WD v. Family and Children's Services of the Waterloo Region, 2019 CFSRB 26

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

WD

Applicant

-and-

Family and Children's Services of the Waterloo Region

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Gail Gonda

Date: May 14, 2019

Citation: 2019 CFSRB 26

Indexed As: WD v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

(CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

1W.D. (the “Applicant”) and Family and Children's Services of the Waterloo Region (the “Society”) entered into a Mediation/Adjudication Agreement (the “Agreement”) on October 18, 2018 providing for full settlement of all issues raised by the Applicant in his application to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) dated July 4, 2018.

2The Agreement between the parties provided for an implementation date of November 30, 2018 and a non-compliance date of December 5, 2018.

3On November 19, 2018, the Applicant informed the CFSRB that the Society had not complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) signed by the parties on October 18, 2018.

4A teleconference with the parties was held on December 13, 2018 to review what actions had been taken by the Society regarding the terms of the Agreement.

5The Society confirmed that a meeting with the Applicant and his support person had taken place on November 13, 2018 as per the terms of the Agreement.

6The Society acknowledged that it had failed to send a copy of the minutes of the meeting held with the Applicant along with written explanations for the actions that it had taken with regard to the issues identified in a Pre-Hearing Report dated September 12, 2018 in accordance with the terms of the Agreement.

7The Society apologized for this oversight and committed to providing a copy to the Applicant and the CFSRB as soon as possible. The Applicant agreed to continue the discussion regarding the issue of compliance once he had received and reviewed the Society's written submissions.

8A second teleconference was held with the parties on February 11, 2019. During the discussion, the Applicant outlined his concerns regarding the meeting and the written submissions provided by the Society.

9There was no one present from the Society on the teleconference call who had been present during the mediation or at the meeting that took place on November 13, 2018 with the Applicant and who could respond to the Applicant's concerns. As a result, the Society was directed to provide a response to the Applicant's concerns in writing by February 25, 2019. The Applicant was directed to reply to the Society's response in writing, if he wished, by March 11, 2019 which was extended to March 21, 2019.

10The Society provided its submission on February 25, 2019. No additional submissions were received from the Applicant.

11Having reviewed the submissions, I find that the Society complied with the terms of the Agreement.

BACKGROUND

12On October 18, 2018, the parties agreed to mediation and arrived at a full settlement and agreed on the following terms:

• The Society will schedule a meeting with the Applicant and his support person to hear the issues outlined in the Pre-Hearing Report dated September 12, 2018. The Worker, supervisor and manager associated with the Applicant's case will attend the meeting on behalf of the Society.

• The Society will provide a written summary of the meeting to the Applicant that includes written explanations for the actions it has taken with regard to the issues identified.

ANALYSIS

13The Applicant summarized his concerns regarding the meeting and the written response from the Society during the teleconference held on February 11, 2019 as follows:

• The Society did not meet the timelines for providing him with a summary of the meeting that took place on November 13, 2018 as set out in the Agreement;

• The Society has not met its commitment to investigate his daughter's attendance at school;

• The Society has not met its commitment to arrange meetings with his daughter;

• The Society did not provide an answer to why it took the action that it did with regard to placing his daughter with kin when they knew that the Applicant had joint custody of her.

Concern #1: The Society did not meet the timelines for providing him with a summary of the meeting that took place on November 13, 2018 as set out in the Agreement

14The Society acknowledged during the teleconference held on December 13, 2018 that it had failed to provide the Applicant with the written summary and explanations as agreed and apologized for this oversight. The Applicant was provided with a copy subsequently and he was given time to review the material and identify any concerns that he had with the Society's submission during the teleconference held on February 11, 2019.

15I agree that the Society did not initially comply with the timeline for the written response to the Applicant. However, it acknowledged its failure to do so and remedied the matter by providing him with a copy and therefore ultimately complied with the Agreement.

Concern #2: The Society has not met its commitment to investigate his daughter's attendance at school

16This concern was one of the issues identified in the Pre-Hearing report dated September 12, 2018 and one of the matters to be heard as agreed during the meeting between the parties held on November 13, 2018.

17The Society's submissions included a copy of a summary of the meeting that took place with the Applicant on November 13, 2018 as agreed to in the terms of the Agreement. A letter to the Applicant dated November 20, 2018 was attached to this summary. This letter was meant to address issues identified in the pre-hearing report related to allegations that the Society failed to consider the Applicant's home as a placement for his child in responding to a child protection matter.

