B. C. and M. C v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2014 CFSRB 40

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

B. C. and M. C

v.

Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: July 24, 2014

Citation: 2014 CFSRB 40

Indexed as: B. C. and M. C v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region (CFSA s.144)

INTRODUCTION

1On January 10, 2014, B. C. and M. C (the “Applicants”, “Applicant Aunt” for B.C. and “Applicant Uncle” for M.C.) commenced an Application pursuant to section 144(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 as amended (the “Act”) for a review of the decision of the Family and Children Services of Waterloo Region (the “Society”) to refuse their application to adopt their three nephews: [youngest nephew], 7 years old; [middle nephew], 11 years old and [the oldest nephew], 12 years old (the “boys”).

2The boys were represented by counsel from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (the “OCL”). She had previously represented them during the child protection proceeding. The boys are not aware that the Applicants wish to adopt them. They were not advised of this request because of the risks associated with learning this information if the plan was not successful. The OCL took the position on behalf of her clients that they should not be placed for adoption with the Applicants because of the boys’ high needs, and the Applicants’ inability, as adoptive parents, to meet their needs.

3The Board heard the Application over 4 days of hearing and rendered its decision on July 11, 2014 confirming the Society’s decision to refuse the application to adopt of the Applicants pursuant to s.144(11) of the Act.

4What follows below are the reasons for the Board’s decision which relate to two main areas: (1) The children’s high needs and continuity of care; and, (2) the Applicants’ ability to meet the children’s high needs and concerns relating to the risks of placement breakdown.

Background

5The boys are the sons of the Applicant Aunt’s sister, [ ], (the “mother”). The boys were apprehended March 25, 2008 and placed in foster families. A child protection application was then commenced by the Society and a final decision was issued after 52 days of hearing on April 8, 2012. The boys were all declared in need of protection and made Crown wards. In a subsequent decision, the Court ordered no access for the mother and the grandmother. The mother’s appeal of the Crown wardship decision was withdrawn in January 2014, 6 years after the apprehension. The Society is now looking into permanency planning.

Analysis

6The relevant sections of the Act are:

144(11) The Board shall, in accordance with its determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, confirm or rescind the decision under review and shall give written reasons for its decision.

136(2) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:

1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.

2. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.

3. The child’s cultural background.

4. The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.

5. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.

6. The child’s relationships by blood or through an adoption order.

7. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.

8. The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.

9. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.

10. Any other relevant circumstance.

7The Board will review the evidence regarding the boys’ history and special needs, the Society’s plan for adoption, the boys’ wishes and the Applicants’ capacity to respond to the boys’ needs considering their personal and family situation.

8The Disability Services Worker (the “DSW”) testified before the Board. Her role is to coordinate the support for children in care; to act as their legal guardian; and, to be highly involved in the decision as to which family (ies) the boys will be placed for adoption. She has had carriage of the boys’ files since their apprehension in 2008.

9The Adoption Worker (the “Assessor”) who prepared the Applicants’ home study also testified.

10The Applicants testified along with the maternal grandmother, the Applicant Aunt’s brother, and two family friends.

The Society’s Adoption Plan

11The Society has been unable to explore potential adoptive families because of the lengthy legal process that concluded in January 2014. The boys are aware that the Society is looking into adoption.

12[The oldest nephew] wants to be adopted. He does not want to be a foster child until he is 18 years old. His foster family does not wish to adopt him but will apply for legal custody if he is not adopted. It is also very important for him to be adopted with his brothers. Considering [the oldest nephew]’s wish, the DSW testified that she believes she owes [the oldest nephew] to look for a family who will be ready to adopt them altogether. If this avenue does not work, the Society will look for two families, one for [the oldest nephew] and another one for [the youngest nephew] and [the middle nephew].

