GF v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, 2022 CFSRB 51

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

GF Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michele O’Connor Date: October 21, 2022 Citation: 2022 CFSRB 51 Indexed As: GF v Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

GF, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, Respondent David Sider Counsel

Introduction

1G.F. (“the Applicant”) filed a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (” the Society”) on June 17, 2022 under section 120(4)5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, alleging that the Society failed to provide her with reasons for decisions it made which affected her interests, specifically as follows:

1(a) Was the Applicant given reasons for why she was allowed to leave the hospital with the Child in her care without the Society apprehending the Child and placing him in HCAS foster care and commencing a court application?

1(b) Was she given reasons for why a court application was not commenced after the mother’s death?

1(c) Was she given reasons for why a court application was not commenced after she raised safety concerns about the father and why did the Society encourage her to meet with the father?

2. What changed between the time the Society started the adoption process with the Applicant, including assignment of an adoption worker, and its decision to stop that process; i.e. why did the Society not complete the home study?

3. Why did the Society decide, in January 2022, to delay any court application until after the Applicant’s adoption application and home study had been approved?

4. How did the Applicant’s financial circumstances factor into the Society’s decisions?

5. Why was the Applicant treated as kin rather than having the Child placed with her as a foster parent; and was she given reasons why the Society made the decision to close the kinship support file?

2The CFSRB must decide whether the Society met its obligations regarding the Applicant’s complaint - was she given reasons for decisions that affected her interests?

3The hearing was held on September 20 and 22, 2022. The Applicant testified on her own behalf. The Society called evidence from Kinship Services supervisor JM, legal counsel TW, and Director of Communications TM. Both parties filed documentary evidence.

4For the following reasons, the CFSRB finds that the Society did not give the Applicant satisfactory reasons for some of its decisions.

BACKGROUND

5The Society has been involved with the Applicant since the Child, O.F. (born July 25, 2021) (“the Child”) was placed with her from the hospital shortly after his birth. Three days after he was born and placed in the NICU, the mother left the hospital.

6On November 7 or 8, 2021, the Child’s mother died of an overdose.

7The Applicant is the adoptive mother of the Child’s biological sister (B.F.) whom she adopted approximately 13 years ago. She initially fostered B.F. and adopted her through a different society after BF was made a Crown Ward and was available for adoption.

8The Child and B.F. share the same biological parents. The biological father is B.S. In the more than 13 years since the Applicant adopted B.F she has had no contact with him.

9The Child was born underweight and with addictions. He was placed in the NICU and remained there for approximately 3 weeks.

10The Child’s mother reached out to the Applicant on Facebook advising that her daughter had a brother and she wished to speak with the Applicant. The Applicant notified her local society and asked it to do a wellness check on the mother. The Society Child protection worker (CPW) called the Applicant after the mother left the hospital. The Applicant began visiting him and, when he was ready for discharge, she took him into her care. The Society conducted a quick assessment of the Applicant and her home just hours before the Child was discharged from the hospital.

11The Applicant’s wish, confirmed by all of the witnesses, was to follow the same path with O.F. as she had with his sister, i.e. to foster him until he was returned to his mother’s care or to adopt him from care once he was legally available for adoption. She was a previously approved foster parent with the other society and had completed the required PRIDE training at that time.

12The Society placed the Child with the Applicant through its Kin Services department. It never commenced a Protection Application.

13In August of 2022, the Society closed its Kinship Services file.

14The Applicant has no legal status with the Child. The Child’s biological father retains legal custody of him. This fact is of considerable concern to the Applicant due to the father’s addictions, criminal and gang behaviour, assault charges and chronically poor lifestyle.

15The Applicant asserts she was mis-led by the Society, promises were broken, and she has been unsupported in her efforts to provide a permanent home for the Child with his sister.

16The Society held an ICRP meeting with the Applicant on June 2, 2022. On June 16, 2022, it provided her with a written response. It asserts that it has met its obligation to provide her with reasons for decisions it made which affected her interests.

ANALYSIS

17The relevant provisions of the Act are set out below:

Section 120(4) of the Act provides:

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

5 Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

Section 120(7) of the Act provides:

After reviewing the complaint, the Board may:

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant; or

(e) dismiss the complaint.

