S.C. v. Halton Children’s Aid Society, 2014 CFSRB 44

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

S.C.

v.

Halton Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: August 12, 2014

Citation: 2014 CFSRB 44

Indexed as: S.C. v. Halton Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1S. C. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on April 24, 2014 pursuant to sections 68.1(4) 4 and 68.1(4) 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O., c. C. 11, as amended, (the “Act”) regarding a matter relating to services sought or received from Halton Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”).

2The Application consists of the following complaints under s. 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Act:

That the Society has not heard the Applicant’s service concerns or heard him when decisions were made and has not provided him with reasons for decisions that affected his interests, regarding the following:

1. The Society did not obtain the Applicant’s consent before interviewing his children at their school.
2. The Society did not inform the Applicant before interviewing his children at their school.
3. The Society did not obtain the opinion of a doctor regarding the injury sustained by his daughter.

3An oral hearing in these matters was held on July 14, 2014. The Board finds in favour of the Society on all issues.

BACKGROUND

4The Applicant is the father of nine children, three of whom have had contact with the Society with respect to the issues in this Application. The Applicant and the children’s mother are separated but jointly parent and jointly provide for periods of residence for the children with each parent. As a result of a referral received by the Society, a Society protection worker interviewed the Applicant’s three children at their school. The three children interviewed attend the same school. The Applicant’s complaint is that these interviews were conducted without his consent being obtained before the interviews occurred, and without any notice to him. The report to the Society concerned what appeared to be a burn on the arm of the applicant’s child [the daughter]. The Applicant has also complained that the Society did not obtain the opinion of a doctor regarding this injury.

ANALYSIS

5The Board has authority to determine if the Applicant was heard when he raised concerns with the Society, and when decisions were made. The Board also has the authority to determine if the Applicant received reasons for decisions made that affect his interests.

6The Board’s authority and the Society’s obligations are found in the following sections of the Act:

2(2) Service providers shall ensure:

(a) That children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interest are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.

68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

(4) Allegations that the Society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a).

(5) Allegations that the Society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

7In 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) and (5) and addressed s.68.1(4) 4 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.

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the Society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to him so that he feels that his concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

8With respect to s.68.1(4) 5, 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 parent 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.

9The evidence that the Board heard and its conclusions with respect to each of the issues are as follows.

ISSUES 1 AND 2

10The Applicant alleged that the Society did not obtain the Applicant’s consent before interviewing his children at their school and the Society did not inform the Applicant before interviewing the children at their school. The questions for the Board are whether it was appropriate for the Applicant to have been heard regarding these decisions; whether he was heard when he raised concerns; and further, whether reasons for these decisions were provided to the Applicant.

11There is no legislated requirement that obligates the Society to contact the Applicant prior to initiating an interview with his children in response to a referral from a credible source that there may be a child protection concern regarding children. The functions of a Children’s Aid Society as set out in section 15 of the Act, includes:

15(3)(a) protect, where necessary, children who are under the age of sixteen years or are in the Society’s care or under its supervision;

12The Society argues that the best practice in investigating a child protection referral, involving acts by the parents, is not to contact a parent before investigating a concern for the following reasons:

1- The children may be coached in advance by the parents for the interview; and

2- The parents may hinder the Society’s contact with the children and put the children at further risk of harm.

13The protocol of the Society, on receiving a referral of a protection concern regarding a child, is to consider the report with reference to the eligibility spectrum. The report concerning the Applicant’s child was coded as requiring an immediate “out of door” response.

14The rights of parents to be heard under 2 (2) (a) are qualified by the term “where appropriate”. In certain circumstances, such as the one described in this particular case, it is not appropriate or necessary for the Society to consult with or inform a parent before taking a step. Section 68.1(4) does not mandate that the Society involve the parents in the decision to interview a child on a priority basis in every case. Similarly, the Society need not provide reasons for decisions in advance of the decision but can do so after the fact in certain circumstances where a priority response is warranted.

15The Applicant argued that a settlement agreement between the Applicant and the Society in another file, obligated the Society to contact the Applicant before conducting an investigation. This settlement agreement, dated October 17, 2011 was filed in this proceeding as Exhibit A2. Paragraph 4 of that settlement agreement reads as follows:

The Society will use its best efforts to bring the disclosure letter referred to in paragraph (h) above to the attention of any investigating child protection worker or social worker, prior to the conclusion of any future investigation. The Society acknowledges that the only obstacle to the fulfilment of this clause may be the Society’s technology, which may impede the Society’s ability to make the letter available to the workers.