13[The middle nephew] and [the youngest nephew] do not want to leave their foster home. They are not prepared to leave and a long transition will be needed. For [the youngest nephew], it is the only family he knows. Their current foster home does not wish to adopt them but is prepared to continue to care for them until adulthood. The foster family does not think they could cope without the foster family subsidy and support, and the DSW agrees. The DSW testified that she does not want to separate [the youngest nephew] and [the middle nephew]. She will do it if safety issues arise, as [the middle nephew] could hurt his brother.

14It is important that potential adoptive families agree to openness to maintain the relationships between the boys and with their three older brothers. The DSW would look for candidates who can manage financially by themselves to avoid any risk caused by the interruption of the adoption subsidy program. She believes that good candidates may include people with teaching and/or special needs background or experience. Given the significant amount of time that the DSW spends working with schools and doctors to address the boys’ needs, she is also looking for parents with strong advocacy skills. The Society wants permanency, yet it recognizes that there will be a long transition period before the placement in any new adoptive family. A placement before the beginning of the 2014-2015 school year is unrealistic.

15The DSW testified that in “her heart, [the oldest nephew] is home”. [The oldest nephew] says he wants to be with his siblings but he would be fine to stay with his current foster family. She is ready to have the conversation with [the oldest nephew] that she will try to find a family within a certain timeframe, but she expects that he will otherwise remain long-term in his current foster home. For the two others boys, she testified that the Society has had success with the placement of high needs children. The DSW summarized the Society’s plan this way: “My main concerns would be that a placement breakdown, they would not survive, I would not advocate for them to leave where they are for a risky situation”.

16The Board finds that the Society’s plan for the adoption of the boys is not definite. The Board understands the pull for permanency but there are so many factors to consider that the status quo may be the best plan. At paragraph 260 of the judgment on Crown wardship, Justice [ ] commented on the testimony of Dr. [ ], the psychologist who assessed the boys, as follows:

(…) it would be very difficult for any person to parent the three younger children and that the person would have to be exceptional. She advised that what the boys needed was more than a sibling, they needed an individual who said “you are mine, I am yours, I am going to provide you with security and stability” and that they needed that more than a sibling. She indicated that sibling placement together was not a priority for these children as compared to finding each one of them a stable and loving home, with someone who will go the distance with them.

The Children’s Needs and Continuity of Care

17The boys have First Nations ancestry. The paternal grandmother was native. The Society has been unable to find the boys’ band yet but is looking into finding it.

[The youngest Nephew] ([ ][ ], 2006)

18[The youngest nephew] is 7 years old. He was born prematurely facing many medical conditions and remained in hospital for 4 months. He lived with his mother for 18 months and was neglected. Apprehended at 18 months he was placed in his current and second foster home at 25 months. His development has been monitored regularly since he was referred to the Child and Development Program at 22 months.

19He was significantly delayed when he came into care. He was not eating regular food and was not walking. Between 3 and 5 years old, he presented behavioural difficulties such as sleeping difficulties, long periods of crying, difficulty managing and controlling his anger, aggression toward himself and others and temper tantrums. Behavioural supports were needed in the foster home and in class. He received Speech-Language therapy, attended Occupational therapy and in-class support.

20In January 2012 a report following an evaluation performed in October 2011 recommended that another evaluation in grade three be conducted to evaluate his readiness to enter grade four. He will be in grade three in the school year 2014-2015. The prior report stated that, given his multiple socio-emotional and academic weaknesses, [the youngest nephew] would benefit from a supportive learning environment in a small special education class or a regular grade one class with opportunities for in class support and withdrawal. Concerns were in the area of his behavior and his socio-emotional functioning. [The youngest nephew] was aggressive, impulsive, easily upset with safety issues and reported to be withdrawn and depressed. He was identified as being at great risk for attachment issues and mental health issues. The report concludes that [the youngest nephew] is also at great risk for a learning disability, and was seen as emotionally fragile.

21An occupational therapy assessment and a sensory integration evaluation were recommended to help him to cope with the sensory input as well as play therapy. A list of more than 11 recommendations was attached to the assessment.

