW
Indexed as: Applicant v. Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (CFSA s.68)
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from the Applicant on June 10, 2014, regarding a complaint against the Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11, as amended (the “Act”).
2The Board has determined that an oral hearing is not required in this case as the Board has sufficient information before it to make its decision based on the written material filed. The issue for the Board is whether it has jurisdiction to hear the application.
3On June 11, 2014, the Board determined that the application was eligible to proceed to the next stage of the Board’s process: the receipt of the Society’s response. The application was found eligible under section 68.1 (4) 5 which relates to Applicant’s right to be given reasons for decisions that affect her interests, regarding her request to be a kin placement for her grandson.
4The Board received the Society’s response dated June 19, 2014. It is the Society’s position that the Board lacks jurisdiction because the matter was decided by the Court and is before the Court. The Board reviewed the Court materials filed by the Society, including endorsements of the Court.
5Based on its review of the application, the Society’s response and the decisions of the Court, the Board has determined that it has no jurisdiction to hear the application. The reasons for this decision follow.
BACKGROUND
6The Applicant has a young grandson, born in 2013 (“child”). The child’s father has been residing with the Applicant. The Applicant has had visits with the child. The Applicant applied to be a kin placement for him and was refused by the Society, in large part because of her past history with the Society.
7In the child protection proceedings, the Applicant’s son put the Applicant forward as his placement plan for the child.
ANALYSIS
8The Board has no jurisdiction to hear complaints if they involve matters that are before the Court or have been decided by the Court.
9Section 68.1(8)(a) of the Act provides that:
The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,
(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.
10The Society commenced a protection application, dated November 21, 2013. The Society sought to have the child made a society ward for six months. The Applicant’s son asked the court to have the child placed with the Applicant under a supervision order.
11The Society commenced assessing the Applicant as a kin placement in November 2013. On February 18, 2014 the Society wrote to the Applicant to explain why it was refusing her as a kin placement. On February 27, 2014, the Society amended the protection application and sought crown wardship. The Applicant’s son put forward a plan that the child be placed with the Applicant. On March 6, 2014, Justice [A] ordered a parenting assessment of the Applicant relating to the son’s placement plan. The Court also dealt with the question of the Applicant’s past history and ordered disclosure of her historical child welfare records. The parties signed a Statement of Agreed Facts on May 29, 2014 in which it was agreed that the Applicant and her son would participate in a joint parenting capacity assessment. Justice [T] made a corresponding order for a parenting capacity assessment. This application, including the assessment of the Applicant as kin caregiver and her history with the Society is still before the Court.
12The Application to the Board is about the Applicant’s desire to be the kin caregiver for the child and about the Society’s refusal to proceed to make her the kin caregiver. These are issues that are squarely before the Court. Even if the Application were to proceed, it would have been restricted to whether the Society provided the Applicant with reasons containing sufficient detail for its decision not to support her as kin caregiver. The Court is now seized with assessing the sufficiency as well as the validity of the Society’s reasons for not supporting the plan to make the Applicant the child’s kin caregiver.
13The Applicant’s main concern in her application to the Board is the child’s placement and what she sees as the unfair reasons for not placing him with her. Whether or not the child will be placed with the Applicant is in the hands of the Court. The Court has explicitly dealt with the question of the Applicant’s child welfare history by ordering disclosure of those records and a parenting capacity assessment.
14In these circumstances, the Board has no authority to deal with this application.
CONCLUSION
15The Board has no jurisdiction to hear this application.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
16Pursuant 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
Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on the 2nd day of July, 2014.