JO v Highland Shores Children's Aid Society, 2018 CFSRB 16

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JO

Applicant

-and-

Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens

Date: June 11, 2018

Citation: 2018 CFSRB 16

Indexed as: JO v Highland Shores Children's Aid Society (CYFSA s. 120)

APPEARANCES

JO, Applicant

Self-represented

Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society, Respondent

Linda Fagbenro, Representative

THE ISSUE

1JO (Applicant) and Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society (Society) reached a Settlement Agreement (Agreement) during a mediation held March 5, 2018. The Agreement providing for a full settlement of all issues raised by the Applicant in her application dated January 19, 2018 to the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB). The application focussed on the Applicant's child, S, who currently lives with his father.

2On April 13, 2018 the Applicant emailed the CFSRB and said:

I am stating non-compliance […] as issues were not addressed and answers not clear and some not factual.

She did not identify which Terms of the Agreement were not complied with.

3The CFSRB held a hearing by teleconference on May 7, 2018 to consider whether the Society had complied with the Terms of the Agreement. The Applicant and the Society's counsel and a Child Protection Worker participated in the hearing.

4After reviewing all the materials filed on the issue of compliance and considering the parties' submissions I find the Society has complied with the Terms of the Agreement. The reasons for this decision follow.

ANALYSIS

Terms 1 and 4

5The Applicant accepted the answers to Term 1 provided by the Society in its written Response. Compliance with this Term is therefore no longer disputed.

6The Applicant accepted that the Society had responded appropriately with concrete suggestions in respect of Term 4. Compliance with this Term is therefore no longer disputed.

Term 2

7This Term states:

Regarding the Applicant’s statements at [page 1, paras. 4 and 6 of the Application]: why does the Society not attribute credibility to the concerns expressed by the Applicant in her Application?

8In its Response the Society explained these allegations were taken seriously. An abuse investigation was done jointly with the local OPP detachment and S was also seen by the child abuse team at the local hospital in the neighbouring city. S provided no disclosure to the child abuse team at the hospital and recanted when interviewed jointly by the police and the Society worker. The Response also indicated that there was no physical evidence of abuse, no corroboration and no credible statement from S. The allegations were not verified by the Society, and no criminal charges were laid by the police.

9With respect to a second incident in which the Applicant raised similar concerns with a worker, the Society explained that S had been interviewed and there was no disclosure. The Society had directed the father to take S to a doctor and the doctor saw nothing wrong.

10The Applicant indicated that she had taken S to her family physician, Dr. D, and she believed that Dr. D would have made a report to the Society. The Society advised that it was not aware of any report from Dr. D.

11The Child Protection Worker indicated she did not recall the Society receiving any report from Dr. D.

12The parties agreed that the Society would thoroughly review its file to see if there is any report from Dr. D or any case note relating to a conversation with Dr. D. The Society committed to the Applicant that it would carry out this thorough search, and would be open to re-examining this issue, if it discovered information in any communication from Dr. D that would warrant any action.

13I find the Society’s Response answered the question contained in Term 2. I find the Society is in compliance with Term 2.

Term 3

14Term 3 of the Agreement provides:

With respect to the allegation [made in the last paragraph on page 2 of the Application]:

a) Can the Society confirm or deny the allegation?

b) If the Society denies the allegation, would the Society confirm in writing that this comment was not made by its staff?

c) If the Society confirms the allegation, would the Society explain the worker’s conclusion reached so briefly after her first contact with the Applicant?

15The Response indicates that the Society’s file does not show any meetings of substance between the Child Protection Worker and the Applicant in March 2017. There is a record of contact at the end of April. The Society acknowledged that the Child Protection Worker made the comment, as quoted, and acknowledged that she believed it preferable if S was placed with his father and the father’s partner. The Society produced the full Casenote dealing with this conversation and attached the Casenote to the Response.

16The Applicant acknowledged that the conversation probably occurred at the end of April rather than March and that the Society’s Casenote and the discussion had given her the context and reasons for the comment. I find the Society has complied with Term 3.

DECISION

17For the reasons set out above, the CFSRB finds that the Society has complied with the Terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Applicant’s non-compliance complaint is dismissed and the CFSRB's file is now closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

18Pursuant to the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB 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 CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.