22The Board was provided with a further report dated May 20, 2014, from the Trauma and Loss Clinical Specialist, Child Psychotherapist and Play Therapist Supervisor. The report concludes that, since [the youngest nephew] has utilized the resources at home and school with success, this additional support was no longer needed. The psychologist agreed with the initiative to employ two adult siblings to act as mentors for [the youngest nephew] and his brother.

23[The youngest nephew] will also be connected to a Holistic worker to help him understand and connect with his First Nations culture.

24[The youngest nephew] has been going to the same school since senior kindergarten. He was in grade two full day last year and has an individualized education plan. His attendance is inconsistent but has improved this year. The foster mother picks him up 15 minutes early to avoid having the day ending poorly and in chaos; this has been very successful.

25[The youngest nephew] receives additional support at school, including a one on one support and an educational assistant (“EA”) who provides him with more support than any other student in the class. [The youngest nephew] has progressed socially and behaviourally to the point that he can now go outside and spend some time alone. He also receives support from a special education teacher (“SERT”) and his diet is closely monitored to ensure that he remains engaged and regulated at school. The school knows him very well. The Principal may step in to help calm him.

26The school also has a safety plan where possible specific behaviors are described such as physical aggression, runs from class school and adults, refusal to engage, anxiety causing self-abuse: slaps his face, bangs head against furniture and walls. The triggers are generally unknown but could include being told no or being asked to do a task, transitions and changes in routine. The foster mother is always on call to pick him up at school.

27The difficult behaviours reported at school also take place at the foster home, and there was at least one serious occurrence report where [the youngest nephew] engaged in self harm and caused his nose to bleed. [The youngest nephew] has a nice attachment with the foster mother.

[The middle nephew] 11 years old ([ ][ ],2003)

28[The middle nephew] is 11 years old. He was born after a “traumatic delivery”. He suffered from permanent lack of oxygen at birth causing brain damage. He had many serious health issues at birth.

29An early assessment in 2007 raised concerns of a significant development delay. He has had numerous assessments since then. In 2008, a psychological assessment determined that [the middle nephew]’s overall level of cognitive functioning was well below average: in the 1st percentile. [The middle nephew] has issues with impulsivity and short attention span. He was engaged in play therapy until 2009. He was diagnosed with ADHD, as well as short and long term memory loss.

30[The middle nephew] requires support for hygiene and daily routine and this will continue. He will require long-term care as adult and life-long support through group home support living. If he works, he will need one on one support. The waiting list for adult group homes is very long.

31Regarding school, [the middle nephew] has an Individual Education Plan. He is in a Grade Five-Six class. He attends a composite class with eight students who need cognitive support, and he has access to an education assistant and a SERT teacher. He has a difficult time in class with frequent outbursts, he has attempted to leave the school, and he has taken steps to hurt himself. He has had three school suspensions since November 2013 for three days each. Once a week the foster mother has to pick him up early from school, as he cannot manage his behaviour. An attempt was made to modify his school day as he was not coping well. He has a speech impediment, as well as significant issues with reading.

32[The middle nephew] sleeps only three hours per night due to a sleep disorder. During that time he jumps on beds and may be disturbing. The foster mother is up with him while he is awake. A sleep assessment was conducted and the use of medication was tried but the side effects were too problematic to continue the medication. He will see a psychiatrist with the hope of finding a solution to the sleeping issue. He was also referred to a psychiatrist because he was reporting auditory and visual hallucinations. He reported hearing voices that will tell him to hurt himself. It is not uncommon for low cognitive and children with FASD to say that they hear voices. There is strong suspicion that the lack of sleep could be the reason as no psychosis or schizophrenia was diagnosed.

33In order to address [the middle nephew]’s needs next year, the plan is to enroll him in a life-skills class, as well as a composite class with developmentally trained teachers. If [the middle nephew] remains in his present placement, he will continue to be provided with access to a psychiatrist, a development pediatrician, and play therapy with a focus on trauma and attachment. The new psychiatrist will conduct the sleep disorder assessment.

