CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
C.E.
v.
Children's Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury & Manitoulin
REASONS FOR DECISION
Indexed as: C.E. v. Children's Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury & Manitoulin (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1This is an application under s. 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.11 (“Act”). The Applicant alleges that the Society did not hear him or provide him with reasons for decisions affecting his interests regarding his daughter, (the “Child”), both while she was in the care of her mother (the "Child's mother") and while in his care.
2The Board must decide whether the Society met its obligations to hear the Applicant and provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions concerning the issues he has raised.
3During the hearing into this application, the Board heard from the Applicant and his current partner. The Board also heard from a worker and a child protection supervisor employed by the Society. For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that the Society met its obligation to hear the Applicant and to provide him with reasons with respect to the concerns he outlined regarding the Child.
THE LAW
4The relevant sections of the Act are as follows:
s. 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; and
(b) that decisions affecting the interests and rights of children and their parents are made according to clear, consistent criteria and are subject to procedural safeguards.
s. 68.1(1) If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may,
(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 68 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section; or
(b) where the person first makes the complaint to the society under section 68, submit the complaint to the Board before the society’s complaint review procedure is completed
(2) If a person submits a complaint to the Board under clause (1) (b) after having brought the complaint to the society under section 68, the Board shall give the society notice of that fact and the society may terminate or stay its review, as it considers appropriate.
(3) A complaint to the Board under this section shall be made in accordance with the regulations.
(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 68 (1) as required under subsection 68 (2).
Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2 (2) (a).
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
Such other matters as may be prescribed.
(5) Upon receipt of a complaint under this section, the Board shall conduct a review of the matter.
(6) Subsections 68 (7), (8) and (9) apply with necessary modification to a review of a complaint made under this section.
(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.
(8) The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,
(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court; or
(b) is subject to another decision-making process under this Act or the
Labour Relations Act, 1995.
ANALYSIS
5Although the Applicant brought his application under paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 of s.68.1(4), the application was deemed eligible to proceed under s.68.1(4)4 and 5. Accordingly, the Board has authority to determine whether the Applicant was heard and whether he was given reasons for decisions made that affected his interest, specifically:
Communication with a Society worker leading to alleged harassment, intimidation and threatening behaviour by the worker;
Being heard in respect of child protection concerns and risk of harm;
Investigation outcomes generally and specifically investigations related to an incident involving discharge of a weapon and an incident involving a text message; and
Access decision making process and the role of the parent.
6In 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)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.
7The “right to reasons” under s. 68.1(4)5 of 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, 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.
8The Child is now almost 6 years old. Her parents shared custody until November 2015. In November 2015, the Applicant obtained an emergency custody order that was enforced by the police the following day. She has been in the custody of the Applicant since that time.
9In March of 2016, the Applicant obtained sole custody of the Child through the courts. The order granting the Applicant custody of the Child spelled out the conditions under which the Child’s mother was to have access; specifically, that access was to take place under the supervision of the maternal grandmother. There is ongoing court involvement.
10The Society has been involved with the Child's parents since 2012. It has received a total of 17 referrals concerning one or the other parent over the years. The sources of the referrals have varied and include the Child's mother, the Applicant, the Applicant's mother (the Child's paternal grandmother and the Applicant’s representative in this matter), anonymous callers and community agencies.
11The focus of this application to the Board has been on the period following a referral in February of 2015. Between that date and September 2016, when the Society closed its file, the Applicant made five complaints (or referrals) about the Child's mother. In addition, the Applicant's mother made a referral and the Society received two anonymous referrals. All of the Applicant’s referrals focused on his concerns about the Child’s mother’s alleged “lifestyle choices”, alleged “adult conflict” in the Child's mother's home and the Child’s safety during access visits with the Child's mother.
12Of specific concern to the Applicant were two incidents: one involving a text message from the Child's mother expressing frustration and discussing physical discipline of the Child and another incident where criminal activity involving a firearm took place in the Child's mother's home.
13The Applicant alleges that the Society did not hear him and that it did not provide him with reasons for decisions that affected his interests in respect of the concerns that he expressed in making those five referrals about the welfare of the Child, particularly the ones involving the text message and the firearm. He also alleges that his communication with a Society worker about the risk the Child faced on September 1, 2016 led to harassing, threatening and intimidating behavior towards him. Finally, he alleges that the Society did not properly handle his concerns about the risk to the Child during access visits with the Child's mother.
14The Society takes the position that there have been several file openings relating to referrals that fell within the eligibility spectrum. It interviewed the Child, the Child's mother and the Child's maternal grandmother in May 2014 following the referral received at that time. It also thoroughly investigated the August 2016 serious occurrence involving the firearm and kept the Applicant abreast of its findings on those occasions.
15Society workers have made unscheduled drop in visits to the Child's mother’s home on weekends and outside of working hours. The Society’s position is that following its investigations, it has concluded that while there may be other issues, there are no protection concerns within the realm of the supervised access order under which the Child's mother currently operates and that it has communicated that conclusion and the basis for it to the Applicant.
16The Society says, and the records support, that it met with the Applicant in September 2016, to discuss his concerns about the occasion on which he says he was threatened and harassed by an employee of the Society who was not his usual worker. A letter, dated in September 2016, was sent to the Applicant confirming the discussion that took place, acknowledging the Applicant’s concerns and confirming that the Society would take the necessary steps to follow up with the worker in question and assuring the Applicant that he could continue to deal with his usual worker.
17Finally, the Society stands by its position that there has been a significant amount of communication and engagement in the process it has undertaken with the Applicant. In the in-person meetings and in its letters to him, the Society has explained its role in custody and access disputes between the parents of children in the community and, while the Applicant may wish to have the information, it is not open to the Society to provide him with information about the services provided to the Child’s mother.
18The Society’s evidence, borne out by the documentary record, is that it had thirty meetings with the Applicant during the course of delivering services to the family and two face to face formal meetings to discuss his concerns.
19I find, having reviewed the documentary evidence filed by the Society in support of its case and having heard from the Society witnesses, that the Applicant met with his worker on thirty occasions, that his concerns about the risks to the Child, both while in the care of the Child's mother and during access visits once he had obtained custody, have been heard and that he was provided with reasons for the Society’s conclusions and decisions.
20The Applicant was also heard when he contacted the Society to register a complaint about his treatment in September 2016. Representatives of the Society met with him and then followed up the meeting by providing him with a letter outlining their position.
21Although the Applicant clearly does not agree with the reasons provided by the Society for its decisions, there is ample evidence to establish the Society provided detailed and meaningful reasons which addressed the Applicant's specific concerns.
CONCLUSION
22The Board concludes that the Applicant was heard and given reasons as required under section 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act by the Society. Accordingly, the application is dismissed in accordance with s. 68.1(7)(e) of the Act.
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 except with an order of the Court or the Board, as appropriate.
Jay Sengupta
Jay Sengupta
Vice Chair
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 19th day of July, 2017.