DC v. Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, 2023 CFSRB 40

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

DC

Applicant

-and-

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: May 11, 2023

Citation: 2023 CFSRB 40

Indexed As: DC v Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is a Complaint filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under sections 119 and 120 (4) 4 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2This decision explains why the Complaint is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.

BACKGROUND

3The Applicant is a grandparent of several grandchildren.

4The Applicant was concerned about the Children’s mother’s limited parenting ability; the physical and mental health of the grandchildren; the grandchildren’s exposure to marijuana and unsanitary and unsafe living conditions; and access to one of the grandchildren.

5One of the grandchildren was placed with relatives in a kinship arrangement and was subsequently returned to the mother. The file was closed in 2017.

6The Applicant has proposed that the grandchildren be placed with her to address the current child protection concerns.

7The Applicant alleged that Respondent staff did not hear her concerns, and refused to proceed with her complaint.

THE LAW

8Section 120(4) of the Act states:

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 section 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 section 15(2).

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

9Section 15(2) of the Act ensures 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.”

10The Act defines “services” as:

a) a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family,

b) a mental health service for a child or the child’s family,

c) a service related to residential care for a child,

d) a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family,

e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others,

f) counselling for a child or the child’s family,

g) a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community,

h) a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or

i) a prescribed service.

11H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s. 68), 2012 CFSRB 4 (para. 51) examines the issue of who is in receipt of services.

Looking at the statute, the Society’s obligation to provide reasons in section 68.1 (4) 5 is not confined to “parents”. If that were the case, the obligation would be associated with section 2(2) (a) of the Act, like the right to be heard. The right to reasons for decisions that affect one’s interests is broad and recognizes that there may be persons other than parents who are involved with children under the Act and whose lives may be impacted by Society decisions. For example, the Board has held that foster parents or teachers who are the subject of an investigation by a society are receiving a service and are entitled to reasons relating to the decisions made in the investigation. The Board has also held that grandparents who have sought access to their grandchildren from a society that controls access have a right to reasons.

12Paragraph 56 of Ontario Regulation 156/18 sets out the process for a complaint to a society. It states:

“A complaint to a society under subsection 119(1) of the Act must be made in the form entitled “Formal Complaint to a Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) and dated 2019/04, available on a website of the Government of Ontario. O. Reg. 156/18, s. 56; O. Reg. 78/19, s. 1.”

ANALYSIS

13The Complaint was submitted in the name of the Applicant. In the narrative portion of the Complaint, the Applicant indicated that: “this section is being contributed by both the applicant and her daughter, J C-S (the affected children’s biological aunt)”. While the Applicant’s daughter may have contributed to the narrative portion of the Complaint, I find that she is not an applicant as she was not identified as a co-applicant on the Complaint Form. My analysis will therefore focus on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Applicant’s Application.

14The Applicant is grandmother to the 3 grandchildren. The Applicant expressed her concerns for the health and safety of the grandchildren while in the care of their mother.

15The right to be heard in the Act is limited to “children and young persons and their parents”. The definition of “parent” in the Act does not include grandparents. As such, section 15(2) of the Act does not apply to the Applicant.

16I considered the application of H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services to this Complaint.

17There is no evidence before me that the Applicant is currently in receipt of services by the Respondent or is currently receiving any other services or assistance related to access to her grandchildren from the Respondent. The Applicant and the aunt may have received service from the Respondent while one of the grandchildren was in a kin placement; however, this file was closed some 5 years ago.

18Reporting a child welfare concern to a child protection agency is not a service under the Act as outlined above. In this case, the Applicant is a referent, similar to a teacher or sport coach that reports suspected abuse to a child protection agency, although she is a member of the family of concern.

19As such, I find that the Applicant is not in receipt of services from the Respondent. Therefore, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application under sections 120 (4) 4 and 5 of the Act.

20I also considered the Applicant’s allegations that the Respondent refused to proceed with a complaint. As noted above, complaints to a society must be made on a specific form. The Applicant has not provided any evidence that she complied with s. 56 of the Regulation. As such, I find that the Respondent has not failed to proceed with the complaint and follow its complaint review process or timelines under s. 119 of the Act.

21I also note that Part X of the Act relates to the protection of personal privacy. Part X precludes a child protection agency from sharing any further personal information about third parties. This would include information about the grandchildren and their caregivers.

22For these reasons, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application.

order

23The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

24Pursuant 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.