LL v. Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, 2021 CFSRB 21

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

LL Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: March 25, 2021 Citation: 2021 CFSRB 21 Indexed As: LL v Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

LL, Applicant Kim Landry, Representative

Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, Respondent Tony Circelli, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1A pre-hearing in this matter was held on January 11, 2021. The Application consisted of complaints under section 120(4)(4) and 120(4)(5) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1. The complaints focused on the Applicant’s concerns with the Respondent’s apprehension of her son (“R”); the placement of R in the custody of his father’s sister “L”; the Respondent’s failure to support reunification; the Applicant’s concerns with R’s safety and wellbeing; and the treatment she received from Respondent staff.

2The Applicant and the Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (the Respondent) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on January 11, 2021, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in the Application, received on June 24, 2020 by the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

3The Agreement contained 13 Terms which contained questions which the Respondent agreed to answer. The Settlement Agreement had an implementation date of February 19, 2021, and a non-compliance date of February 26, 2021.

4The Respondent sent the Applicant a letter on February 12, 2021 with its responses to the Terms outlined in the Agreement. The Applicant responded with an e-mail dated February 26, 2021 in which she alleged that the Respondent had not complied with several of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

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 March 22, 2021.

DECISION

6After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, and hearing their arguments, I find that the Respondent has partially 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”).

7The reasons for my findings are as follows.

ANALYSIS

The Law

8The CFSRB found the Application to be eligible for review under section 120 of the Act. The Act outlines the rights of Applicants, the duties and obligations of Children’s Aid Societies, and the mandate of the CFSRB.

9Section 120(4) of the Act reads as follows:

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2).
2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2).
5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
6. Such other matters as may be prescribed.

Subsection 120(7) indicates that: 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 a Society in any 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.

The Teleconference

12Throughout the Teleconference, the Applicant expressed concerns with the actions of the Respondent, the evidence the Respondent presented at various Court proceedings, and decisions by the Court at various proceedings. I reminded the Applicant I would not make any findings of fact regarding the actions of the Court or the Respondent in the non-compliance process. I would focus on whether the Respondent provided a reasonable response to the questions included in the Settlement Agreement.

13At the end of the Teleconference, the Applicant asked me about the confidentiality of the proceedings. I explained that the mediation and non-compliance process and any documents related to this process are covered by the CFRSB’s confidentiality provisions. If the Applicant wishes to have the confidentiality provisions waived, she can ask the CFSRB or a Court for an order.

14The Applicant did not raise any non-compliance allegations concerning Term 1.

Terms of the Agreement

Term 2: Can the Respondent provide reasons for its decision to leave R (the Applicant’s son) in the care of JL after the Applicant provided it with a list of safety concerns, including: the fact that J was not following COVID isolation protocols (going to dinner party); risks associated with the alleged criminal activities of J’s partner; and placing the child within the same abusive family that the Applicant and child left because of the abuse?

15The Applicant alleged that the Respondent’s responses were false. She disagreed with the Respondent’s conclusion that COVID protocols were not protection concerns, and she was concerned that the Respondent did not follow through on J’s partner’s criminal record. She also reiterated her concern that R was placed in an allegedly abusive home.

16I find that the Respondent clearly indicated that R was placed pursuant to a final custody order, and that the Judge was aware of J’s partner’s criminal record. The Response indicated that COVID protocols are not child protection matters. Finally, the response indicated that the Respondent does not impute wrongdoing to J because of her brother’s actions.

17I find that the Respondent clearly addressed the concerns raised by the Applicant in this Term and therefore it has complied with Term 2 of the Agreement.

Terms 3 - 6:

Why did the Respondent consider extended society care as an option for the child before they explored the possibility of reunification between the Applicant and R?

Why did the Respondent not move on reunification between the Applicant and her son after she had successfully completed the requirements given to her by the Respondent?

What are the Respondent’s current plans for reunification between the Applicant and R? Please explain the rationale for the plans. Is the Respondent obliged by the law or by regulations to work on reunification between the Applicant and her son?

