MG v. Peel Children’s Aid Society, 2020 CFSRB 5

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MG Applicant

-and-

Peel Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens Date: January 3, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 5 Indexed As: MG v Peel Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

MG, Applicant Self-represented

Peel Children’s Aid Society, Respondent David Sider, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant and the Peel Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on August 6, 2019, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in his Application, dated July 8, 2019, to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The Agreement contained 10 Terms, expressed as questions to the Society, which sought reasons and/or explanations from the Society. The parties agreed to a compliance date of October 7, 2019 and a non-compliance date of October 16, 2019.

3The Society sent a letter (the “Letter”), dated September 25, 2019, as its Response to the issues raised in the Agreement. The Letter was e-mailed to the Applicant on that date. The Letter was subsequently shared with the CFSRB.

4The Applicant sent an e-mail, dated October 16, 2019 to the CFSRB, advising that he considers “[…] that Peel CAS is in non-compliance of our agreement due to the bad faith responses provided.”

5In accordance with the CFSRB’s procedures, when there is an allegation of non-compliance, the CFSRB will hold a hearing by teleconference (the “Teleconference”) to determine whether the Society has complied with the Agreement. This Teleconference occurred on December 10, 2019.

DECISION

6After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, and hearing their oral 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 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”). The reasons for these findings follow.

ANALYSIS

The Law

7The CFSRB had previously found the application to be eligible for review under section 120 (4) 4 and 5 of the Act.

8The Act outlines the rights of Applicants, the duties and obligations of Children’s Aid Societies, and the mandate of the CFSRB.

9Section 120 of the Act reads as follows:

(4) The following may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2).

Subsection 15(2) reads as follows:

Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.

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.

10The 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.

11In 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: Why did the Society not charge the Applicant’s ex-wife with child abuse when the Society identified that she was emotionally abusing the Applicant’s two children, as documented in Society casenotes?

12The Letter explained that

Child Welfare agencies in Ontario do not prosecute persons who maliciously report child safety concerns. A provision under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act creates an avenue for a prosecution in Provincial Offenses Court but a Children’s Aid Society does not carry out the prosecution.

13The Applicant’s e-mail alleging non-compliance states that the Society sidestepped the question, and refers to “massive mistakes” by the Society, and states that the Society has put itself in “a non-defensible legal litigation position”. The Applicant suggested bad faith on the part of the Society in answering this question.

14In the subsequent discussion during the teleconference, the Applicant suggested that his ex used the Society as a weapon against him. The Society responded that a remedy could have been a finding that the children were in need of child protection, but that this was not applicable in this situation.

15Clearly the Society and the Applicant have very different positions on the question raised in Term 1, and the exchange between them did not bridge this difference.

16I find that the Society did answer the specific question in Term 1, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 2: The Applicant alleges that the Society failed to do anything to deal with serious parental alienation by both children towards the Applicant, around February 2015;

a) what actions did the Society take at that time to try to prevent/lessen this process?

b) What expertise was available to the Society (internally and externally) to deal with this issue?

17The Letter stated that Dr. M, a psychologist, was requested by the parents to provide counselling for the children as part of a family law court process underway at that time. Dr. M completed a report in September 2014, describing various circumstances in the family at the time. His report suggested that the circumstances did not fit the definition of parental alienation; he did provide recommendations for further actions for the family.

18A further plan was developed in February 2015 to address issues in the family, with a plan developed to address those issues.

19With regard to the issue of serious parental alienation, the Society relied on Dr. M’s report of September 2014, which suggested that parental alienation was not occurring in the family.

20The Society also involved Dr. S in the capacity of consultant and trainer in the area of high conflict child custody disputes, including providing information about parental alienation.

21The Applicant’s position is that neither Dr. M or Dr. S is an expert in parental alienation, and that the Society was negligent in not using an expert.

22The Society described the situation as one of high conflict, but that high conflict and parental alienation are not the same thing. The Society, in scaling this situation using the Eligibility Spectrum, coded it as “emotional harm” and not “parental alienation”.

23It is clear that the Applicant strongly disagrees with the activities of the Society. The Applicant believes that there is active parental alienation at play in this family. However, disagreement with the reasons and explanation given does not invalidate that the Society did answer the questions in Term 2, and thus I find that the Society met its obligations under the Agreement.

24I find that the Society gave substantive information and explanations on Term 2 and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 3: The Society’s casenote discussed at the 25 February 2015 meeting documents a plan by the Applicant’s son to attack the Applicant; what is the reason for the Society not informing the Applicant of his son’s plan?