18There are references in the minutes of the meeting held on November 13, 2018 that the issue was discussed as agreed. In the Society's February 25, 2019 submission, it stated that school attendance was not an issue during the period of the Society's involvement with the Applicant. Furthermore, the Society noted that it had placed a call to the school Principal to enquire about the matter and was committed to sharing any information it received with the Applicant. In addition, the Society emphasized the right that the Applicant has to enquire of the school directly regarding this matter.

19The Society was not a party to the custody agreement between the Applicant and his child's mother. The Applicant and the child's mother were responsible for the child's attendance at school and this was a matter between them and the school. It was not perceived by the Society to be a child protection matter.

20I find that the Society provided an adequate response to this concern and therefore complied with the Agreement.

Concern #3: The Society has not met its commitment to arrange meetings with his daughter

21The minutes of the meeting held on November 13, 2018, indicate that this was one of the issues discussed at the meeting as agreed. Furthermore, in its February 25, 2019 submission, the Society stated the following:

“The Society has made multiple attempts to arrange meetings between [the child] and [the Applicant]. Unfortunately, [the child] has been declining to meet with [the Applicant] and even when offered support of the Society and to have the kinship worker attend a meeting with her and [the Applicant], she has declined. [The child] continues to meet with a counsellor who supports [the child's] position around visits.”

22The Society further stated that it remained committed to offer assistance to facilitate a repair of the relationship between the Applicant and his child. However, it noted that it is involved on a voluntary basis and cannot demand or force the child to meet with the Applicant.

23I conclude that the Society has complied with the terms of the Agreement as reflected in the minutes and in its response of February 25, 2019.

Concern #4: The Society did not provide an answer to why it took the action that it did with regard to placing his daughter with kin when they knew that the Applicant had joint custody of her

24The Applicant had identified this concern as one of the issues outlined in the pre-hearing report. The terms of the Agreement specified that the matter be discussed at the meeting between the parties and that the Society provide a written explanation for its actions with regard to the matter.

25The minutes of the meeting held on November 13, 2018 make multiple references to this matter. These references make it clear that the arrangement for the child to be placed with the maternal aunt was made by the child's mother's side of the family and did not include the Applicant. The minutes also make it clear that at the time, the Society had no knowledge of the existing court order granting joint custody to both parents. It is noted in the minutes that this is not information that the Society would have the right to unless provided by one or the other of the parents. At the time the Society became involved in the protection matter, the child was already residing with her maternal aunt.

26It was not the Society's role to comply with the terms of the court order. The onus was on the child's parents to do so and specifically for the child's mother to have contacted the Applicant in the event that she was unable to care for the child. The child's mother did not do so.

27The Society outlined the same explanation in a letter to the Applicant dated November 20, 2018 which was attached to the minutes of the meeting. This letter stated the following:

“The Final Custody Order dated March 14, 2008 states: If either party cannot care for the child for a period of more than three (3) hours, excluding for employment purposes, they should first consult with the other party as to whether or not they are able to care for the child prior to arranging their party care.”

28The Society acknowledged in the letter that the plan should have been for the child's mother to have consulted with the Applicant and that this was not done. The Society became involved in October, 2017 with the child's mother due to protection concerns. At the time, the maternal side of the family had already made a plan for the child along with other children in the home to be placed with the maternal aunt.

29A plan to move the child to the Applicant's home was made in April, 2018. There were no concerns noted with regard to the child being placed there. The other family members were advised of this and the child continued visiting with the Applicant. By June 2018, the Applicant and the child's mother were involved in custody and access matters before the court. At the same time, the relationship between the child and the Applicant had deteriorated and the child stopped visiting with him.

30It was not the Society's decision to place the child with kin; it was the mother's decision. As stated in a previous paragraph, the Society remains supportive of contact between the Applicant and the child, but cannot demand or force the child to meet with him. The Society's position on the matter was reiterated in its February 25, 2019 submission.

31I find that the Society complied with the terms of the Agreement regarding this concern. This is clearly reflected in both the minutes of the meeting and in the letter to the Applicant attached to the minutes as well as in the Society's February 25, 2019 submission.

DECISION

32I am satisfied that the Society complied with the terms of the Agreement and the allegation of non-compliance by WD is dismissed. The file is now closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

33Pursuant 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.