C.F v. Children’s Aid Society for the District of Nipissing and Parry Sound, 2017 CFSRB 19

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

C.F

Applicant

• and -

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

Respondent

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: July 21, 2017

File Number: CA16-0046

Citation: 2017 CFSRB 19

Indexed as: C.F v. Children’s Aid Society for the District of Nipissing and Parry Sound (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an application under s. 68.1(4)4 and5 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 access to his daughter (Child 1) since June 2015, the apprehension of his son (Child 2) at birth, access to Child 2 since he was apprehended and communications with the Society worker involved in the apprehension.

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.

[3] During the hearing into this application, the Board heard from the Applicant on his own behalf on the first day of hearing. On the second day of hearing, the Applicant did not attend, despite having been notified of the date, time and location. The Board is satisfied that the Applicant had notice of the continuation date as the Notice of Hearing, sent by regular mail and email, was not returned as undeliverable. On the hearing date, the Applicant did not contact the Board to seek an adjournment or a delayed start to the hearing. The Board waited for half an hour before beginning the hearing.

4The Board heard submissions from the Society as to how it wished to proceed; specifically whether it sought to have the hearing dismissed as abandoned or whether it wished to proceed to call its case in the Applicant’s absence. The Society sought to proceed to call its case. Accordingly, the Board heard from an investigation and assessment worker, a child protection worker and a child protection supervisor employed by the Society.

5For 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 his children and communications with the child protection worker.

THE LAW

6The 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:

1. 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).

2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.

3. 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.

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.

6. 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

7Although the Applicant brought his application under paragraphs 1, 4, 5 and 6 of s.68.1(4), the application was deemed eligible to proceed under s.68.1(4)4 and5. 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:

1. Access to Child 1 since June 2015;

2. Apprehension of Child 2;

3. Access to Child 2; and

4. Communication with the worker.

[8] In 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 somedegree 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.

9The “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.

10The Applicant is the biological father of two children: Child 1 is seven years old and lives with the paternal grandmother and Child 2 is one year old. Child 2 was apprehended at birth and has since been made a Crown ward with no access to the Applicant. After Child 2's apprehension he was placed in a kin care placement with a maternal aunt and uncle, where he resides with his half siblings (on his maternal side).

Child 1 – Access Issues

11The Applicant’s mother has custody of Child 1, pursuant to an order made under the Children’s Law Reform Act (“CLRA”). In July 2016, the Society made a motion to the court, seeking a temporary order of supervision for Child 1, citing its concern that the Applicant was being allowed unsupervised access to Child 1 which, in the Society’s opinion, was not in her best interest.

12In support of this position, the Society’s worker gave evidence that its historical concerns about the Applicant’s unresolved and untreated mental health and substance use issues, as well as a previous history of domestic conflict, that had not been addressed.

13Although the Applicant's mother told the Society that the Applicant had sought out and was receiving treatment, he would not sign consent forms to let the Society verify that information. Without verification, it was the view of the Society that the risk to Child 1 could not be mitigated. As a result of the Society’s intervention, the Applicant’s access to Child 1 has been curtailed and supervised.

14During the course of its investigations, the worker and his supervisor spoke with the Applicant. The documentary record establishes that the supervisor explained the reasons for the Society’s concerns during conversations with the Applicant in June and that the worker met with him in July to discuss the Society’s position with respect to requiring supervision during access visits with Child 1. The Applicant did not give evidence to dispute that those contacts and meetings had taken place or that the discussions, as described by the Society’s witness, had not occurred.

Child 2 – Apprehension at Birth and Access Issues/Interactions with Society

Worker

15The Board heard from child protection worker who apprehended Child 2 at birth. The worker gave evidence that he was already working with biological mother of Child 2 in relation to her two older children from a previous relationship.

[16] The worker testified that he became aware of the Applicant’s relationship with the biological mother of Child 2 the previous year and subsequently during the pregnancy. He discussed the nature of the Society’s concerns about the involvement of the Applicant in the lives of the two older children and Child 2, who had not yet been born, with their mother and the Applicant.

17The Applicant takes issue with the intervention of the child protection worker. In his pleadings and during his testimony he characterized the worker as having told his then partner to end their relationship. He felt the worker overstepped his mandate by raising unsupported allegations of substance abuse and mental health concerns and damaging his relationship.

18The reasons for the apprehension of Child 2 at birth were outlined in an affidavit filed with the court. The child protection worker also gave evidence that he met with the Applicant in September 2014 and March 2015, prior to the birth of Child 2, to explain the reasons for the Society’s concerns.

19He says he told the Applicant that unresolved and untreated mental health issues, substance use, anger management and police involvement were factors that needed to be addressed and mitigated as they posed a risk to the children in his then partner’s orbit. The worker testified that the Applicant was upset with him during the second meeting and he had to ask him to leave the meeting.

20The Society witnesses provided documentary evidence confirming the access visits scheduled between August 2015 and August 2016 for the Applicant to meet with Child 2. The record confirms the visits attended and those that he missed. Following three visits missed without explanation, access was put on hold by the Society. Child 2 has since been made a Crown ward with an order for no access with respect to the Applicant.

CONCLUSION

21I find, having reviewed the documentary evidence filed by the society in support of its case and having heard from the Applicant and the Society witnesses, that the Applicant has had an opportunity to be heard and that he was provided with reasons for the Society’s conclusions and decisions.

[22] It is clear that the Society’s views of the risks to his children are not shared by the Applicant. He disagrees that there are any valid reasons for the Society to allege that it has concerns about his mental health or alleged substance use. He also does not acknowledge the Society’s concerns about previous police involvement.

23Although the Applicant clearly does not agree with the reasons provided by the Society for its decisions as they relate to requiring supervision during his access visits with Child 1, the apprehension and subsequent conditions placed on access to Child 2, there is ample evidence to establish reasons were provided, that the reasons were sufficiently detailed and meaningful, and that they addressed the specific concerns that he had expressed.

24The Board concludes that the Applicant was heard and given reasons as required under section 68.1(4)4 and5 of the Act by the Society. Accordingly, the application is dismissed in accordance with s. 68.1(7)(e) of the Act.

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.

Jay Sengupta

Jay Sengupta

Vice-chair