34The foster family has the benefit of the support of a family service worker, respite every 6 weeks, and a volunteer every Thursday night. The foster mother accompanies [the middle nephew] to regularly scheduled play therapy sessions. He is also part of the Book Worm Club and receives books, which he loves.

35The main concerns for [the middle nephew] are: impulsivity, anger and resentment toward [the younger nephew] because his younger brother has now surpassed him intellectually. As set out above, there are significant concerns in the areas of communication skills, sleep issues and risk of self harm (which includes running into traffic). When he is disregulated he will make poor choices, and bite himself. He says that he hears voices that he should hurt himself. He has difficulty dealing with unpredictable change.

36A potential adoptive family must understand that he will likely need to remain in that family’s care long past his 18th birthday, and perhaps at least until he is in his 30s, 40s, or 50s. That is due to a lack of group home beds available to adults in need of care, for those who are not part of the child welfare system. If [the middle nephew] is not adopted he will be transition to a group home or perhaps his foster parents may be able to care for him through adulthood.

[The Oldest Nephew]: 12 years old ([ ][ ], 2001)

37[The oldest nephew] is 12 years old. The DSW described him as very insightful boy, affectionate, creative, “very neat kid”, who is good at playing piano. He has done extremely well in his current placement where the foster parents are described as “wrapped around”. He can disregulate and explode into tantrums.

38When he came into care in 2008, [the oldest nephew] had not been attending school regularly.

39[The oldest nephew] has a learning disability. He completed grade seven in a composite class of eight students, for children with anxiety. When he was in a regular class he was at risk of being bullied and had a lot of issues socially. He has an IEP. There is no behavioural issue in school and no suspensions. He takes medication for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) and to help him to sleep.

40For next year he will continue to need suitable support at school with a small setting and the support of an EA.

41[The oldest nephew] is also part of the [book club]. He is enrolled in the Scouts program, which he attends with his foster father, he participates in summer camp and overnight camp programs, and he takes swimming lessons and piano lessons.

42The DSW testified that he is also very interested in his First Nations roots.

Conclusion on the Boys needs

43The Board finds that the evidence has established that the three boys have high needs. [The oldest nephew] seems to be functioning well and the DSW testified that he should no longer be on her caseload. This may be explained by the fact that he is stable in his foster family where he feels safe and because he has the support of the Society and the DSW who is a strong advocate. While he states that he does not wish to be a foster child until 18 years old, an adoption with his brothers would be a big change, and may not be successful.

44[The middle nephew] has very high needs, as evidenced by the serious challenges described above. He requires considerable attention at school. [The middle nephew] also requires the complete availability of a full-time caregiver who can pick him up from school, stay awake with him at night, address his feelings of exhaustion and attend to his needs. His current foster mother has learned to deal with his issues and according to the evidence he has developed an attachment to her. The foster family is [the middle nephew]’s family.

45The foster mother has been described as very calm and patient. In contrast, the Applicants’ family is busy and the evidence is that Applicant Aunt has a temper. The stress caused by the adaptation of the addition of three high needs boys will put pressure on the Applicant Aunt and will challenge her patience. This presents a risk for the success of the placement with the Applicants.

46As with his brothers, [the middle nephew] would have to adjust to a new family, a new environment a new school, and new professionals. [The middle nephew] is particularly fragile and the adaptation to these changes could or would bring a lot of anxiety that will pose a risk of breakdown in the placement.

47[The youngest nephew] is also a high needs child. He has improved and needs support mainly in school. He also had the support of a stable foster mother who has a strong relationship with him. The foster family is the only family he knows. The impact of a move to another family is very concerning for the Board. The loss of this attachment may be detrimental for him.

48[The youngest nephew] and [the middle nephew] need a high level of attention from their foster family and would need the same from their adoptive family.

