LM v. Bruce Grey Child and Family Services, 2024 CFSRB 12

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

LM Applicant

-and-

Bruce Grey Child and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan Date: February 06, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 12 Indexed As: LM v Bruce Grey Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

LM, Applicant Self-represented

Bruce Grey Child and Family Services, Respondent Ali Mirza, Counsel

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, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

background

2At the November 30, 2023 pre-hearing, the parties agreed to mediation and reached a settlement of the Application. The Settlement Agreement included an implementation date of January 5, 2024 and a non-compliance date of January 12, 2024.

3The Settlement Agreement was comprised of two terms that included questions for the Respondent to answer.

4On January 5, 2024, the Respondent sent the Applicant a letter in response to the terms of the Settlement Agreement (“Settlement Response”).

5On January 11, 2024, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB, copying the Respondent, alleging that the Respondent had not complied with the Settlement Agreement (“January 11, 2024 Email”). The January 11, 2024 Email also contained additional allegations and comments about the Respondent’s conduct. The Respondent did not respond to the January 11, 2024 Email.

February 5, 2024 Videoconference

6The CFSRB held a videoconference on February 5, 2024 for the parties to make oral submissions related to the Applicant’s allegations of the Respondent’s non-compliance and consider resolution of the terms in dispute.

7Both parties attended the videoconference. There was no resolution between the parties related to the Respondent’s compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

Decision

8My task is to decide whether the Respondent complied with the Settlement Agreement. Concerns outside of the Settlement Agreement, as significant as they may be to the Applicant, cannot be addressed as part of the non-compliance process.

9In reaching my decision I reviewed the November 30, 2023 Settlement Agreement, the Respondent’s Settlement Response, and the Applicant’s January 11, 2024 Email, and I considered the oral submissions of the parties during the February 5, 2024 videoconference.

10For the reasons set out below, I find that the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

analysis

11The two main questions to which the Respondent was required to provide answers in the Settlement Agreement are as follows:

1. During the Applicant’s involvement with the Respondent, she expressed concerns to the Respondent about the Children’s psychological well-being and safety in light of previous incidents of sexual harm against them and the Child B’s diagnoses, and that further risks of harm were not being mitigated sufficiently by [another children’s aid society].

a. What steps did the Respondent take to respond to the Applicant’s concerns?

b. Are there any further steps that the Respondent can take to respond to these concerns? Why/why not?

12My analysis of the Respondent’s response to the terms of the Settlement Agreement is set out according to each question below.

Term 1a: What steps did the Respondent take to respond to the Applicant’s concerns?

13In the January 11, 2024 Email, the Applicant states that the Settlement Response “does not summarize [her family’s] involvement accurately, nor did it provide effective resolutions to the distress created from the society’s misrepresentation”. The Applicant also alleges service issues, references family court proceedings and other matters as between the parties. In her oral submissions during the videoconference, the Applicant provided information related to her expectations of service during her involvement with the Respondent, including in relation to “family violence and abuse”.

14In the Settlement Response, and as repeated by Counsel for the Respondent during oral submissions, the Respondent described several steps that it took related to the Applicant’s concerns. Over a one-half page, the Respondent outlined some specific actions taken including: meetings held between a child protection worker and the child, B, to discuss identified concerns and any worries B may have; meetings with B’s father and stepmother; follow up related to the safety plan and supervision; follow up regarding counselling for B; and offers to meet with the Applicant to explain the Respondent’s outcomes and responses. The Respondent also explained that as there were no new concerns involving the children (i.e., that had not already been reported to the other children’s aid society in which B was living), a further report to the other children’s aid society was not made.

15While the Applicant may not like the answer provided by the Respondent to Term 1a and alleges that the Respondent ought to have taken other steps in light of the Applicant’s concerns, I find that the Respondent has provided a summary of several steps it took to respond to the Applicant’s concerns. I find that the Respondent has responded sufficiently to the question posed in Term 1a, and as such, has complied with that term.

Term 1b: Are there any further steps that the Respondent can take to respond to these concerns? Why/why not?

16In the January 11, 2024 Email, the Applicant stated that she was “under the impression” that the Respondent Child Protection Worker, C, would assist her with issues related to temporary family court orders, including relating to alleged misrepresentations by the Respondent. The Applicant submitted that the Respondent has not provided other resolutions to her concerns.

17As set out above, in the Respondent’s Settlement Response, the Respondent describes that it had not received any new concerns that it could report to the (other) children’s aid society in the jurisdiction where B lives. The Respondent stated, “the concerns you identified had previously been reported and there was nothing new for [the other children’s aid society] to investigate”.

18The Respondent referred the Applicant to the Family Court order and suggested that if the Applicant had concerns regarding custody and access related to B that she seek legal advice about those concerns. The Respondent also recommended that the Applicant continue to advocate for herself and her children and when there are new concerns that the Applicant report them to the children’s aid societies that have jurisdiction in the areas in which the children are living. The Respondent also encouraged the Applicant to work with any services or community supports identified through the Family Court process.

19In oral submissions, Counsel for the Respondent explained that the Respondent could not take any further steps at this time as it was not a party to any court proceedings and the children are not living within its geographical catchment area. Counsel for the Respondent referred the Applicant to its Settlement Response wherein it provided other options for the Applicant herself to take.

20While the Settlement Response was not as clear as Counsel for Respondent’s oral submissions in answering the questions in Term 1b, I find that over several paragraphs within the Settlement Response, the Respondent did implicitly answer the questions in that term. The Respondent identified that there were no new concerns to report, the children live outside of the Respondent’s jurisdiction, and there are custody and access issues related to the children before the Family Court and for which the Applicant herself could seek changes with legal assistance.

21While the Applicant may be dissatisfied with the Respondent’s answer to Term 1b and had hoped that the Respondent may have been able to take further steps to assist the Applicant in her court process and in response to her concerns about her children, the Respondent has adequately answered that it cannot currently take any further steps to respond to the Applicant’s concerns and has provided adequate reasons why. As such, the Respondent has complied with Term 1b.

CONCLUSION

22I find that the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

order

23The Application is closed as settled.

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.