25The Letter stated that indeed this issue was discussed at the meeting in question, and that the son’s plan had been described and discussed at that meeting by the OCL lawyer for the children. The plan was described by the lawyer as “the youth had advised that he was planning to get his father to hit him so that he did not have to return to his home.” This issue was to be followed up with Dr. SD, who was involved at that time in providing therapy for the children. The Society’s records also show that the Applicant was present for this meeting.

26The Applicant, in his e-mail, states that it was he who informed the meeting of his son’s plan, and not the Society or the OCL. He also stated that everyone at the meeting seemed to have been aware of the plan, and he faulted the Society for letting the child put himself in danger with his plan.

27In the discussion between the parties, the Society re-iterated that its casenote of February 25, 2015 documented that it was the OCL lawyer who advised the meeting of this plan, and that nothing in the record indicated that the Society had advance knowledge of the plan.

28It is not within the Board’s role to determine, ultimately, who told the meeting of the youth’s plan. However, regardless of the version that will prove itself to be the correct one, it is clear that the Applicant knew of the son’s plan, so the thrust of the question (i.e. why was the Applicant not told of the son’s plan), is moot given the Applicant’s position that he knew and that he informed the meeting.

29I note the significant difference between the parties’ recollections of this issue, and find that the Society did answer the question according to its documentation or recollection of the meeting which occurred more than 4 years ago, and clearly gave its explanation in its written response, thus meeting its obligations for Term 3 under the Agreement.

Term 4: For what reason did the Society, around March 2015, recommend a reduction in the Applicant’s access to his children?

30The Letter stated that the Society did not recommend a reduction in the Applicant’s access to his children, and that it did not make any decisions on this issue. Rather, the letter stated as follows:

During a meeting in February, 2015, changing existing arrangements for access exchanges was discussed as a way to reduce the conflict the children were experiencing. [The Applicant] agreed to make changes and have the access exchanges occur during the school day to reduce the conflict.

31As well, the letter described a meeting on March 9, 2015 involving the Society, the parents, their respective legal counsel, the OCL lawyer, the OCL clinical investigator, and Dr. SD. The Society wrote:

“Prior to this meeting, due to other factors, [the Applicant] and [the son] had stopped having access. At the March 9, 2015 meeting, an access schedule was developed and agreed upon. The Society did not take a position on access at that time.

32The Applicant in his e-mail alleging non-compliance wrote that the Society has had a continuing position against him having custody, and dismissed the Society explanation as a lie.

33I find that the Society gave substantive information on Term 4 and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 5: What is the reason for the file closure, in early 2016?

34The Letter gave three reasons for closing its file:

• the Society had noticed a decrease in the level of conflict;
• the daughter had indicated her relationship with the Applicant had improved;
• the family was receiving counselling and reports were that progress was being made.

35The Society also noted that the Applicant and his son were not having regular contact at that time, and that the son having turned 16 was outside the age range for child welfare services as defined by the Act then in force.

36The Applicant, in his e-mail, rejected the Society’s reasons as given, and stated that he believed the Society closed the file for other reasons, and asserted that the Society is acting in bad faith with this answer.

37I find that the Society gave clear reasons for Term 5 and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 6: Why didn’t the Society commence child welfare court proceedings, following the February 25, 2015 meeting?

38The Letter stated:

At the February 25, 2015 meeting there was agreement on a plan to address the concerns noted in that meeting and therefore child welfare court proceedings were not necessary.

39The Applicant in his e-mail wrote that he had requested child welfare proceedings, that he felt that his ex was abusing the children, and that the legislation applicable at the time did not allow the Society not to take the action as he requested.

40The Applicant wrote that he believes that the Society refused to act because it does not support fathers as custodial parents, and in particular did not support him as a custodial parent.

41In discussion between the parties, the Applicant re-iterated his view that he believed his ex was damaging his son, that child protection court should have been initiated, and that the Society was legally bound to proceed with such court action.

42This Term somewhat overlaps with Term 3, and again highlights the fundamental differences between the Society and the Applicant. However, notwithstanding the Applicant’s disagreement with the content of the response by the Society, I find that the Society did give its reason for its actions on Term 6 and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 7: Regarding a S.O.S.:

a) What is a S.O.S. (Sign of Safety) (reference to the February 14, 2014 casenote)?

b) What triggers its involvement?

c) What is its desired outcome?

d) Was this pursued for this family?

e) If no, why not?

43The Letter stated:

Signs of Safety is an approach to practice and this practice framework was being implemented at Peel CAS. One of the tools of this framework has been referred to as an SOS Board. The purpose of the SOS Board is to review and organize information. This would include a review of what has been working well, what are the worries and what are the planned next steps. This practice is organized around the safety of the children and is intended to be a balanced analysis of the risks and protective factors that exist within a family.

