F.S. and A.I. v. Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services, 2014 CFSRB 57

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

F.S. and A.I.

v.

Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: October 15, 2014

Citation: 2014 CFSRB 57

Indexed as: F.S. and A.I. v. Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1F. S. and A.I, the Applicants (the “parents” or the “Applicants”) commenced an Application pursuant to sections 68.1(4)5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O., 1990, c.C.11, as amended, (the “Act”). They were dissatisfied with the services they had been receiving from the Kenora-Rainy River Districts Child and Family Services (the “Society”). The application was heard on October 2 and 3, 2014.

2The Applicants raised nine specific concerns where they alleged they were not provided with reasonable explanations for decisions and actions taken by the Society.

1. The separation of the children from each other after the apprehension;

2. Multiple moves of the children since their apprehension;

3. Access visits with the children starting late;

4. Failure of the Society to arrange counselling for the oldest child;

5. Asked to sign forms without an opportunity to review them first;

6. An alleged injury suffered by one of the children while in care;

7. Foster parents diagnosing one of the children;

8. Not having input into the service plan; and,

9. Drug testing.

3The Board finds in favour of the Applicants in regard to the placement of the children (concerns 1 and 2), medical care for the children (concerns 4, 6 and 7) and signing forms (concern 5). The Board dismisses their complaints regarding access visits (concern 3), and matters pertaining to service plan input and drug testing (concerns 8 and 9).

4Below are the Board’s reasons for this decision.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicants have three children: the eldest is 12 years old, the middle child is 2 years old and the youngest child was 8 months old in September, 2014. Until May 24, 2014 the Applicants had been clients of the [first Society] [in City a]. They notified the [first Society] of a planned move to [city b]. The [first Society] forwarded its file to the Society on May 16, 2014. The Applicants and their three children moved to the [city b] area on May 24, 2014. The Society initiated contact with the Applicants on May 29, 2014.

6The file received by the Society contained a number of “red flag” items. The Society monitored the family for one week. On June 6, 2014 it apprehended the children and applied to the Court for a temporary care and custody order which it received on June 11, 2014. Initially, the children were placed in one foster home. By the middle of July each child had been moved once or twice within [city b] to separate homes and at least once each to homes in or near [city c]. On or about August 20, 2014 the oldest child was returned to [city a] to reside with his maternal grandparents.

7Since the children’s admission into Society care, the Applicants have expressed a number of concerns including:

• The middle child was diagnosed and treated by his foster mother with Tylenol, as a precaution against ‘foot-hand-mouth’ disease. The parents were not informed of this occurrence until they saw the child at a scheduled visit. The oldest child allegedly fell off a dock and suffered a severe bruise to one of his legs. He allegedly had asked for a doctor visit but was denied this by his worker. The parents learned of this incident at a scheduled visit.

• The parents had also asked for counselling for the oldest child, a treatment with which the Society agreed. A Society child care worker indicated that arrangements would be made to accommodate this request; however, the chosen counselling agency did not have the request on record, nor did the Society follow-up to ensure the child was registered.

• Further, the parents were unhappy that one access visit was late in starting and one child missed a visit.

8The parents had several concerns with the Society’s actions towards them. They complained that they were being asked to sign blank consent forms. They complained that they had no input into the “Service Plan”. They disagreed with the Society’s plans for drug testing.

9In all of these matters, the Applicants assert that they either did not receive responses or explanations when they complained to the Society or the Society’s responses were, in their view, totally inadequate. The Applicants chose not to proceed with the Society’s internal review process, but instead applied to the Board on July 22, 2014.

ANALYSIS

10The main issue before the Board is whether the Society provided meaningful answers and explanations to the Applicants for all of its decisions and actions that related to those nine issues.

11The Board’s authority and the Society’s obligations are found in the following sections of the Act:

68(1) A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society in accordance with the regulations.

