CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
T.T.
v.
Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION
Date: April 3, 2017
Citation: 2017 CFSRB 12
Indexed as: T.T. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CFSA s.68)
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from the Applicant on October 14, 2016 regarding a complaint against Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11, as amended (the “Act”).
2On October 20, 2016, the application was found eligible under section 68.1(4)4 which relates to the Applicant’s right to be heard by the Society and section 68.1(4)5 which relates to the Applicant’s right to be given reasons for decisions that affect her interests.
3The Board received the Society’s response on October 28, 2016 and a pre-hearing was scheduled on November 29, 2016. The Applicant did not agree to participate in settlement discussions. A pre-hearing teleconference was scheduled on December 6, 2016 for the purpose of planning for a hearing. The parties proposed hearings dates which the Board subsequently needed to change due to a conflict.
4The Applicant informed the Board that she would be out of the country until May and would not be able to participate in a hearing until after that time. As a result, the Board informed the parties in writing on February 6, 2017 that it would proceed to a written hearing and invited the parties to make additional submissions. The Board received submissions from the Applicant on February 17, 2017, from the Society on March 6, 2017 and a reply submission from the Applicant on March 20, 2017.
5The application relates to the Applicant’s allegations that the Society did not hear her or provide her with reasons for its actions regarding a call she made to the Society’s after-hours line on October 8, 2016 regarding her allegation that her child was being neglected because the Applicant was being denied access to the child by the child’s maternal grandmother.
6The Board finds that the Society met its obligations under s. 68.1(4) 4 and 5 and dismisses the application for the reasons that follow.
BACKGROUND
7The Applicant is the mother of one child. The Society apprehended the child in 2010 and commenced a protection application at that time. The child was placed in the custody of her maternal grandmother on Consent filed with the court on July 16, 2013. The access provision in that Consent states the following:
[The Applicant] shall have access to [the child] as agreed between herself and [the maternal grandmother] using an agreed family member to arrange visits if either mother or maternal grandmother chooses.
8The Society's involvement ended on July 16, 2013 at which time it agreed to withdraw its protection application because the Applicant and the child's maternal grandmother reached an agreement. The submissions of the parties did not include any information to suggest that the access provision set out in the agreement in 2013 had changed.
9The Applicant’s complaint relates to the Society’s alleged failure to respond to an after-hours call that she made to the Society on October 8, 2016 alleging that the child was being neglected because the Applicant was being denied access to the child by the maternal grandmother.
ANALYSIS
10The relevant legislative provisions under the Act are:
68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
(4) Allegations that the society 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.
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 interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.
11In P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38, 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.
12The “right to reasons” under the Act, means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2012 CFSRB 25 at para.13, the Board held that:
With respect to this section of the Act, 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 complainant 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.
13The Applicant phoned the Society's after-hours line on Saturday, October 8, 2016. The purpose of the call was “to disclose that the child … was being neglected of her right to access with me, mom”. On the same day, the Applicant sent a text message to the worker and requested that he visit her home to discuss the child's needs. She alleged that she had no contact from the worker or the Society in response to her calls and text.
14The Applicant did not provide any further details in her additional submissions to the Board except for a record of the calls made to the worker on October 8, 2016 and a copy of the text messages she sent to him.
15The Society's submissions confirmed that the Emergency After Hours worker received a message from the Applicant on October 8, 2016 consistent with the content described by the Applicant. He reviewed the Society's file and noted that the access to the child by the Applicant was to be agreed upon between the Applicant and the maternal grandmother. The worker returned the Applicant's call and left her a voicemail message to which the Applicant replied by way of a text message. The worker left another message to say that he wished to speak with her about her concerns but that he could not communicate with her by way of text messaging. The Applicant left another text message response and did not call the worker back.
16The Society took the position that it is not its practice to attend a home as a result of the messages left by the Applicant nor did it consider that the content of the message on the surface constituted a child protection referral requiring further follow-up other than the direction provided by the worker for the Applicant to call him back. In addition, the Society submitted that the Applicant's right to access to the child is a matter to be addressed in court. The Society did not have any further information on record to rely on given that the worker and the Applicant did not make direct contact and there was no conversation to be noted for the record.
17The Board notes, as did the Society, that a large portion of the Applicant's additional submissions were outside the scope of her application to the Board as outlined above. The Society also noted that it heard the concerns of the Applicant and explained the reasons for the actions that it took in the course of responding to the Board and making additional submissions for the purpose of the written review. Furthermore, the Society made it clear that it remains open to meeting or further discussion with the Applicant regarding her concerns.
18The Applicant did not contest the details submitted by the Society regarding its handling of the call and its reasons for doing so in her reply submission.
CONCLUSIONS
19The Board finds that the Society met its obligation under section 68.1(4) 4 of the Act to hear the Applicant’s concerns given that the worker provided direction to the Applicant and invited her to call him back. It also met its obligation under s. 68.1(4)5 to provide the Applicant with reasons for the actions that it took through its response and submissions to the Board on which she was copied.
20The Board recommends that the Applicant consider the offer made by the Society to meet or have a further discussion regarding her concerns in the interests of maintaining a positive ongoing relationship with the child.
21The Board dismisses the complaint.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
22Pursuant 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.
Gail Gonda
Gail Gonda
Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 3^rd^ day of April 2017.