VJC v. Family and Children's Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, 2019 CFSRB 11

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

VJC Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens Date: March 12, 2019 Citation: 2019 CFSRB 11 Indexed as: VJC v Family and Children's Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

VJC, Applicant Self-represented

Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, Respondent Tina Tom, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant and the Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington (the “Society”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on October 23, 2018, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in the Application, dated September 14, 2018 to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The Agreement contained eight Terms, expressed as questions to the Society, which sought reasons and/or explanations from the Society. The parties agreed to a compliance date of November 20, 2018 and a non-compliance date of December 4, 2018.

3The Society sent a letter (the “Letter”), dated November 20, 2018, as its Response to the issues raised in the Agreement. The Letter was addressed to the Applicant, and was subsequently shared with the CFSRB.

4The Applicant sent an e-mail, dated November 27, 2018, to the CFSRB, advising that he “is declaring non-compliance, and is not satisfied with the Society’s responses.”

5In accordance with the CFSRB’s procedures, when there is an allegation of non-compliance, the CFSRB held a hearing by teleconference (the “Teleconference”) on January 21 and February 28, 2019 to determine whether the Society had complied with the Agreement.

DECISION

6After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, and hearing their arguments, I find that the Society met its commitments and obligations as set out in the Agreement and as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”). The reasons for these findings follow.

PRELIMINARY MATTER

7The Applicant sought accommodation to address his literacy issues which he explained makes reviewing written correspondence challenging. The CFSRB spent more time in hearing verbal representations from the Applicant, resulting in two Teleconference sessions being required. In addition, the applicant's support person, a human services professional from his community, was present at all times. At several times during the hearing I confirmed the Applicant understood the proceedings and felt able to participate.

ANALYSIS

The Law

8The Act outlines the Society’s obligations and the mandate of the CFSRB. Section 120 reads as follows:

(4) The following 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.

(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint

9The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or validity of a decision made by the Society in the given situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.

10In an allegation of non-compliance, an applicant’s statement of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society does not negate or invalidate those reasons.

Terms of the Agreement

Term 1: Concerning the “follicle hair test” done around 2007, would the Society provide an explanation about the following aspects:

a) Which organization did the referred-to test?

b) Was the Motherisk lab involved in these tests?

c) What was the outcome of the tests?

d) Why did the Society staff still using this 2007 test by making it available to the clinical investigator (OCL)?

e) More recent tests were done in early 2017; the Applicant believes the results of these tests were negative; were the results shared with the clinical investigator (OCL), and how did these results lead to the recent labelling of the Applicant by the Society as a current drug user?

11The Letter stated the date of the test, the name of the organization that did the test, and the date that the results were received. Specifically, the letter stated that the Motherisk lab was not involved in the Applicant’s hair test. The Letter spelled out the names of the four substances which showed positive test results and the names of the three substances which showed negative test results; the Society attached to its Letter a copy of the two reports received from the testing organization in May of 2007. The Society stated that it is not aware that this hair follicle test result was made available to the OCL. As to part e) of Term 1, the Society confirms that the Applicant’s 2017 drug test was negative for any drugs; based on a consent from the Applicant, the Society shared these results with the OCL, and the Society denies that it labelled the Applicant as a current drug user.

12I find that the Society gave substantive information and explanations on Term 1 a) through e), and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 2: The Applicant believes that his child V was sexually assaulted by AG this past July. Does the Society accept his belief as correct or does the Society believe that the Applicant’s belief is in error?

13The Society’s Letter outlined a number of steps taken after the Applicant’s referral to the Society, alleging that his 15-year old daughter disclosed to him that she had been sexually abused. The Society advised him to contact the local police; the Society and the police did a joint investigation. At the end of the investigation, the Society did not verify the abuse, and the police determined “that there was insufficient information to support a criminal offense had occurred”. In direct response to the question posed in Term 2, the Letter stated: “The Society understands and accepts that an impact of its verification decision is that [the Applicant] feels the Society does not believe him.”

14I find that the Society gave a substantive answer to the question posed in Term 2, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 3: Did the Society play a role in the decision to

a) Keep the 3 youngest children out of school for an extended period of time (March-April 2017) and early September 2018)?

b) Place the children in a different school (against the December 2017 court order of no change in schools)?

If the Society did play a role, how was this in the children’s best interests?

15The Society’s Letter gave two unequivocal responses to the questions posed in a) and b) of Term 3. The Letter stated “The Society did not play a role in his three youngest children being kept out of school in the March-April 2017 timeframe as this was a decision made solely by […] the mother of these children. As well, the letter continued: “The Society did not play a role in the three youngest children being kept out of school in September 2018.” Again, the Society wrote that this decision was made by the mother of the children, and that the Society had advocated against the mother’s decision, and encouraged both parents to have the issue of custody and access decided by the court.