16This provision obligated the Society to have available in the Applicant’s file, a copy of the standard disclosure letter for the Family Court, summarizing referrals and investigations involving the Applicant as referenced in paragraph 1 of that document. The Society’s witness, the child protection worker who interviewed the Applicant’s children, testified that the standard disclosure letter referenced in the settlement agreement was in the Applicant’s file. The Society argued that, this letter did not preclude the Society from acting immediately on investigations coded for immediate investigation on the eligibility spectrum. The Board agrees with that submission, particularly since the requirement to inform the investigating worker of the letter is expressed as to be “prior” to the “conclusion” of the investigation. The investigation as a process is not concluded at the point when the Society first responds to the protection concern referral.

17The Board finds that the Society, pursuant to sections 68(1)(4) and (5) of the Act, has an obligation to provide the Applicant with reasons concerning the decision to investigate the referral and interview the Applicant’s children, in a timely way after the decision is made. The Board finds that the Society’s communications to the Applicant after his children were interviewed satisfy this statutory obligation. The children were interviewed on April 7, 2014. The Applicant sent a letter to the Society on April 8, 2014 raising the “illegality” of the interviews. This letter was filed as Exhibit R-3. The Applicant testified that the dates in that letter are wrong.

18In terms of reasons for the decision, the Society sent a letter to the Applicant on April 10, 2014, specifically in response to the Applicant’s letter to the Society, in which the Applicant expressed his concern that his consent was not obtained prior to the Society worker interviewing his children. This letter explained the Society’s actions with reference to section 15(3)(a) of the Act. The response was timely and sufficient for the Applicant to understand where the Society finds its authority to intervene following a referral. The Board understands that the Applicant disagrees with the Society’s position taken in that letter.

19Regarding whether he was heard when he raised concerns; the evidence of the Society is that the worker left a message for the Applicant to contact her to discuss the matter on April 14, 2014. The Applicant filed his complaint with the Board on April 24, 2014. The Worker made attempts to contact the Applicant again on April 28, 2014, and June 2, 2014. The worker sent a letter to the Applicant on April 30, 2014, requesting that the Applicant contact her. The Applicant has chosen not to speak with the Society’s worker and is thus precluding any dialogue that might further inform the Applicant. The Board finds, for those reasons, that the Society made attempts to fully hear the Applicant’s concerns. The Applicant’s complaint with respect to matters 1 and 2 is dismissed.

ISSUE 3 – NOT OBTAINING OPINION OF DOCTOR

20The Applicant also complained that the Society did not give him reasons and did not hear the Applicant’s concern that the Society did not obtain the opinion of a doctor regarding the injury sustained by his daughter. The Society’s letter dated April 10, 2014 did not provide an explanation to the question raised by the Applicant in his letter of April 8, 2014 that the Society should have had the injury assessed by a doctor instead of interviewing his two other children. However, the Society’s letter informed the Applicant of its intention to meet with him in the course of the investigation. As mentioned above, the Society made attempts to meet with the Applicant who did not follow-up with the Society. The Society could not be at fault when the Applicant himself refused to meet to obtain the information he was seeking. This applies to the question of reasons as reasons could have been provided to the Applicant had he taken the opportunity to meet with the Society.

21The Society’s worker’s evidence at the hearing was that by the time she saw the injury to the child, which was suspected to be a burn, the injury was healing and had started to scab. Subsequently on the same day that the children were interviewed, the worker met with the children’s mother and obtained mother’s assurance that she would seek medical attention for the child, [the daughter]., if necessary. The children were going to stay with their mother after school that day according to the schedule between the parents.

22As the explanation for the Society’s decision regarding the treatment of the injury was provided at the hearing, and as the Applicant chose not to meet with the Society, no further reasons are required. The Board dismisses this complaint.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

23Pursuant 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.

RICHARD J. LINLEY

________________________

Richard J. Linley

Board Member

SUZANNE GILBERT

________________________

Suzanne Gilbert

Presiding Member