49If the Board were to accept the Applicants’ plan, it would mean that the boys would have to face the separation from their current stable family, adapt to a new family, adapt to the living with each other, change schools and environment, and change all the professionals involved in their lives. It is a lot for all of them and for the prospective adoptive family.

The Applicants’ Plan to Adopt

50The Applicants’ evidence has not established that they are ready to have the boys placed for adoption with them. The evidence that the services needed to meet the boys’ needs exist and would be accessible in the Sudbury region has not been provided.

51The Applicants do not have a pediatrician for their children but have the services of a nurse practitioner. They are on a waiting list and an appointment with the new pediatrician is scheduled for October. The Board does not have the confirmation that this pediatrician would accept three high needs children in his caseload.

52The DSW also testified that Sudbury does not have the services of play therapy. The boys need a development pediatrician and [the middle nephew] will continue to require the services of a trauma attachment therapist. The Applicants’ evidence has not established that this service exists in their region.

53The Applicant Aunt, since the last date of hearing, has contacted two schools to inquire if they could provide the services the boys need. She had prepared a list of what they need. The answer was that they did not have the capacity to accommodate the boys’ needs and she was referred to another school. She contacted that school but had not been able to discuss with it yet. The Board does not have the evidence that the schools in Sudbury would be able to accommodate the needs of the boys and if they would have to be on a waiting list.

54The Board does not have evidence that the Applicants have looked into accessing respite care. The Applicants provided the Board with evidence of friends and family support with the brother and the grandmother who could move to Sudbury if needed. All these people were genuinely ready to help and had only good comments to make about the Applicants’ ability to care for their family. However, the boys may need to access more therapeutic resources as respite care. There was no evidence of the services that could be found in the community to support the Applicants and the boys.

55The Applicant Aunt in her testimony said that there is only so much she can do before the boys come to Sudbury. She mentioned that schools and other services asked that the files be transferred before being able to provide the information. The Board understands that it might be difficult to confirm services but at least the research should have been more thorough. The evidence is also that the Society would help an adoptive family to identify services but the family must show the capacity to reach out in the community.

56The Board believes that even with the best intentions, it is hard for anyone, including the Applicants, to get a clear picture of the boys’ needs and to reach out in the community to find out the matching resources. For that reason, the Board agrees that the prospective adoptive family will need to be equipped with professional knowledge or experience with special needs children.

57The Applicants’ view on how to respond to the challenges of having the boys placed with them is that they would learn about their needs, put a routine in place, and teach them how to be a family. The Applicant Aunt said that she wants the boys together and that they would know they have a family and that they are safe together. Regarding the risks of having them together she answered that they would have to learn to be a family.

58Regarding the possible sleep deprivation caused by [the middle nephew]’s sleep issues, she answered that she would nap during the day. She also said that she would contact the foster family to get advice. The Applicant Uncle testified that when he comes home late at night because of his work he stays up until the kids are gone to school and he would stay with [the middle nephew]. The Applicants are not worried that the addition of the boys could put their family at risk because everybody would be involved and would work together.

59The Board is concerned that the Applicants do not appreciate the extent of the needs of the boys. Both the DSW and the Assessor testified that the Applicants were not asking a lot of questions about the boys’ issues. For the Applicants, the boys are family. Despite the genuine feelings that the Applicants have towards their nephews, the Board is concerned that the Applicants do not see the level of difficulty of adopting children and, in this case, children with high needs.

The Home Study

60The Board agrees in part with some of the concerns raised in the Home Study. Some of the challenges brought to light by the Assessor coupled with the high need of the boys support the Board’s conclusion that the decision of the Society must be confirmed.

61The home study overall is good with many strengths. The Assessor testified that the Applicants have a lovely family, with a warm home and strong relationships. The Applicants have been together for 20 years. The Board observed during the hearing that both Applicants were genuinely committed to the boys and were ready to do all in their power to provide them with a loving home. Family was presented as the most important value for them. This was the reason why they were both confident that the placement would work.