18In PO v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara 2012 CFSRB 38 at paras. 14 -15, the CFSRB described the purpose of provisions equivalent to s.120(4)4 and 5 of the Act in its predecessor legislation, i.e., sections 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, C.11, as follows:

The obligations under s.68.1(4)4 and 5 reflect the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. This is facilitated through genuine communication, giving applicants the opportunity to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to, or accept decisions.

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

19This description of the purpose applies to the current legislative scheme.

20Moreover, the right to reasons under the Act means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the applicant’s interests. In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held that:

With respect to s.68.1(4)5 (now s.120(4)5), what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

21The Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Respondent and for which the Respondent is giving reasons under s.120(4)5.

ISSUES

1(a) Was the Applicant given reasons for why she was allowed to leave the hospital with the Child in her care without the Society apprehending the Child and placing him in HCAS foster care and commencing a court application?

1(b) Was she given reasons for why a court application was not commenced after the mother’s death?

1(c) Was she given reasons for why a court application was not commenced after she raised safety concerns about the father and why did the Society encourage her to meet with the father?

22For ease of reference, I combine the analysis on these 3 related issues pertaining to the Society’s decision not to pursue a protection application with respect to the Child.

23The Applicant’s testimony established several facts which were not disputed by the Society’s evidence:

• She has been clear to the Society that she is not “kin” to the Child. She adopted his biological sister, BF, over 13 years ago through a different agency where she was a foster mother. She believes that the Society’s insistence on treating her as “kin” is financially motivated and that she has been manipulated. Further, she is fearful of the biological father who retains legal custody of the Child, and believes she has no status with which to make application for financial supports available from the government.

• She was contacted by the Child’s mother on a Facebook post approximately 3 days after the Child was born on July 27, 2021. She notified her local society to follow up with a wellness check on the mother. On April 5th, 2021, the Society CPW for the parents contacted her advising that the mother had left the hospital. She began to visit him in the NICU.

• She was in close contact with the hospital social worker whom she believed worked together with the Society. Only hours before the Child’s discharge to her care, she heard from the Society that worker KB would attend that day to conduct a mandatory safety assessment of her home.

• After the Child was placed, she asked the Society for supports to help her with the Child’s needs for round the clock care and 3 hour feedings. She itemized to the worker 3 areas of support that she needed from the Society: financial support (i.e. foster care per diem); intercept communication with the Child’s birth parents, both of whom were known to struggle with addictions and lifestyle issues; and future long-term planning for the Child’s care and permanency;

• She was assured by the Society workers and supervisors that she could receive those supports through “Kinship Services”. On August 20, 2021, MM was assigned as her ongoing Kinship Services worker.

• On September 7, 2021, the Applicant raised concerns about recent telephone calls from the mother who was crying and “high” at the time. The Applicant spoke to the temporary worker KB (who was covering while MM was on leave) and with the CPW for the mother about her concerns. She asked again about foster care. KB told her that kinship care would be better as it involved less scrutiny and more flexibility.

• On September 16, 2021, KB assured her that financial support through Kinship care was equivalent to foster care and available to her. The Applicant was given no explanation of the difference between kinship services and kin placement.

• She was told that, because the Child had been placed with her voluntarily, there was no need to apprehend him and place him in Society care. On September 27, 2021, she was told to make a formal request for reimbursement of expenses related to the Child. She was subsequently reimbursed for some of the expenses she incurred (approximately $9,000) but there was no further financial support after January 2022.

• On November 7 or 8, 2021 (the evidence is unclear), the Child’s biological mother died of an overdose. Again, the Applicant was told that apprehension was not necessary because the Child had been placed with her voluntarily and that the Child did not need foster care because he was in kinship service.

• After the mother’s death, she gave the Society contact information for the biological father which they failed to follow up on in a timely manner. The Applicant wanted the Child to have confirmation and information about who his father was. There were also issues with the Child’s birth registration and health card which the Society encouraged the Applicant to pursue directly with the father. MM reportedly told the Applicant it was not the Society’s job to apply for the Child’s identity documents (birth registration and health card), and that the workers were overloaded, and his location was too far. Consequently, the Applicant arranged to meet with the father so she could get the documents signed. She had the Child in the car and took her neighbour with her for protection. They met at an outdoor location where he arrived with his girlfriend. Both of them were “high” and “scary looking” and he made statements that he wanted ongoing contact with the Child.