What additional things are required of the Applicant to enable the Respondent to initiate work on reunification?

18The Applicant refuted the Respondent’s assessment of her parenting knowledge and skills, as well as the Respondent’s negative conclusions based on her failed drug tests and marijuana use. The Applicant alleged that she was told that the Respondent would reunify her with her son; however, the Respondent had no intentions of doing this and did not support or try reunification before J was afforded custody. The Applicant has complied with the requirements set out for her and her life has become more stable. She indicated that the Judge supported her parenting skills through the decision to increase her access. The Applicant argued that the Respondent has not cared to assess her current level of parenting skills and abilities in the context of reunification.

19The Respondent indicated that documents filed in Court identified its concerns with the Applicant’s parenting. The Applicant did not comply with the Respondent’s expectations and the Court endorsed this position in the final order placing R in the custody of J. The Custody Order is permanent and there are no plans for reunification. In order to expand the current level of access, the Respondent expects that Applicant to demonstrate emotional stability, drug free lifestyle, life free of conflict, appropriate housing, and refraining from interfering with the care provided by J. The Respondent indicated that custody is a form of permanence and therefore reunification is not contemplated.

20Responses 3 – 6 explain the Respondent’s rationale and activities related to its position on reunification. It is clear from the response that Respondent staff were concerned with the Applicant’s ability to parent and her behaviour and that this was the reason for seeking a custody order instead of family reunification. The Respondent’s position and current plans regarding reunification are clearly stated in their response.

21Taken as a whole, I find that Responses 3 – 6 provide the Applicant with a reasonable explanation for the Respondent’s position and actions regarding reunification. As such, I find that the Respondent has complied with Terms 3 – 6.

Terms 7-8: The Applicant is unclear about the current legal status regarding who has custody of R. Can the Respondent explain clearly what is the current status of R in relation to child protection (custody)?

The Applicant was under the impression that R was in a kinship placement. How does custody differ from a kinship placement?

22The Applicant indicated that she was of the opinion that the Court was considering a kinship placement rather than custody. She indicated that Respondent staff informed her of this.

23The Respondent indicated during the Teleconference that the Applicant consented to the Statement of Agreed Facts and Custody Order of December 5, 2017. She was represented by counsel during these proceedings. Kinship Orders are temporary placements. The Kinship placement ended when the final Custody Order was made.

24While the Applicant contends that she was deceived regarding the nature of the Order, I find that the Respondent’s written responses, as well as Counsel’s clarification during the Teleconference provide are adequate and reasonable with respect to Terms 7 and 8.

Term 9: After the complaint was made to Public Health regarding the sanitary conditions of the North Wellington Office where access visits were held, what procedures were implemented by the Respondent to ensure that the toys and access space were sanitized after they were used by each child?

25The Applicant indicated that her mother complained to two staff members and that she noticed conditions improved after Public Health investigated. The Applicant indicated that her mother also complained about urine and vomit not being cleaned up at the Office.

26The Respondent indicated that it was not aware of any public health complaints in its written response to the Applicant. At the Teleconference, Counsel clarified that he was informed by a Supervisor that there had been a complaint lodged with Public Health regarding the cleanliness of the toys in the North Wellington Office. Respondent staff corrected the issues and Public Health is currently satisfied. Counsel indicated that he was not aware of any ongoing Public Health Issues with the Office.

27Regarding Term 9, I find, that the Respondent has not provided a response as to what cleaning and sanitizing procedures were implemented to ensure that toys and access pace were appropriate. As such, I find that the Respondent has not provided an adequate response to this Term.

Term 10: The Applicant maintains that she was informed by Respondent staff (KI, Mary J who is retired; MS, and MS - Supervisor) that she would never be able to parent R again. Can the Respondent explain why the Applicant would be told this by their workers? On what basis did the Respondent staff make this conclusion?

28The Applicant indicated that Respondent staff informed her that she would never have R returned to her, from day one. She indicated that she felt that the Respondent was trying to have R adopted rather than having him returned to her care.

