DCG and MG v Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2019 CFSRB 39

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

DCG and MG Applicants

-and-

Family and Children’s Services Niagara Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Jennifer Scott Date: August 9, 2019 Citation: 2019 CFSRB 39 Indexed As: DCG and MG v Family and Children’s Services Niagara (CYFSA s. 192)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

BACKGROUND

2The Applicants wish to adopt a child who is the younger sister of their two adopted children.

3In their Application, the Applicants state that the Respondent has historically been supportive of their adoption application. However, they have recently been told the child’s foster parents have presented a plan to adopt the child. The Applicants state that they have not been given written notice that their application to adopt the child has been refused by the Respondent.

4The Applicants believe the child’s foster parents have filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) seeking a review of the Respondent’s proposed removal of the child from their care. They believe it makes sense to hear their Application and the foster parents’ application together.

ANALYSIS

5Section 192(2) of the Act requires a children’s aid society to give at least 10 days written notice of a decision to refuse an adoption application. When a person receives written notice under section 192(2), they may apply to the CFSRB for review of the decision to refuse an application to adopt within 10 days after receiving the written notice.

6The Applicants submit that the failure of the Respondent to follow its previously agreed upon plan to place the child with them is equivalent to a refusal of an adoption application and as such, the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear the Application.

7The Respondent submits that it has not made a decision to refuse the Applicants’ application to adopt the child.

8The Act is clear that the Respondent must provide written notice of an adoption refusal decision. It has not done so and has advised that it has not made a decision to refuse the applicants’ adoption application.

9I disagree with the submissions of the Applicants that the CFSRB has jurisdiction in this matter. To accept that submission would mean that the CFSRB can usurp the decision-making authority of the Respondent to decide whether to refuse the Applicants’ adoption application. The CFSRB sits in review of the Respondent’s decision. It is not the decision maker of first instance.

10The CFSRB has not received an application from the child’s foster parents seeking a review of the proposed removal of the child. If the Respondent receives such an application, it is directed to give notice to the Applicants’ counsel so that they may apply to be added as a party to that application.

11The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to hear this Application. As such, it is dismissed without prejudice to the Applicants’ ability to file a new application with the CFSRB if their application to adopt the child is refused by the Respondent.

ORDER

12The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

13Pursuant 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.