• On December 31, 2021, MM advised the Applicant by email: “I would also like to inform you that the funding will now cease as it was provided as interim support. Please apply for these kinship service income supports; Ontario Works, Temporary care Allowance and the Canada Child Benefits.”;

• In January of 2022, she was told by supervisor, JM, that the service team was reviewing legal options for permanency for OF, and that the mother’s death had led to “unanticipated challenges” on how to present the matter to the court as a protection matter. She was also told that she had to demonstrate financial ability if she wanted to adopt the Child.

• In a telephone call with her worker on January 28, 2022, MM congratulated her and told her that the Society had made a decision and was moving forward with adoption.

• She completed and submitted the required adoption documents including signing the Adoption Application Agreement on February 14, 2022. She was told that an adoption worker would be assigned. At that point, the Applicant was relieved and re-assured that she would be supported in adopting OF as she had been with her daughter BF.

• Some time after receiving this information, she mentioned to MM that once the adoption was finalized, she would be applying for the sibling adoption subsidy. In her view, this is when the Society changed the plan. By then she had obtained the Child’s birth certificate and health card and changed his name from DB to OF with the cooperation of the father.

• On April 25, 2022, the Society held another internal meeting and advised her that it would not pursue adoption. Her adoption application documents were returned to her. She was subsequently advised that her Kinship Services file was being closed.

• After her file was closed, she received calls and texts from the father who told her he knew he had legal custody of the Child and wanted access to his son. She says he tried to extort money from her suggesting this would put him “in the mood to help”. He also asked her how much child subsidy she received. She said she deleted these texts because they were very upsetting to her daughter. After the ICRP when JM requested copies of these texts, the Applicant was unable to provide them, but she did provide screen shots of telephone calls from BS.

24Neither kinship worker MM or KB, nor the Child Protection Worker assigned to the biological parents (the CPW) testified at the hearing.

25The Kinship Services Supervisor, JM, testified on behalf of the Society. She acknowledged that the Applicant had made clear from the outset her desire to be a foster parent and for the Child to be legally in the care of the Society. She said her team explained to the Applicant in the fall of 2021 by letter and directly that commencing a Child protection application would be “unduly intrusive and would not increase safety for the Child” and that the Society needed to provide the mother with an opportunity to determine whether she would be able to resume her son’s care. In early October of 2021, the Society told her again that it would not proceed with a court application to change the Child’s legal status from kinship care to being legally in the care of the Society, but that it would reimburse her for reasonable expenses while providing care to this Child.

26JM acknowledged the messaging in January 2022 about the Society’s decision to pursue her adoption plan for the Child.

27JM said that in April 2022 the Society decided to reconsider the proposed adoption and not to pursue a court application for the following reasons: “Although the Applicant had been insistent upon an adoption plan since the beginning, the Society must follow the mandate that is created by legislation. The CYFSA requires that the agency consider the least intrusive option which can ensure a Child’s safety, and to offer services in a manner that builds upon the family’s strengths. It was the agency’s position that court applications should only be initiated as a last resort.” The Society reiterated the same reasons given to the Applicant earlier – the placement was at the mother’s request, the Applicant had provided excellent care, the father had cooperated with her to secure the Child’s identity documents and health card, he “supported” the long-term plan and agreed to register the Child in the name chosen by the Applicant, there were no clear grounds for protection under the CYFSA as there were no protection issues with the Child in her care, and court applications are highly intrusive. Shortly thereafter, the Society told her that her Adoption Home Study update was no longer necessary, returned her completed adoption application and offered to reimburse her for the recent police check and fingerprinting that it had requested. “As such, it was decided that the Society was not prepared to commence a court application seeking a finding that the Child was not safe in the care of the Applicant and the revised plan was that the Society would terminate its involvement as there was no further work that could be done that would improve safety, well-being or permanency for the Child. It was noted that the Applicant could commence an application for custody, with the father’s agreement, or they could make arrangements for a private adoption if that was their preference.”

28On or about April 26, 2022, the Applicant was told that the agency would be closing her kinship file and she could go ahead and adopt the baby privately. At that time, and to date, the Child’s legal custody remains with his biological father.

29The Applicant emailed various members of the Society with her concerns about this decision including the Executive Director. She did not receive a response from him.