29The written Response indicated that staff may have used language which was perceived as harsh, but that R was placed in the custody of J which is a permanent resolution. At the Non-Compliance Teleconference, Counsel indicated that the Applicant had the opportunity to raise any concerns regarding the motivations of Respondent staff during the various Court proceedings.

30I find that the response acknowledges that staff may have used language that was perceived to be harsh. The response indicates that the staff concluded that the Applicant would not have R returned to her as the R was subject to a Custody Order. The Custody Order contemplated some level of access and parenting by the Applicant.

31I find that the response addresses the rationale for why Respondent staff would tell the Applicant that R would not be returned to her based on the fact that he was subject to a Custody Order. As such, I find that the Respondent has complied with Term 10.

Term 11: The Applicant indicated that her access time with R was interrupted by workers and other Respondent staff interacting with her on non-parenting issues. Why was the Applicant’s dedicated access time with R not respected?

32The Applicant alleged that her access time was interrupted by staff, including Counsel, and MS on two occasions. This intimidated and upset her which interfered with her ability to demonstrate her parenting skills as she alleged that it was expected by Respondent staff that she not show emotions in front of the child.

33The Respondent indicated that Respondent staff did not supervise visits after the CYFSA proceedings with the exception of 2 visits.

34I find that the Respondent did not provide a reasonable explanation as to why the access visits with R were interrupted by Counsel or staff to deal with non-parenting issues. As such, I find that the Respondent has not complied with Term 11.

Term 12: The Applicant indicated that she felt that the interactions between Respondent staff and her were not respectful. Can the Society review the case notes in light of these concerns, and provide a written response to the Applicant regarding these concerns?

35The Applicant indicated that she felt that Respondent staff mistreated her and did not take into account that she was a 17-year-old mother who was abused by her partner and his family. It was disrespectful for the Respondent to recommend placing R into the same abusive family. The Applicant did everything that was requested of her. She felt that the Respondent staff did not want to cooperate with her because she complained about staff and her mother complained to Public Health.

36The Respondent indicated that it took a firm approach with the Applicant that may have been perceived as disrespectful. The Applicant can address any specific complaints about particular workers to a manager.

37While the response addresses the approach the Respondent staff took to the Applicant, it does not address whether or not the Respondent reviewed case notes in light of the alleged disrespect and did not provide a written response to any documented cased of disrespectful interactions. As such, I find that the Respondent has not complied with Term 12.

Term 13: How can the Applicant and the Respondent support positive interpersonal interactions in the best interests of R?

38The Applicant alleged that the Respondent has not complied with its duty to reunify her with R and this has resulted in harm to R, to her and her family. The Respondent does not provide her with any information about her son.

39The Respondent indicated that after the CYFSA case was concluded, that the Respondent had no further involvement with the Applicant.

40Given the Respondent’s response to questions regarding custody and permanence (above) and given that the Applicant’s file was closed after the final Custody Order, I find that the Respondent’s response that it no longer has any further involvement with the Applicant to be reasonable. As such, the Respondent has complied with Term 13.

ORDER

41For the reasons given, I find the Respondent has fully met its obligations to provide reasons and explanations for its decisions related to Terms 1 -8, and 13 in accordance with the Agreement and as required under the Act.

42I find that the Respondent has not fulfilled its obligations to provide reasons and explanations regarding Terms 9, 11, and 12 and makes the following order:

• On or before April 9, 2021, the Respondent will provide the Applicant and the CFSRB with a written response as to what procedures were implemented by the Respondent to ensure that the toys and access space were sanitized after use?
• On or before April 9, 2021, the Respondent will provide the Applicant and the CFSRB with a written response as to which staff (including Counsel) interrupted access visits with R, and for what purpose.
• On or before April 9, 2021, the Respondent will review the Applicant’s file for any disrespectful interactions and provide a written response regarding any disrespectful interactions that were highlighted. The Respondent will also confirm with the Applicant and the CFSRB in writing that it has reviewed the file in relation to the Applicant’s concerns in Item 12.

43The file will be closed once I have reviewed the responses.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

44Pursuant 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 online. 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.