62The Assessor did not find a way to mitigate some sections of the home study related to the personal history for the Applicant Aunt in regards to childhood history of victimization, adult history of victimization and trauma and psychiatric history, which were of serious concern or of extremely serious concerns. The Applicants testified to respond to each of those concerns.

63In total, the Assessor raised 8 considerations for refusing the adoption application. One of the concerns is of course the high needs of the children. The Board has addressed that issue above.

Financial Stress

64The financial issue is important but according to the Assessor’s testimony not determinative in itself. The addition of three high needs children to a family of four would certainly put pressure on the family. The Assessor is of the opinion that their combined income would be sufficient to meet the needs of three more children. The Applicant Uncle has a health plan at work.

65However, the subsidy of almost $30,000 would be necessary as it would be more than probable that the Applicant Aunt would have to stop her bus-driving job. The Society’s position is that there is no assurance that the adoption subsidy will continue to be available for the family. She was also concerned that the family has had some financial difficulties in the past and that the management of their income was not always the best. If the adoption subsidy were to stop or change this would put serious stress on the family.

66The Board finds that the financial situation of the Applicants is not determinative in itself. However this could become a stressor on the family if the stability of the current income were to change and if the adoption subsidy was not or partly granted. The financial issue is one risk factor that the Board must consider, and in the past the Board has confirmed placements of children with their relatives notwithstanding these concerns. In those cases the Board has given more weight to the family ties over the financial capacity of the adoptive family, however, in those instances the children were not high needs.

Family Stability

67The Applicants’ family has moved 10 times in 16 years, which involved several school changes for their children. The Assessor’s conclusion is that considering the fact that the boys need stability, this pattern of moving could be detrimental for them.

68The Applicant Aunt testified that another move would occur only if they were to buy a house. She explained the most recent moves were to improve their living conditions. She said that their landlord does not intend to sell the house they are currently renting. The Applicants did not provide the Board with a letter confirming the landlord’s intention.

69The Board is concerned by the Applicants’ habit of moving. The stability of their current situation is not completely under their control as they are renting their home.

Parenting challenges

70Following a program offered as part of the adoption process, the Applicant Aunt advised the Assessor that she would need to work on her parenting skills. When the Applicant Aunt gets frustrated she yells, which was mentioned by her son in his interview with the Assessor.

71[The youngest nephew] and [the middle nephew] are in a very calm environment and the foster mother is very calm which is necessary for the boys. The Board agrees with the DSW and Assessor’s position that changing parenting style does not come easily and with the sudden addition of three high needs boys, the risk of reverting to old ways is very likely to happen. The Board finds that the adoptive family who would receive [the youngest nephew] and [the middle nephew] would need to show exceptional patience and calm coupled with experience and or knowledge in parenting high needs children. The Applicants are good parents but parenting these boys requires exceptional parenting skills.

Health concerns

72The Applicant Aunt has suffered from ulcers and has anemia. The Assessor testified that the Applicant Aunt has a big heart and will forget to take care of herself. The Board does not find that her health issues are an obstacle to adopt.

Mental Health concerns

73The possibility that the Applicant Aunt has Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (“OCD’”) was raised during the home study. She has Seasonal Affective Disorder (SAD). The Applicant Aunt however testified that her doctor is of the opinion that she does not have OCD. She was diagnosed in grade 10 or 11 with SAD. The grandmother and the Applicant Aunt testified that it does not affect her capacity to parent her children and that she has always been able to face her responsibilities at home and at work.

74The Board finds that the OCD has not been established nor has the fact that the SAD affects her parental capacity with her family. The impact of the addition of three high needs children is, however, unknown.

75Regarding the history of trauma including an assault, the Applicant Aunt testified that she and went to therapy with her husband as a couple and that it helped. The therapist did not recommend continuing the therapy. Asked if this incident could have an influence on the relationship the Applicant Aunt would have with the boys she responded that the boys are their own people and that she would be able to put that aside in her relationship with them. It is difficult to assess the impact of this past event on the Applicant Aunt’s capacity to parent the boys as the evidence does not establish it had an impact on her parenting of her children.