30JM testified that after the ICRP she followed up with the Applicant to get a better understanding of the Applicant’s concerns about the father. She requested copies of the father’s communications asking about or trying to see the Child. As noted above, the Applicant was unable to provide them. JM said that there was follow up done on the father by the Child Protection team but the Applicant’s concerns could not be substantiated. She acknowledged that the Society had “worries” about the father’s lifestyle (drugs, violence, his questions about the amount of the Child tax credit) but concluded, since he was not seeking any contact with the Child, that there was no imminent risk. In the Society closing letter dated August 15, 2022, it states “The protection file with the father has been closed thus there is no further need for kinship services as the protection worries have been adequately addressed. There is a clear plan that O will remain in your full-time care.”

31TW, a Society staff lawyer, testified that she had been asked to address a request from KD, a lawyer acting on behalf of the Applicant. They spoke on May 9, 2022, and she followed up with a letter dated May 27, 2022. She testified that her letter provided KD with answers to all of questions she had raised on behalf of her client. This letter essentially restates the same reasons noted above in the evidence of JM for why the Society did not pursue an in-care placement for the Child and did not support the Applicant’s wish to adopt him - it was a voluntary placement, the Applicant provided excellent care for the Child and there were no protection concerns for him in her care, the mother was deceased, the father was not presenting a plan or asking that the Child be removed from her care, and court applications are highly intrusive.

32The Applicant filed a formal ICRP complaint which was heard on June 2, 2022. A letter outlining the panel’s recommendations was sent to her on June 16, 2022. That letter re-stated its reason that “The Society is not pursuing an Extended Society Care Application as there are no clear grounds for protection under the CYFSA with respect to O’s safety under your care. The Child’s biological father has not presented a plan or asked for the Child to be removed from your care.”

33Among the written recommendations from the ICRP, “the panel recommends that the agency acknowledge and apologize for the inconsistent and mixed messaging regarding this decision and the confusion it caused. Apologies were provided to you by both JM and CR during the ICRP process.”

34Additional ICRP recommendations included that the “service team” would follow up on the Applicant’s “newly reported information” about her interactions with BS (the biological father); that the Applicant contact her local society which may assist with obtaining community supports and services for her daughter; that when interacting with a potential caregiver the service team will clearly outline the different options of kin, kin in care and foster care, including what agency and financial supports are included in each option; and, when there is a need to pivot and change the service plan, ensure that everyone is informed of the change and reasons for any decisions.

35The ICRP Chair testified “The panel did not recommend that (Applicant) be given written explanations by the Society for decisions made as it was clear to the panel that (Applicant) had been given multiple explanations for service decisions but that she disagreed with the decisions that had been made.”

36I find that the Applicant’s version of most of the events is essentially undisputed. She was clear with workers and supervisors from the outset that, in her view, she was not “kin”. She wanted to foster the Child and then adopt him once he was free for adoption. This would provide her with the security of knowing that the father could not simply come and take the Child from her as well as provide her with access to some financial supports (for example, access to post-secondary education assistance, counselling), until he reached 21 years of age.

37It is also undisputed that the Society gave the Applicant very mixed messages including, early in 2022, that it would support her wish to adopt the Child through the Society, and that funding and support through kinship services was the same as foster care.

38In my view, the Society stretched the definition of “kin” to include the Applicant. I accept her evidence that she had no relationship with either parent or the Child prior to his placement. She was led to believe that she would receive the same supports with a kin placement as she would have as a foster parent when, in fact, that is not supported by the evidence. Then, in early 2022, the Society led her to believe that it would proceed with a protection application and support her adoption plan, only to change its position in April.

39I find that the reasons given by the Society for its decisions not to pursue an in-care order for the Child are woefully inadequate.

40Initially the Society told the Applicant it needed to give the mother an opportunity to begin working with the Society to determine whether she would be able to resume care of the Child, and that a protection application would be unduly intrusive and not increase safety for the Child. After the mother’s death, the Society urged the Applicant to work with the father to obtain various legal documents despite her stated fears about contact with him. Again, it told her that a protection application would be too intrusive, and that the Child was safe in her care, so a protection application was not needed. Then, for reasons unknown to the Applicant but much appreciated by her, the Society said it supported her plan and would pursue a protection application, only to change its decision 3 months later.