A review of Society records suggests that an SOS Board was done on July 7, 2014 in preparation for a scheduled July 14, 2014 meeting with the family. A meeting on July 14, 2014, appears to have followed a similar format to the structure of a Signs of Safety Board.

44The Applicant’s e-mail stated:

Peel CAS is attempting to assert they used a SOS Board on my case when in fact there is zero evidence to say they did. Giving Peel CAS the benefit of the doubt and assuming they did; then Peel CAS does not understand the SOS Framework well enough to execute it as the basis of the framework is to look at all of the evidence holistically and re-evaluate their line of thinking; which I consider a significant issue with their ability to analyze and deduct data.

Peel CAS held onto a false narrative and continues to rigidly hold onto their false narrative in their responses.

45There was no dialogue of substance between the parties on this Term. The two written positions of the parties reveal the major difference between their views.

46I find that the Society gave the requested information and explanations on Term 7 and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 8: Regarding parental alienation:

a) Why was the Applicant not “brought into the loop” regarding discussions about parental alienation?

b) Why was a parental alienation expert not used?

47The Letter recognized that the Applicant on a number of occasions had raised the issue of parental alienation. Specifically, on June 24, 2014 the Applicant advised the Society of his belief that there was active parental alienation, and that the psychologist Dr. M would identify such parental alienation.

48Dr. M did not make a finding of parental alienation. As follow-up, Dr. SD provided therapeutic support for the family. Thus, the Society was providing services to the family for the identified issues of the children’s exposure to conflict, and the risk of emotional harm following the parents’ separation.

49The Applicant’s e-mail indicated that his arguments made in writing relating to Term 1 and Term 2(b) also apply to Term 8.

50In discussion, the Society re-iterated that the Applicant was “in the loop” all along, as he kept bringing up the issue. The Society re-iterated that parental alienation has not been found, and that its intervention plan focussed on the issues that were active and relevant in the family at the time.

51I find that the Society gave substantive response on Term 8 and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 9: Why did the Society not tell the Applicant about his children running from the Applicant’s home, during access visits starting on November 27, 2013?

52The Letter stated that its records show that on 5 occasions, the Applicant’s son had thought about leaving his father’s home. The record also refers to an occasion when the son was out of the house while the Applicant was shopping, and the son stayed out and later returned.

53The Society records also show that a meeting in March 2015 was attended by the Applicant, and that at that meeting Dr. SD shared the information that the Applicant’s son did not want to be in his father’s home.

54The child did on a number of occasions talk about considering leaving his father’s home and wanting to go live with his mother. The Society’s records note that the child never ran away from his father’s residence, during the time of the Society’s involvement.

55The Applicant wrote, in his e-mail, that his children did run from his home, and that he found this out on his own, rather than learning it from the Society. He attributes this to his view that the Society has a prejudiced stance against him, and that it is lying in its response.

56Again here, I note the substantial difference between the parties’ respective positions.

57I find that the Society response on Term 9 met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 10: Why was the Applicant not notified when the Society became aware of expressed suicidal ideation (for instance on February 11, 2015)?

58The Letter stated that the Society is not aware of a case note making reference to February 11, 2015 and suicidal ideation. The Society wrote that on March 9, 2015, there was a conversation, with the Applicant present, where Dr. SD gave an update on the Applicant’s son. Specifically, Dr. SD reported that the child “[…] had some suicidal ideation but there was no plan and [the child] was not impulsive.”

59The Society also wrote “On April 9, 2015, Dr. SD reported an improvement in [the child’s] suicidal ideation. Mr. [Applicant] was present for that meeting.”

60The Applicant in his e-mail wrote in the strongest terms that he finds the society’s response to this Term as “distasteful to the core” and displaying “a massive arrogance” by the Society. He wrote that the Society “needs to be refactored and the executives terminated and replaced with people who understand the true horrors of abuse and family-based destruction.”

61The Applicant also stated that he had just learned less than two weeks before the teleconference that his son had attempted suicide two years ago. In addition to the written comments, the Applicant stated that he believes that this suicide attempt was the result of negligence by the Society

62I find that the Society responded to the issue, in the relevant timeframe, raised in Term 10, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

OBSERVATION

63In reviewing the written documents submitted prior to the teleconference, and hearing the oral presentations from both parties, I recognize that the Applicant has faced some very difficult family situations, and that these were aggravated by the issue of the threat of a possible suicide action by the child.

ORDER

64In the context of the mediation session of August 6, 2019 and its response to the Settlement Agreement signed by the parties on that date, I find that the Society has met its obligations, as required by the Settlement Agreement and the Act. Therefore, the allegation of non-compliance is dismissed, and the CFSRB's file is closed as settled

CONFIDENTIALITY

65Pursuant 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.