16With regard to the balance of Term 3, the Society wrote as follows.

The Society acknowledges it did play a role in the three youngest children being placed in a different school in the Fall of 2018. In early September 2018 the Society was aware that [the Applicant]’s ex-partner was trying to change the children’s school to a school closer to where she was living, as well as refusing to allow the children to attend their previous school. The Society’s concern at this time was to ensure the children were attending school while [he] and his ex-partner attended Family Court, and as a result confirmed with the […] District School Board that the children were currently residing with their mother. The Society acknowledges that this information allowed [his] ex-partner to enrol the children in a new school and that [The Applicant] was not in agreement with this.

The Society provided this information to the […] District School Board as it was of the view that it was in the children’s best interests to be attending school while [The Applicant] and his ex-partner attempted to resolve all interim custody and access issues at Family Court.

17I find that the Society gave substantive answers to the question posed in Term 3, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 4: The Applicant believes that the younger children would prefer to live in his home rather than with their mother, and he believes that the worker is fully aware of this:

a) is the above first statement correct?

b) is the worker aware of this?

18The Letter stated as follows, in regard to Term 4:

The above statement is not correct as the Family Services Worker has never been told by any of the younger children, at any time they have been interviewed, that they would prefer to live in [the Applicant’s] home rather than with their mother. The children have routinely vocalized wanting to see both [The Applicant] and their mother.

19I find that the Society gave a direct answer that answered the question of Term 4, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 5: The Applicant states that he has joint custody of the 4 younger children; he believes he is “left out of the loop” in terms of the Society’s involvement with these 4 children:

a) Why is this situation as such for the Applicant?

b) How can this situation become more balanced?

20The Letter stated as follows, in regard to Term 5:

The Society does not agree that [The Applicant] has been “left out of the loop” with regards to his children as the Society communicates regularly with [him] and responds to his request for information. The Society acknowledges there are sometimes limits on the actual information that he can be provided with in the absence of a consent from his ex-partner or a valid Family Court Order.

The Society has made efforts to ensure [The Applicant] has been provided with as much information as possible, including writing closing letters. The Society makes efforts to ensure the closing letters include sharing appropriate information on why a file was opened, observations and any recommendations regarding the safety of the children.

21I find that the Society gave a substantive answer to the questions posed in Term 5, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 6: Does the Society have current protection concerns about the Applicant’s relationship with his children? If yes, what are these concerns?

22The Letter stated that the Society’s current protection concern relates to the children being exposed to conflict arising out of the current custody and access dispute, and that this puts the children at risk of emotional harm.

23I find that the Society gave a concise, clear, and specific answer to the questions posed in Term 6, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 7: The Applicant believes that the Society minimizes the concerns he expresses about A.G.’s parent capacity. How can his concerns be seen as more credible by the Society?

24The Letter stated as follows:

The Society denies that it minimizes [The Applicant]’s concerns regarding his ex-partner’s parenting capacity. The Society has consistently received [his] concerns, determined whether they need to be followed up on (or have already been followed up on), completes the necessary follow-up, and notifies [him] of the outcome of the follow-up regarding the safety of his children.

The outcome of the Society’s follow-up is not based on [The Applicant]’s credibility but instead on a review of all the information gathered, including from [him]. As a result, the Society does not have any suggestions on how [he] can be seen as more credible as the Society accepts that [h] is concerned about safety of his children while in the care of their mother.

25I find that the Society gave a substantive explanation on Term 7, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 8: Why were the results of the 2017 ICRP not followed through on (e.g. the typeset and ease of understanding of the ICRP descriptive pamphlet, the references to CFSRB being an alternative option for the Applicant)?

26The Society’s Letter outlined a number of steps taken to implementing the recommendations of the ICRP. It did acknowledge that this is taking longer than anticipated, as there were changes in the legislation in April 2018 that impacted the complaint process. There have been changes to the presentation and the layout of the pamphlet, including the Applicant’s suggestion about a different typeset.

27The Society reminded the Applicant that the letter following the 2017 ICRP included a notification to him that he had the option of taking his complaint directly to the CFSRB.

28I find that the Society gave a substantive answer with specific examples to the question posed in Term 8, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

ORDER

29For the reasons given I find the Society met its obligations to provide reasons and explanations for its decisions in accordance with the Agreement and as required under the Act. Therefore, the allegation of non-compliance is dismissed, and the CFSRB's file is closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

30Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 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.