76Regarding the issue of trauma and domestic violence during her youth between her mother and biological father, the Applicant Aunt testified that she was very young and had not witnessed any of it. She added that she had a loving father. The Board does not have the evidence that this past experience would affect the Applicant Aunt’s ability to parent the boys.

Children already at home

77The Board gives more weight to this concern raised in the home study.

78The Assessor was concerned by the addition of three high needs children to a family where the children are already in need of attention and have exhibited issues in the past. The Board agrees with that concern. Both the Applicants’ children, aged 16 and 13, are facing their own challenges and the teenage years will bring their share of issues.

79The Society has described the adoptive family needed for the boys if placed together as having no other children or older children, not of the same age of the boys. The Applicants’ son is close in age to [the oldest nephew] and [the middle nephew]. The level of care and attention for the boys will deprive the Applicants’ children of the care and attention they need. The Board finds that this would bring tension in the family and risk of acting out from the Applicants’ own children.

80[ ], a worker at the Child and Family Center (CFC worker) in [city] testified about her involvement with the Applicants’ daughter. From October 4, 2013, she saw her approximately six times. The Applicants asked for help in relation with their daughter’s anxiety and anger. The relationship with her brother was difficult; she believed her brother did not like her and that issues were coming up when she was sometimes in charge of him. She had suicidal ideation, had cut herself and mentioned to the witness that she had panic attacks. She also had been suspended from school.

81The CFC worker testified that she did not have enough information to make an assessment. She asked the Applicant Aunt for information related to the daughter’s Individual Education Plan and about a possible diagnosis of ADHD made six years ago. The Applicants were supposed to follow up on those requests and to schedule a meeting with the school. The CFC worker wanted to make a referral to a pediatrician and in order to do so, the nurse practitioner who follows the Applicants’ children needed more information about the anxiety, ADHD, learning issues and how the school was dealing with the anxiety as the daughter had been suspended. The CFC worker was only able to obtain a few details about the possible ADHD diagnosis, the names of doctors or schools. The Applicant Aunt did not follow up to provide the information required and did not inform the CFC worker of the decision to not continue the intervention.

82In March 2014, during the last conversation the CFC worker had with Applicant Aunt and her daughter she was informed that things were going well now. The CFC worker testified that she was not concerned about the daughter, even if she would have preferred that the parents follow up with her. She also said that she has seen a lot of parents not following up in her 25 years in her role and that did not concern her.

83However, the Assessor came to different conclusions in the home study. The Assessor and DSW were concerned that the Applicants lack of follow through was not a good predictor of their capacity to follow up the numerous appointments for the boys and the need for advocacy.

84The daughter also mentioned to the Assessor that she was concerned that she would be in charge of the boys even if she recognized that it is important to provide them with a family. The difficulties faced by the daughter, her anxiety and relationship with her brother raised concern for the Assessor that the introduction of the three boys would increase the daughter’s anxiety. The Board agrees with that assessment.

85The Assessor provided information regarding the Applicants’ son. During her interview with him he mentioned that his mother could lose her temper. He has recently been diagnosed with ADHD and has had issues with bullying at school. The son mentioned to his father at one point that he was thinking of hurting himself. The Applicants asked to see a therapist who said after one visit that their son was fine and that there was no need to be seen again. The Board finds that the Applicants’ took the step to request help for their son when necessary.

86The fact that the Applicants’ children may have faced difficulties is not in itself an issue. Many families encounter issues along the way of raising children. However, the Board is more concerned about the evidence that the Applicants’ did not seem to have all the information about the doctors, the schools and the ADHD diagnosis for their daughter. The Applicant Aunt gave more details to the Board in her testimony but the evidence does not establish that this information was given to the CFC worker. The challenges of having to deal with the boys’ health and psycho-social issues will require a high level of organization and capacity to follow up with professionals. The lack of information readily available for the professionals is of concern for the Board. Also, the lack of follow up with the information required is concerning. The daughter was struggling with anxiety and anger and she needed support. The lack of follow up was of no concern for the CFC worker but it would be if the Applicants were caring for three high needs children.