41The Applicant was not permitted the opportunity to have any degree of influence on the process. She deserved a more fulsome explanation of how the decision not to pursue a protection application came to be and the opportunity to participate in the decision-making. She was not given sufficient information regarding the factors taken into account by the Society to allow her to understand why and how these decisions were made. The test in JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society was not met. The reasons given to the Applicant at various points in the process lack specificity and substance.

2 What changed between the time the Society started the adoption process with the Applicant, including assignment of an adoption worker, and its decision to stop that process; i.e. why did the Society not complete the home study?

42The Applicant testified that she had no answer to this question except her suspicion that the decision was financially motivated after the Society became aware of her intention to pursue an adoption subsidy for sibling adoptions. She said the Society knew that all of the Child’s ID documents had been obtained or were in process in December 2021.

43There was no other change noted in the explanation given by the Society. She spoke about it with MM whom she said listened but had no response. She says she was given the same reasons as the Society had given her initially and again after the mother died, essentially that there was no need for protection of the Child in her care. She was told the Society was closing her file and she was free to pursue the adoption privately

44The Society witness, JM, testified what had changed was that the Applicant now had all of the Child’s identification documents. The birth certificate issue was resolved. She could register the Child for school in the name she had chosen for him. She could access health care for him. She was free to do things on her own behalf with these documents. There were no safety concerns for the Child in her care, and the father had cooperated with her to obtain the documents.

45JM testified that she had no information about the Applicant’s intention to seek the adoption subsidy and that financial considerations were not part of the Society’s decision.

46There is no evidence to support the Applicant’s belief that the decision was financially motivated. But the Society should explain why the supervisor was not aware that the Child’s ID documents had been obtained prior to the Applicant being told it would proceed with a protection application. And the Society did not satisfactorily explain why it decided not to pursue an Order placing the Child in Extended Society Care so the Applicant could adopt him through the Society as she had repeatedly requested.

3. Why did the Society decide, in January 2022, to delay any court application until after the applicant’s adoption application and home study had been approved?

47The Applicant testified that she was led to believe by the Society that going to court was a simple formality once she had the adoption application.

48The Society’s witness, JM, testified that the delay was for the home study to be completed because, without it, the Society could not pursue its adoption plan. At that time there were no concerns that the Child was unsafe. There were no immediate issues and the home study had to be completed and approved in order for the Society to get an Order for Extended Society Care. It subsequently reconsidered its decision and decided not to pursue the court application so the home study was no longer necessary.

49I find the Society’s explanation for this delay to be satisfactory.

4. How did the Applicant’s financial circumstances factor into the Society’s decisions?

50The Society asserts that the Applicant’s financial circumstances played no part in its decisions pertaining to this Child.

51JM testified that there was an initial assessment of the Applicant’s finances during the first 3 months of the Child’s placement. The Applicant raised concerns about expenses and the impact of full-time care of an ill Child and 3 hour feedings on her ability to work. During a telephone call in October 2021, they discussed a plan to reimburse her for some of her immediate expenses (crib, clothing, equipment) and a temporary contribution toward daycare so she could re-establish her business and thereby be able to manage the Child’s expenses in the future. The Society reimbursed the Applicant more than $9,000.

52Asked whether the Applicant’s statement of her intention to pursue an adoption subsidy had any impact on the Society’s decision had not to go ahead with the adoption plan, JM testified that she had “absolutely no information about that” and it was “definitely not part of the decision.” She said it was because the birth certificate was in place and the Child was safe. She added that MM brought the Applicant’s comments to her attention after the decision was made, not before.

53I find the Society’s explanation regarding this issue to be satisfactory.

5. Why was the Applicant treated as kin rather than having the Child placed with her as a foster parent; and, was the Applicant given reasons why the Society made the decision to close the kinship support file?

54The Applicant’s evidence on this point is set out above. In her view she was not “kin” and ought not to have been treated as such. She asserts that the Society chose this approach based on financial considerations.

55JM’s evidence on this issue went back to the mother’s initial request. The Society asked the mother whom she wanted to care for her son. She named the Applicant. When the Society looks at kinship, it is not defined by blood but can be more broadly interpreted to include “a person with a meaningful connection with the parent or the Child.” The mother knew the Applicant, and she is the adoptive parent of the Child’s full sibling. The Applicant attended at the hospital and began visiting with the Child on her own. She decided with the hospital social worker to take the Child to her home when he was ready for discharge.

