BF v. Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, 2024 ONCFSRB 106

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

BF
Applicant

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services
Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk
Date: October 10, 2024
Citation: 2024 CFSRB 106
Indexed As: BF v Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (“the Act”).

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Applicant is the mother of four children. The Application raises issues with respect to three of the children. Two of the children, R.C. and S.C. are in the custody of their father and the child, C. is in Extended Society Care.

4In its Pre-hearing Report dated May 14, 2024, the CFSRB confirmed the issues for this hearing as follows:

A. The Applicant has made numerous allegations of neglect and harm regarding her children R.C and S.C while in the court-ordered custody of their father. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to hear and address these concerns.

B. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for their inaction regarding the complaints made in regard to R.C and S.C..

C. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with reasons for its inaction in response to her allegations that the Respondent has mishandled her child C’s participation in a criminal trial in which C is a victim.

5On June 17, 2024, after consideration of the written submissions of the parties, the CFSRB issued an Interim Decision that the hearing would proceed in writing.

6The CFSRB also issued a Case Management Direction on June 17, 2024 directing, among other things, the timelines for submissions and confirming the issues to be determined at the hearing were as set out in paragraph 3 above. The June 17, 2024 Case Management Direction further required the following:

a. In her material and submissions for the hearing, the Applicant shall identify the specific events with respect to which she feels her concerns were not heard and the specific decisions for which she alleges she has not received reasons;

b. The Respondent’s submission shall address the specific events and decisions identified in the Applicant’s materials.

ISSUES

7The issues are:

A. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard with respect to her numerous allegations of neglect and harm to her children, R.C and S.C. while they were in the court-ordered custody of their father?

B. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that it made in relation to complaints made by the Applicant in regard to R.C. and S.C.?

C. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for its decisions in response to her allegations that it had mishandled her child C’s participation in a criminal trial in which C is a victim?

RESULT

8Having reviewed the materials and written submissions of the Applicant and the Respondent, I find the following:

• The Respondent provided the Applicant with many opportunities to be heard with respect to her numerous allegations of neglect and harm to R.C. and S.C. while they were in the court ordered custody of their father.

• The Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for decisions it made in relation to complaints made by the Applicant with respect to R.C and S.C. and explained to her the reasons it was precluded from providing other information.

• The Respondent fulfilled its obligations under the Act when it advised the Applicant that it was unable to provide her with reasons for its decisions in relation to C’s participation in a criminal trial in which C was a victim as it did not have C’s consent to disclose this information to her.

ANALYSIS

9The June 17, 2024 Case Management Direction required the Applicant to identify the specific events with respect to which she felt her concerns were not heard and the specific decisions for which she alleges she had not received reasons. The Applicant did not comply with this Direction. As such, it was left to the CFSRB adjudicator to glean which events and decisions were at issue.

The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns relating to R.C and S.C while in the court-ordered custody of their father

10The undisputed submission of the Respondent is that throughout its involvement with the Applicant, it had ongoing, regular meetings with the Applicant in the form of Family Case Conferencing and both announced and unannounced monthly home visits when the children were in the Applicant’s care. The Respondent submits the Applicant also had regular contact with the assigned child protection worker via text, email and telephone.

11According to the Respondent’s material and submissions, the court process ended in February 2023 at which time a final order was made granting sole decision-making for R.C. and S.C. to their father. According to the Applicant’s material, R.C. and S.C. had been living with their father since January 31, 2022 by way of an interim court order.

12The Applicant made several referrals or reports to the Respondent in relation to R.C. and S.C. after their father was granted sole decision-making authority in February 2023.

13The first of these referrals was on or about May 18, 2023. The evidence of the Respondent is that the Applicant had a telephone conversation with a Senior Service Manager, Erin LaForge, on or about May 24, 2023 in which she conveyed her concerns. This was followed by an hour and a half meeting held on September 18, 2023 by a child protection worker and supervisor with the Applicant to hear the Applicant’s concerns and explain the status of the Respondent’s investigation.

14The second referral was on or about February 19, 2024 at which time the Applicant sent the Respondent an email with her concerns about the father’s care of R.C. and S.C. and attached photographs. As a result of the email and photographs provided, the Respondent initiated an investigation. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Respondent did not verify protection concerns.

15The Applicant made a further referral to the Respondent on April 11, 2024 with respect to her concerns about R.C. and S.C in their father’s care. The Respondent conducted an investigation. They did not verify protection concerns.

16In May 2024, the Applicant made several calls to the police requesting welfare checks in relation to R.C and S.C. This led to the Respondent initiating an investigation. Child protection concerns were verified as against the Applicant.

17Also in May 2024, the Applicant sent emails to Erin LaForge, Senior Service Manager, with concerns about the care R.C. and S.C. were receiving in their father’s care. Ms. LaForge invited the Applicant to a meeting to discuss the investigation and its outcome.

18Based on my review of the material and written submissions of the parties, the Respondent provided the Applicant with numerous opportunities to be heard with respect to her concerns about R.C. and S.C. in their father’s care as demonstrated by both the communications that took place between the parties and the investigations that were conducted further to the Applicant’s expressed concerns.

The Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for their decisions in relation to complaints made by the Applicant in regard to R.C and S.C.

19The Applicant alleges that she was not provided with reasons by the Respondent in relation to allegations about the care R.C. and S.C were receiving while in the care of their father.

20The undisputed evidence of the Respondent is that a court order was made in February 2023 granting the father of R.C. and S.C. sole decision-making authority for these children. The Respondent further submits that the court order restricted the Applicant’s access to information to educational and medical information.

21The Respondent submits that it informed the Applicant it did not have the consent of the father of R.C. and S.C. to release information about their investigations to the Applicant and was therefore restricted in the scope of information it could provide to her. The Applicant maintains that the father of R.C. and S.C. consented to the sharing of this information with her. Neither party provided corroborative evidence in support of their position.

22The Respondent informed the Applicant when her reported concerns resulted in a child protection investigation and it informed her of the outcome of the investigations. The Respondent advised the Applicant that, without a consent by the father of R.C. and S.C. to the release of any further information or a court order authorizing the release, the Respondent was precluded from providing the Applicant with any further information about the investigations.

23On the facts presented, I cannot find that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for its decisions in relation to the Applicant’s complaints about the care R.C. and S.C. were receiving in the care of their father.

The Applicant was not entitled to reasons in relation to her allegations that the Respondent mishandled C’s participation in a criminal trial in which C was a victim.

24According to the Respondent’s material and submissions, C was placed in Extended Society Care in February 2023.

25The criminal trial referenced in the Applicant’s allegations occurred in 2024. At the time C was in Extended Society Care. As such, no services were being provided to the Applicant at this juncture nor was she a parent receiving services from the Respondent. Therefore, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review her allegations on this issue.

26It is also notable that C is 18 years of age such that his consent to disclosure of his personal information would be require for information to be provided to the Applicant by the Respondent. The Respondent’s material indicates that it does not have C’s consent to this disclosure.

CONCLUSION

27For the reasons set out above I find that the Applicant has failed to establish that the Respondent breached its obligations under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

ORDER

28The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

29Pursuant 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.