68(5) If a complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the review procedure:

2. a matter described in subsection 68.1 (4)

68.1(4) The following matters maybe reviewed by the Board under thissection:

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

12The parents testified jointly. Thus, all comments are attributed to the “parents” rather than either individual. The Society’s Executive Director was its only witness. He relied on more than 75 pages of case notes from staff to support his testimony.

ISSUE1: Placement of the Children after June 6, 2014

13The parents were not pleased with any of the moves and placements for their children and stated their displeasure and preferences to the Society on many occasions. At a meeting on June 11 with Intake Worker [ ] they requested that the three children be kept together. [The Intake Worker] told them the Society would try for this arrangement but placements in surrounding communities might also need to be investigated. The three children stayed together only for the first few days following the apprehension. They were then each placed in separate homes in [city a]. On June 18, 2014 the parents expressed their concerns about the separation to Intake Worker [ ]. [The Intake Worker] told the parents that the Society’s goal is to keep the children together, but that decision is based on availability of placements, and there were no approved homes for three children in [city b].

14On June 26, 2014 the youngest child was placed in a home in a town near [city c], a two-hour drive from [city b]. On July 8, 2014 the middle child was placed in [city c]. The oldest child was placed in [city c] on July 18, 2104. The parents complained about driving two hours each way twice per week for supervised visits in [city c].

15Intake Worker [ ] told the parents that the Resources Department would investigate possible kin placements. [The Intake Worker] reported to the parents that the oldest child had asked to be with either of his grandmothers. [The Intake Worker] did not explain why the three children were sent to [city c] for placement. She informed the parents that the Resources Department had responsibility for the moves, that she could do nothing about the placements. The parents allege that worker [Intake Worker] did not provide them with any information that would enable them to contact the Resources Department.

16On June 11, 2014 Intake Worker [ ] told the parents that the Society would look at placing the oldest child in [city a] with his maternal grandparents. [The Intake Worker] re-affirmed this with the parents on June 12, 2014. On August 20, 2014 Family Service workers [ ] and [ ] met with the parents to discuss a placement for the oldest child. According to the Applicants, the workers asked them for permission to send this child to [city a]. The parents denied permission, and gave reasons to the workers for their decision. Later that same day the child was moved to the grandparent’s home in [city a].

17The parents stated that they made numerous requests to keep their children together. They also requested that the oldest child not be placed at his grandparent’s home in [city a]. In their view, the Society did not provide meaningful or complete answers or explanations to the parents about the children’s placements. They believed that “Resources is responsible” or “it is in his best interest” did not provide details for very important actions and decisions. They were of the opinion that actions were taken that were directly opposite to their expressed concerns.

18The Board finds that with respect to concern 1 (separating the children) and concern 2 (multiple moves for each child) that the Society has failed to provide the parents with reasons for decisions that affect the parents’ interests.

ISSUE 2: Medical Care for the Children

a) Concern 4: Counselling for the Oldest Child

19Before the move to [city b] the parents had been working with the [first Society] to set up counselling for the oldest child. Soon after the family arrived in [city b] the Society agreed that this child needed counselling. Intake Worker [ ] noted on June 12, 2014 that counselling would be a good idea; however, there was a waiting list for services with [mental health agency], the local children’s mental health agency. On June 18, 2014 [the Intake Worker] noted that Child Service Worker [ ] had agreed to begin the intake process at [mental health agency]. [The Intake Worker] reiterated this action plan on June 24, 2014.

20The parents allege that they received no further information about the status of this child’s counselling from the Society. After the oldest child was placed in [city c], the parents went to the local office for [mental health agency] and learned that the child’s name was not on the waiting list. They registered him for counselling. When the child was moved to [city a] in August, counselling had yet to begin.