56JM went on to explain that the legislation requires that the Society must look at kinship before considering in-care placement. The Applicant was not a foster parent. The Child was not taken to “a place of safety” in her care. This was discussed fully with the Applicant in the meeting of October 6, 2021. The Applicant was adamant that she wanted the Child “in care”. The Society workers and supervisors told her that it always looks at kinship service first. If the Child were in foster care, the matter would have been referred to a different department.

57JM also asserted that the Applicant was given reasons for the Society’s decision to close the Kinship Services file. The letter sent to her on August 15, 2022, clearly sets out that the Child is safe in her care, the documents are in place, the protection workers have closed their file on the father, the mother is deceased, and there are no protection concerns for the Child in her care. There were no further services to be offered.

58As noted above, I am of the view that the Society stretched the definition of kin in this circumstance. But it did so with no ill-intention. It believed the Applicant was the best place for this Child and supported her in that endeavour.

59From the Applicant’s perspective, her situation remains at risk. She continues to need Society support and help with the Child’s biological father. Notwithstanding privacy considerations, the Society has an obligation to be more specific with her in terms of what steps it took to follow up on her reports about his extortion attempts and why it concluded that there was no ongoing risk to her or her family from this man. She deserves a more fulsome explanation.

DECISION

60Regarding Issues 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c), based on the evidence and documents filed by the parties, I conclude that the Applicant was not given sufficient information regarding the factors considered by the Society to allow her to understand why and how these decisions were made.

61Regarding Issue 2, I find that the Society should explain why the supervisor was not aware that the Child’s ID documents had been obtained prior to the decision to proceed with a protection application. And the Society did not satisfactorily explain why it decided not to pursue an Order placing the Child in Extended Society Care so the Applicant could adopt him through the Society as she had repeatedly requested.

62Regarding Issue 3, I find that the Society’s explanation for this decision is satisfactory.

63Regarding Issue 4, I find that I find the Society’s explanation and reasons regarding this issue are satisfactory.

64Regarding issue 5, I find that, notwithstanding privacy considerations, the Society has an obligation to be more specific with the Applicant in terms of what steps it took to follow up on her reports about the biological father’s extortion attempts and why it concluded that there was no ongoing risk to her or her family from this man.

ORDER

65My remedial powers in this matter are restricted to those options in section 120(7) of the CYFSA as specifically set out at paragraph 17 above.

66The Applicant has already had an ICRP. The panel specifically recommended that the workers present at the ICRP apologize to the Applicant for the inconsistent and mixed messages from the Society. They did so. The panel also recommended that workers in future will more clearly outline the different options of kin, kin in care and foster care, including what agency and financial supports are included in each option; and, when there is a need to pivot and change the service plan, ensure that everyone is informed of the change and reasons for any decisions.

67To address the remaining issues, within 30 days, the Society shall provide a letter to the Applicant containing the following:

• what specific evidence does the Society rely on to support its conclusion that the biological father “supported” the long-term plan that the Child be adopted by the Applicant?

• What, if anything, can the Society offer the Applicant to reassure her that the father will not come and take the Child from her, and are there any supports available to her from the Society to address this concern?

• why did the Society not recognize and acknowledge the Applicant’s clearly stated desire for financial support with the Child beyond the temporary assistance given early in his placement? Can it advise her of other options for post-secondary education assistance or counselling until he reaches 21 years of age?

• why was the Society focussed on seeking a finding that the Child was not safe in her care rather than on how unsafe he would be if not for her? Specifically, why did the Society not pursue a protection application on the available grounds in CYFSA s.74(2)(k) death of a parent, or (n) parental consent?

• Why was the Applicant led to believe that she would receive the same supports with a kin placement as she would have as a foster parent when, in fact, that is not supported by the evidence?

• Why was there no discussion with the Applicant when the Society was reconsidering its decision to support her adoption plan and its subsequent decision not to do so? What opportunities, if any, were given to the Applicant to participate in that decision?

• what factors did the supervisor and the protection team consider after the Applicant raised safety concerns about the father at the ICRP, including but not limited to a detailed explanation of what steps it took and what evidence, if any, was provided by him to dispute the Applicant’s allegations about his demands for money and his reported statements of intent to see his son?

Confidentiality Order

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 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.