Openness Considerations

87The Assessor is concerned that the boys’ mother would find out that the Applicants had adopted them, and she could attempt to sabotage the placement and the relationship between the boys and the Applicants’ family. This is a difficult consideration to assess. The mother has certainly showed her determination in affirming, through legal proceedings, her disagreement with the possible loss of her three youngest boys. She has also took the position in Court that she did not want her family to be involved in caring for the boys. The Society is concerned that the mother will be informed of the placement through the older brothers who will stay in touch with the boys.

88The Applicants agree to maintain the relationship with the older brothers as long as they respect the rule that they should not inform the mother about the boys’ residence. The Applicants’ position is that the boys’ parents do not know where the Applicants live and if they find out they will not be allowed to see the boys. The Applicants also mentioned that there is security at school.

89The Board finds that if the mother decides that she wants to see her boys, she will be hard to stop unless the Court is involved and restricts her access to the Applicants’ family. A lot of stress and uncertainty may be faced by the boys if a situation like that was to occur. It is obviously hard to assess how this could unfold. If the boys are in another family, the mother will may be less interested in looking for them but if they are placed within her family it may fuel her anger and could be detrimental for the boys. This concern must be balanced with the right of the boys to be placed for adoption with kin. If this were the only concern left to consider and all the other conditions were met for a successful placement, the Board would consider a placement with family. But in this case, this is one consideration that adds to others and one more risk of a breakdown.

Conclusion

90The Board confirms the Society’s decision to refuse the placement of the three boys with the Applicants. Despite the Applicants’ deep desire to give a family to their nephews, the evidence of the needs of their own family, their apparent difficulty to appreciate the gravity of the situation and the level of care to be provided to these high needs boys does not support a placement for adoption with the Applicants.

91Considering the boys’ needs, a placement in any adoptive family would mean a difficult transition involving the loss of caregivers who have been for [the oldest nephew] the most stable figures he has had and for [the youngest nephew], and probably, [the middle nephew], their only family. Such a combination of circumstances heightens the risks for a breakdown in the placement, even with very dedicated adoptive parents.

92It is not a question that the Applicants are not good parents. The question for the Board is to assess and balance the risks, after considering all the evidence, of placing the boys with the Applicants and the risk of a breakdown. In order to move those children from where they are the prospective adoptive families will have to be outstanding. The Applicants have strengths, have a loving family but the boys will need more than that.

93The Board has no doubt that the Applicants are sincere in their desire to provide a home and a family to the three boys. Their goodwill, love and commitment to family values were obvious. The Board has also no doubt that they are devoted parents to their children. The issue is not if the Applicants are or would be good parents for any three boys. The issue is what is in the best interests of each of these three boys, individually and together. To answer that difficult question, the Board must look at the needs of the boys, the continuity of care. The risk of an adoption breakdown tips the balance in favor of confirming the Society’s decision.

94These boys all have their own story and special needs. The Society is facing a difficult challenge to identify a family for all three boys or two families who would take them separately. The most important obstacle to that outcome is the extremely significant disruption moving the boys from their current placement would cause.

95The Applicants may have another way of caring for the boys. It is to stay committed to them, visit and stay in contact with them as a loving extended family. This would maintain the family ties and provide them with a sense of belonging to a family. And this could continue after they are eighteen and, if they are not adopted, after they are out of care.

Order

96The Board confirms the Society’s decision to refuse the Applicants’ application to adopt the following children:

• [The oldest nephew], [ ][ ], 2001
• [The middle nephew], [ ][ ], 2003
• [The youngest nephew], [ ][ ], 2006

pursuant to section 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

97Pursuant 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.