21The Executive Director testified that Child Service Worker [ ] did initiate the process with [mental health agency]. [The mental health agency] apparently failed to follow-through with the referral. The Executive Director further stated that [the Child Service Worker] did not follow up with [the mental health agency] on the registration process.

b) Concern 6: An alleged injury suffered by one of the children while in care

22The Society provided one case note for the incident which occurred on July 13, 2014. The oldest child bruised his leg when he fell off a dock at the camp (cottage) of one of the Society’s workers. The child was unsupervised at the time as the worker was in the cottage preparing lunch. The child asked for medical care but the worker saw that he was able to walk with no discomfort and denied a visit at the hospital.

23The Executive Director testified that he was not aware that this injury was an issue for the parents and on the first day of the Hearing had no notes and no prepared testimony. He also stated that he understood that the parents, the child and the worker had different levels of concern about the need for medical treatment. He further indicated that he did not know if the unsupervised dock issue was discussed with the parents and he did not know when the parents were notified of the incident.

24The parents testified that they learned of the injury from Child Protection Worker [ ] just prior to a scheduled visit on July 17, 2014. They were not pleased with the worker’s decision not to seek medical treatment. They were also upset about the quality of supervision at the cottage and the Society’s failure to notify them of the injury. They allege that they raised these concerns with [Child Protection Worker] but did not say when or how often. There are no case notes to verify if or when these discussions may have occurred.

c) Foster parents diagnosing one of the children

25The parents allege that the youngest child was brought to a visit on June 20, 2014 looking pale and dazed; he was “not himself”. The parents and the worker took the child to the hospital for evaluation. Before the doctor’s report was ready, the parents were asked by Intake Worker [ ] to vacate the hospital. The parents did not know what was wrong with their child and testified that they still did not have a copy of the medical report for that visit. A case note from [the Intake Worker] on June 23, 2014 indicates that Intake Supervisor [ ] told the parents that the Society was the legal guardian, thus medical reports are released to the Society which can provide them to the parents. The Executive Director testified that he would ensure that all medical and mental health records would now be provided to the parents unless the attending physician stipulated that the document was not to be shared without his/her permission.

26On June 23, Intake Worker [ ] informed the parents that over the weekend the foster mother had diagnosed the youngest child with hand-foot-mouth disease and was treating the child with “Tylenol”. [The Intake Worker] also said that the doctor did not diagnose this on June 20^th. The parents were very upset by this news and questioned how the foster mother could make this diagnosis.

27The Executive Director testified that at that time this child was with a very experienced foster mother who acted as a “mother” when the child showed the symptoms. The case note from [the Intake Worker] on June 23 also notes that the virus was “going around” the home and that led to the diagnosis and treatment regimen.

28The parents raised several concerns with respect to three specific incidents involving two of their children. They were upset at the lack of notification and response by Society workers. They were displeased with the denial of all medical records from the Society. They were upset with the level of supervision at a cottage and the lack of follow-up for counselling for the oldest child. They were not happy that foster parents made a diagnosis on the youngest child and administered medicines without any notification to the parents or without seeking medical treatment.

29The Society acknowledged that it was not aware of the level of concern for the leg injury to the oldest child. The Society testified that there were questions regarding the leg injury that it was unable to answer and acknowledged that it had not done adequate follow-up to ensure counselling would become available for the oldest child. The Society supported the actions of the foster mother in treating the youngest child but did commit to making all allowable medical records available. The Board finds that, for all of the medical concerns raised by the parents, the Society has failed to provide them with reasons and/or explanations for decisions that affected their interests.

ISSUE 3: Access visits starting late (Concern 3)

30The parents testified that the children were brought late to access visits several times. No dates or specifics were provided. They also indicated that they had spoken to the Executive Director about late visits at a meeting in June; no date or further details was provided for this particular meeting.

31A case note from July 24, 2014, produced by [ ] the Director of Protection Services shows that the parents agreed that there had been an issue with visits on July 15, 2014. One child was late and one child did not appear. The parents stated that [ ], a Family Services Worker in [city c], told them that an e-mail miscommunication led to one child being absent. The lateness for one child was caused by him living 40 km from [city c].

