S.W. & D.W. v. Children’s Aid Society for the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound, 2015 CFSRB 26

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

S.W. & D.W.

v.

Children’s Aid Society for the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: June 29, 2015

Citation: 2015 CFSRB 26

Indexed as: S.W. & D.W. v. Children’s Aid Society for the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound (CFSA s.68)

1S.W. and D.W. (“the Applicants”) brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on March 4, 2015, pursuant to sections 68.1 (4) 4 and 68.1 (4) 5 of the Child Family Services Act, RSO 1990, c. 11, as amended (the “Act”), regarding a matter relating to services sought or received from the Children’s Aid Society for the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound (the “Society”).

2The Applicants complained that the Society did not provide them with reasons regarding the Society’s decision that its Intake Worker speak to a community based speech pathologist as part of its investigation related to their family, and for the content of that discussion. The Applicants were concerned that a breach of their privacy had occurred during that discussion. The Applicants were also concerned about the reasons for the involvement of the Society with their younger child.

3The Society took the position that its Intake Worker could not recall the contents of the discussion in question. The Society conceded that it had not provided a response, with reasons for its decision, to the Applicants with regard to their concerns.

4The Board finds that the Society did not provide the Applicants with reasons for its decision regarding their concerns about the conversation between its Intake Worker and a community based speech pathologist, and about the involvement of the Society with the Applicant’s younger child.

5The Board orders the Society to provide the Applicants with a letter, including reasons for its decisions and actions, with regard to the Applicants’ concerns.

FACTS

6The Applicants are the parents of two children, [Child B] and [Child A]. The Society received a community referral regarding concerns about B and opened a file on October 17, 2014.

7According to the Applicants, on November 13, 2014 and December 19, 2014, the Intake Worker spoke with a speech pathologist at a community agency about the family. The Applicants allege that on December 19, 2015 the Intake Worker asked the speech pathologist about S.W.’s health and expressed concerns about [Child A]. The Applicants felt the discussion of S.W. was a severe breach of their privacy and questioned the Society’s inquiry about [Child A] who was not the subject of the referral.

8On January 7, 2015 D.W., left a voice-mail with the Society Supervisor raising concerns about the Intake Worker’s conversation with the speech pathologist.

9On January 8, 2015 the Society’s Supervisor telephoned D.W. and advised him that she would look into the matter and discuss the issues he had raised with the Intake Worker.

10The Supervisor stated that D.W. appeared reassured that she would be investigating the complaint and seemed satisfied with her response. She met with the Intake Worker the following day to discuss the Applicants’ concerns. She indicated that she was not aware that this matter continued to be an issue for the Applicants.

11The Supervisor conceded that she had not followed up with the Applicants to apprise them of the results of her investigation of their complaint. She formally apologized, personally and on behalf of the Society.

12The Intake Worker testified she first met with the Applicants on October 22, 2014 at which time they signed consents for release of information concerning [Child B] from the referring community agency. She explained to them that she would speak to community professionals to determine if there were resources available to assist them as parents. She stated that she had additional concerns regarding [Child A] and his general development. At that visit she recommended that the Applicants clean the home and take [Child A] to a doctor.

13The Intake Worker testified that she spoke with the speech pathologist once on December 1, 2014 with regard to potential services available for [Child B]. She testified that she did not recall a subsequent discussion with the speech pathologist or discussing S.W.’s health with her. The Intake Worker explained that she had included [Child A] in the investigation as Ministry Standards require that all children in the family be included in the Society’s review.

14Counsel for the Society submitted that as there were no Society notes recording the discussion between the Intake Worker and the speech pathologist and as the Intake Worker did not recall discussing S.W.’s health, what had occurred was ambiguous. Counsel acknowledged that S.W. did follow up with her doctor regarding her health, and had submitted a letter from the doctor in response. Counsel acknowledged that the speech pathologist had a note documenting a conversation with [the Intake Worker] which confirmed that both S.W.’s health and [Child A] had been discussed. Counsel noted that the Society adhered to the Ontario Child Protection Standards which include assessing the family unit in its entirety, no matter the nature of the referral, speaking to collaterals, and making an assessment based on information received.

15Counsel submitted that the Applicants’ concerns had been heard and acted upon by the Supervisor in her conversation with the Intake Worker but conceded the Society had not followed up with the Applicants about this. Counsel offered a formal apology to the Applicants on behalf of the Society for this omission.

ANALYSIS

16The Board must determine if the Society met its obligation to provide reasons under s. 68.1 (4) 5. The Board has decided that despite some genuine efforts to do so, the Society has not met its statutory obligations to the Applicants.

17The relevant legislative provision is:

68.1(4). Matters for Board Review

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

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

18In 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 her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

19The “right to reasons” under the Act, means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the applicants’ interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013, CFSRB 8, at para. 8, the Board held that:

With 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.

20The Board is satisfied that both [Child A] and S.W.’s health were discussed at the December 19 meeting. Although the Intake Worker does not recall this conversation she also did not deny these allegations. The speech pathologist’s notes support a finding that, on a balance of probabilities, this conversation occurred.

21The Society has acknowledged its failure to respond to the Applicants’ concerns with regard to the Intake Worker’s discussion with the speech pathologist and to provide reasons for its decisions in these matters.

DECISION

22The Board finds that the Society did not meet its obligation to provide the Applicants with meaningful explanations for its decision. The Board finds in favour of the Applicants.

23The Board orders the Society to provide a detailed written response to the Applicants in which it addresses the reasons for the Intake Worker’s decision to speak to the speech pathologist as part of its investigation related to their family, and for the content of that discussion, including the reference to S.W.’s health and [Child A]. The Society’s reasons must also address the Applicants’ privacy concerns with that conversation.

24The Society shall have 15 days from the date of this order to comply.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

25Pursuant 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, except with an order of the Court or the Board, as appropriate.