CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
AV
Applicant
-and-
Brant Family and Children’s Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Silvia Novak
Indexed As: AV v Brant Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
AV, Applicant
Self-represented
Brant Family and Children’s Services, Respondent
Carole Jenkins, Counsel
Introduction
1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).
2The Application was found eligible to proceed under section 120(4)(4) and 120(4)(5). It is alleged that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when she raised concerns about the services she received; and the Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected her interests.
background
3The Applicant is the 16-year-old sister/aunt of 5 children who are in foster care.
4The Applicant lives at home with her parents. The parents have in person access to the 5 children. In her application she advised that since March she has not been able to have in person access with her siblings. She feels the Society has “failed to maintain beneficial and meaningful relationships between family members”.
5In her Application she advised she sent a letter to the Respondent requesting in-person access and that they advised her she could not have in person access due to COVID related restrictions.
6In it’s Summary Response, the Respondent denied the allegations and provided contextual information. They advised while the children are in care, supervised access has been arranged for the family and that 2 supervisors are necessary. The Respondent’s COVID related protocols generally restricts in person access to parents and children in-care, however an exception was temporarily made for this family. During in person access some family members (not the Applicant) failed to follow staff’s direction making it difficult to provide adequate supervision. In February 2021 the Respondent advised the father of the family that access would have to be limited “due to ongoing concerns with the spread of Covid-19”. The Applicant has been invited to attend virtual access with her siblings. The Respondent also included copies of their COVID related protocol, the Applicant’s letter of complaint and their response letter dated April 15th, 2021.
7The Applicant’s letter to the Society details her experience of virtual access, the impact of not having in-person access to her siblings, her worries about their relationships and her belief that the termination of her in-person access was unfair and not due to COVID related restrictions.
8In their April 15th 2021 response letter to the Applicant the Society acknowledged: things have been difficult for her and her family; the importance of sibling relationships; her belief that they were not supporting those relationships; and her belief that their explanation of why she could not have in person access was not valid. They outlined that COVID related restrictions are ever evolving and as such they make adjustments on an ongoing basis and would continue to assess whether in-person access could resume. They encouraged her to continue with the virtual access and invited her to contact them if she wished to have additional virtual access. The worker also invited her to call if she wished to discuss the matter further.
analysis
9In dispute here is whether the Applicant was given an opportunity to be heard by the Society and whether she was given meaningful reasons for decisions that affected her interests, specifically the decision to no longer allow her to have in person access to her siblings.
10I find that Applicant was given an opportunity to be heard. The Society’s April 15th, 2021 response to the Applicant’s letter of complaint is detailed and acknowledges the Applicant’s feelings and her perspective. The worker also invited the Applicant to contact her should she wish to discuss her concerns further.
11I also find the Applicant was given meaningful reasons for decisions that affected her interests. Initially the Society told the Applicant’s father, whose care she is under that access needed to be restricted due to COVID protocols. In their April 15, 2021 letter they acknowledged that they had to readjust access based on COVID related protocols from the Region. Although the Applicant does not believe the Society’s stated reason for restricting access, a reason was given as well as a commitment to reassessing the COVID related restrictions in the hopes of resuming in-person access
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 Choose an item. 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.
Dated at Toronto, June 18, 2021.
Silvia Novak
Silvia Novak
Member