32At the hearing on October 3, 2014 the Executive Director apologized for any lateness that may have occurred and committed to a better performance for timely visits in the future.

33The Board notes that details about one specific occurrence were presented to the hearing. The parents received an explanation for the lateness and absence for that visit on July 13, 2014. The parents also now have a verbal commitment from the Executive Director for better performance. The Board finds that the parents received reasons for the late visit issue. The Board dismisses this complaint.

ISSUE 4: Signatures on Forms (concern 5)

34The parents testified that they were often asked to sign forms that were blank. These included Consent Forms for the Society to obtain information from outside sources. Furthermore, they stated that they were asked to agree and sign a rough, hand-written copy of the plan of care for the children presented to them by Family Services Worker [ ] in [city b]. The parents would not sign and allege they have yet to see the final version of this plan.

35The parents also indicated that Family Services Worker [ ] in [city c] asked them to sign a blank copy of a plan of care, stating that this was standard procedure; that she would type it up later. The parents refused to sign these papers and this “refusal” was noted in their file. The parents indicated that they complained about this practice and the “refusal” note but did not provide the Board with specific information about said complaints.

36The Executive Director responded by stating that it is not Society policy to ask parents to sign blank documents or rough hand-written documents. Having heard the parents’ complaints the Executive Director made four (4) commitments: namely (1) to stop the practice immediately, (2) to forbid the placing of a “refusal” note on any document or file if the intended signee(s) had not seen the entire document prior to the request for signature, (3) to forbid staff from seeking signatures on a blank document, and (4) to remove the “refusal” note from any document in the parents’ file.

37The Board finds that the Executive Director’s commitments reflected the Society’s failure to provide any reasons or explanations for any of its actions in regard to the signing of forms. As such, the Board finds that the Society failed to meet its obligations under the Act to provide reasons for decisions that affected the parents’ interests.

ISSUE 5: Matters pertaining to the Service Plan (concerns 8 and 9)

a) No input into the Service Plan

38The parents testified that the Service Plan, which is intended to allow reunification of the family, was presented to them at a meeting on July 11, 2014. They stated that they informed Family Service Workers [ ] and [ ] that they were not satisfied, wanted changes and more input into the contents of the plan. The parents said they were expecting amore collaborative approach to creating the goals and expectations in the plan as they had experienced with the [first Society]. The parents then testified that a revised plan, with one of the changes they had requested included, was presented to them on July 14, 2014. The parents did not sign either version of the Service Plan.

39The Executive Director testified that the case notes from Family Service Worker [ ], dated July 11, 2014 indicates that the parents agreed with each outcome in the plan and they were willing to initiate activities to follow through on those outcomes. The Executive Director further notes that at a second meeting held on July 14, 2014 to discuss the plan, the parents indicated further steps they would take and that the parents were given two copies of the plan so their lawyer could review the document before signatures would be applied. He felt that by having had two meetings and being permitted time for the parents’ lawyer to review the plan, the parents did have input into the plan.

40The parents complained that they were not given reasons for the Service Plan being developed with no input from them. The Society stated that the parents had input at the first meeting on July 11, 2014 and were given the opportunity for their lawyer to review the plan, another opportunity for input. The Board finds that as the parents did have opportunities for input there was no reason for the Society to explain why they had not. The Board dismisses this complaint.

b) Drug testing

41The Society based its concerns about drug use by the parents on the files it received from the [first Society]. Testing to clarify the current sobriety of the parents was initiated prior to the development of the Service Plan. The Society made it clear on several occasions, including at a meeting with Intake Worker [ ] on June 12, 2014, that while urine testing was a good idea, this testing only showed very short term recent results. The Society wanted full spectrum hair follicle testing completed at its expense and on its timetable. The parents disagreed with the Society’s position and carried on with weekly urine testing at their own expense. The parents also wanted the hair follicle testing completed to substantiate the results from the urine tests. The Society paid for hair follicle testing in August and will pay for a future test in October.

