LD v. Brant Family and Children’s Services, 2018 CFSRB 63

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

LD

Applicant

-and-

Brant Family and Children’s Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens

Date: October 22, 2018

Citation: 2018 CFSRB 63

Indexed as: LD v Brant Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

LD, Applicant

Self-represented

Brant Family and Children’s Services, Respondent

Marilee Sherry, Representative

Background

1LD (the “Applicant”) and the Brant Family and Children’s Services (the “Society”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation meeting held on July 24, 2018, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised by the Applicant in her application dated June 11, 2018 to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The application concerned LD’s two children, born in 2016 and 2017.

3The signed Agreement contained three Terms, expressed as questions to the Society, seeking reasons and/or explanations from the Society.

4By letter dated August 16, 2018, the Society sent the Applicant its Response (“the Response”) to the issues raised in the Agreement.

5The Applicant alleged non-compliance by the Society in her letter dated August 28, 2018.

6In accordance with the CFSRB’s procedures when there is an allegation of non-compliance, I held a hearing by teleconference on October 12, 2018 to determine whether the Society had complied with the Agreement.

7At the beginning of the teleconference, I reviewed the purpose of the teleconference and the usual manner in which the CFSRB conducts a teleconference dealing with an allegation of non-compliance.

8In my introductory comments, I stated as I had done on July 24, the requirement for confidentiality, and inquired if either party was recording the teleconference. I routinely ask about recording in all mediation sessions and all non-compliance teleconferences.

9LD acknowledged that she was recording the teleconference. I asked LD to stop the recording, as it is common CFSRB practice to not permit such recording. LD responded that she could not stop the recording, as her telephone is programmed to record all conversations.

10I asked if LD could switch to an alternate phone that was not programmed in that matter. LD did not have another phone.

11LD wondered if we could replace the teleconference with a face-to-face meeting. I indicated that this would delay the process by a number of weeks, and would incur significant costs to the CFSRB and to both parties.

12I proposed that I would proceed by way of a documentary review. I pointed out that the Society’s Response and LD’s letter alleging non-compliance were both comprehensive and clear in their contents. I suggested that both parties had put forth their positions, and that based on this correspondence, I would proceed and make a determination of whether there was compliance by the Society. The suggestion of a documentary review of the parties’ positions was agreed to by both the Society and LD.

13I informed the parties that I would proceed in this manner.

14The parties were advised that I would make a decision shortly as to whether the Society had complied with the Agreement, and submit to the parties written reasons for such decision. The teleconference was then terminated.

15After reviewing the materials filed by both parties, I am satisfied the Society has complied with the Agreement. The reasons for this decision follow.

ANALYSIS

Analysis

16The letter from LD indicated that she accepted the Society’s Response to Terms 2 and 3.

17I then reviewed the remaining Term of the Agreement, which was written as follows:

Term 1: The Applicant wonders if more than a messy house was a factor in the April 30/2018 apprehension. What were the full reasons for this apprehension, and when was it planned and decided upon?

18LD wrote that she alleges non-compliance for two reasons, namely, that she “disagreed” with the reasons given, and that the documentation given by the Society “directly conflicts” with earlier documentation given to her as to the reasons for the removal of the children.

19Regarding the issue of not agreeing with the Society’s stated Response for Term 1, the test for determining compliance is not whether an Applicant agrees or disagrees with a Society’s Response. The test for determining compliance is whether the Society did give reasons for its decisions. At the initial mediation session on July 24, 2018, my introductory comments included the caution that a disagreement with a reason given by the Society does not mean that the Society failed to meet the standard set out in the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (“the Act”).

20The Act states as follows at section 120:

(4) 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.

21I find that the Society did give elaborate and detailed reasons. The section dealing with Term 1 covered 54 lines in the multi-page Response. The fact of LD disagreeing with the given reasons does not result in a finding of non-compliance.

22Furthermore, with regards to LD’s comment that the reasons given in the Response conflict with reasons given earlier, the Response included the following information. The Society identifies the concerns that it had for some time and which ultimately led to what LD labelled as an apprehension. These concerns included LD’s home being seen as an unsafe and hazardous home environment, the domestic violence in the home, the possible drug use in the home, her resumption of the relationship with the father of the children, and concerns about his mental health and its impact on the children.

23On April 30, 2018, the Family Services Worker (“the Worker”) went on a visit at LD’s home. She described the situation she encountered as being worse than what previously was known to the Society. Specifically, in the Response, the Worker documented in a detailed way what she observed on April 30 and which made the Worker conclude that the children were at risk.

24Her observations included: the state of the house as being a physical environment much worse than previously known; concerns about the supervision of the children; finding the children’s father hiding in a bedroom closet after the Worker was advised by LD that the children’s father was not in the home; concerns about the pattern of past domestic violence now becoming more acute with him back in the home; concerns about his emotional and mental health; and concerns about LD’s mental health issues impacting on her ability to care for the children.

25The Response also clarified a related issue, namely that the children were not apprehended by the Society, but rather that the decision was made by LD to place the children in the care of the children’s grandfather on the evening of April 30. This plan was supported by the Society.

26The Response described that the Worker discussed the level of concern about the above issues with LD. The Response also contained the following comments:

When this was discussed you offered for the children to stay with your parents for the night. You […] made several calls to your father […] and he came back to the home a short while late, and […] you told your father the concerns and asked if the children could stay with him. He agreed. It was after my attendance to the home on April 30, 2018, as well as speaking with you further that day and the following day, that further concerns became evident and such needed to be addressed. […] You agreed […] that the children could remain at their maternal grand-parents home, where you would spend the majority of your time, continuing to care for the children.

27The Response was clear in explaining the reality behind what LD had described as being in conflict with what she had been told before. The Response described multiple observations by the Worker that were updated once she had set foot in the house, and uncovered situations, as detailed above. This is not a case of one set of facts being in conflict with another set of facts. Rather, the Worker’s perception of the family situation changed significantly when she was physically present in the home. Thus, the Worker’s view of the risk to the children was an updated version, based on new observations made during the April 30 visit. This gave the Worker an updated view of the risk to the children. It was not a view that was in “conflict” with a prior view.

28In summary, to the specifics of Term 1, the Society advised LD that more than a messy house was a factor, and that the Society had not made an apprehension but rather had facilitated LD’s wish for her parents to look after the children. The Society also gave the multiple reasons for its decision, and stated that this decision was decided upon during the home visit by the Worker on April 30, 2018.

DECISION

Decision

29I am satisfied that the Society gave LD detailed and meaningful reasons for its action on the questions raised in Term 1 of the Agreement. Therefore, I find that the Society has complied with the Settlement Agreement. The complaint of non-compliance by LD is dismissed, and the CFSRB's file is closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

Confidentiality Order

30Pursuant to Rules 9.1 and 9.2 of 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.