42The case notes provided by the Society indicate that drug testing was discussed several times with the parents. The Executive Director testified that there is a difference of opinion on what tests need to be done and at what frequency. He noted that the Service Plan spells out very clearly the specific demands it has for the drug testing of the parents, including random testing at the [city b] hospital and hair analysis testing every three months.

43The parents complained about the Society’s insistence to abide by its plan for drug testing. They did not testify or otherwise indicate that they complained to the Society about not receiving reasons for the Society’s drug testing plan. The Board dismisses this complaint.

CONCLUSION

44Overall the Board finds that, aside from late visits, the parents’ concerns regarding the children have not been explained by the Society. The separation of the children, multiple moves for the children, and responses and explanation for three medical care decisions are all matters that affect the parents interests for which details are weak or non-existent.

45The Board finds that the Applicants’ complaints that deal with matters pertaining to themselves, aside from the signing of forms, were adequately explained to them by the Society.

46The Board notes that the Executive Director, at the Hearing and in his letter of July 8, 2014 to the Applicants, emphasized the importance and value of the Applicants and the Society working together in the best interests of the Applicants’ children. The Executive Director noted the time frames required by legislation in the matter of the children’s guardianship and noted that time was of the essence. The Board underscores the importance of the Society and the Applicants working together in the best interests of the Applicants’ children.

Board Decision

47Section 68(10) of the Act empowers the Board to make orders as follows:

Upon completing its review of a decision by a society in relation to a complaint, the Board may,

(b) in the case of a review of a matter described in subsection 68.1(4), make any order described in subsection 68.1(7) as appropriate;

68.1(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.

ORDERS

Orders Regarding the Placement of the Children

48The Board orders the Society to provide to the Applicants written explanation of the process undertaken by its Resources Department to find long-term placements in [city b], to find placements for the children to remain together, and to find placements for the children closer to [city b] than the 2 hour drive to [city c]. The Board also orders the Society to provide written explanation for its decision to use a kin placement for the oldest child in [city a] rather than near [city b]. Furthermore, the Board orders the Society to explain why the Applicants were not given information which would enable them to contact the Resources Department.

Orders Regarding the Medical Care of the Children

49For issues 6 and 7, the Board orders the Society to provide written explanation to the Applicants for the following items:

1.Why it believed the children were properly cared for in each of these incidents,

2.Why the Applicants were not notified immediately of the injury and/or /illness.

The Board further orders that for issue 6 the Society provide the Applicants with a written report of its findings regarding the supervision of this child while at the camp.

50For issue 4 the Board orders the Society to provide the Applicants with a written explanation about why it failed to follow-up with [mental health agency] to ensure the oldest child was registered.

51The Board further orders the Society to provide the Applicants with a statement to indicate that all of the children’s medical records and files will be made available to them.

Order Regarding the Signing of Forms

52The Board orders the Society to provide the Applicants with written statements that bind it to three of the commitments made by the Executive Director at the hearing, namely:

1. to stop the practice (signing blank forms) immediately,

2. to forbid the placing of a “refusal” note on any document or file if the intended

signee(s) had not seen the entire document prior to the request for signature; and,

3. to forbid staff from seeking signatures on a blank document.

Consent Order

53In accordance with the Executive Director’s promises made at the Hearing, the Board orders the Society to provide the Applicants with the following materials within seven days of the rendering of this decision:

1. all of the children’s medical records,

2. the most up-to-date version of the Service Plan; and,

3. copies of all documents where the notation “refused to sign” has been

removed.

General Order

54All written materials as ordered in paragraphs [49] to [52] inclusive are to be delivered to the Applicants within thirty days of the rendering of this decision.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

55Pursuant 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 LINLEY

Richard Linley

Presiding Member

CELIA DENOV _____________________

Celia Denov

Panel member

JOHN GATES

John Gates

Panel Member