VK v. Halton Children’s Aid Society, 2024 CFSRB 15

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

VK Applicant

-and-

Halton Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Martina Dwyer Date: February 09, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 15 Indexed As: VK v Halton Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

VK, Applicant Self-represented

Halton Children’s Aid Society, Respondent Diane Skrow, 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, “Act”. The Application was filed on October 11, 2023.

2The Application was found eligible for review under sections 120(4)4 of the Act. This section provides that an Application may be brought when the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made or a chance to be heard when the Applicant raised concerns about the services he was receiving.

3The Applicant and his mother “P.S.” testified on behalf of the Applicant. The Child Protection Worker, Sonia Gomez “S.G.” and Community Child Protection Supervisor Cecilia Devas “C.D.” testified on behalf of the Respondent.

ISSUES

4At the Pre-hearing that took place on November 17, 2023, the following issues were identified:

1. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff failed to hear his concerns that he was not informed of a call by his son’s mother to the after-hours line on June 18, 2023, indicating that the Applicant’s son was suicidal; and they failed to hear his concerns that he was not kept abreast of the suicidal ideation while his son was in his care;
2. The Applicant alleges that the Worker did not hear his evidence and explanations in support of his belief that his son was not suicidal (e.g., stress from studying Pre-AP courses);
3. The Applicant alleges that Respondent's staff failed to hear his concerns that they were blaming him for his son’s suicidal thoughts without a proper investigation;
4. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff did not hear his concerns regarding their advice to him not to bring his concerns to Court; and
5. The Applicant alleges that his concerns regarding the Worker’s use of the word “Nazi” about her parenting style and its impact on him and his mother were dismissed and not heard by Respondent staff.

5For the following reasons, the CFSRB finds that the Respondent allowed the Applicant to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made or a chance to be heard when the Applicant raised concerns about the services he is receiving.

6The Applicant’s Application is dismissed.

the law

7The relevant provisions of the Act are set out below:

Section 120 (4)4 of the Act provides:

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

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2);

8Section 15(2) provides:

Service providers shall ensure 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.

background

9The Applicant is the father of a son, the “Youth”. The Youth was 16 years old at the time the Application was filed with the CFSRB.

10The Applicant, the Youth, and the child’s mother “mother” had extensive involvement with another Children’s Aid Society since in or around 2009. The Applicant and the mother had a lengthy trial in 2011, the most significant issue in that trial was the custody of and access to their child. The Applicant and the mother were divorced in 2011.

11After the trial, a regime of parallel parenting was Ordered with each parent having certain defined decision-making responsibilities and information sharing obligations.

12The youth presently refuses to see the Applicant. The Youth resides primarily with the mother.

analysis

Issue one: the Respondent heard concerns regarding the Applicant not being informed that the mother had reported an incident in which the Youth expressed that he was suicidal while in the Applicant’s care.

13The Applicant alleges that he should have been informed when the mother called the after-hours hotline on June 18, 2023, reporting that the Youth had messaged her that he felt suicidal.

14The Applicant was contacted to set up a meeting by S.G. on June 26, 2023. The Applicant requested that S.G. read the court decision from 2011 before their meeting. A meeting occurred at the Applicant’s home on June 28, 2023. P.S. and the Applicant attended this meeting; however, P.S. provided no input.

15S.G. testified that she took over carriage of the matter from another Children’s Aid Society starting on or around June 20, 2023. She did not have direct knowledge of what occurred before being assigned the file. However, she testified that she read the intake referral documents in the file. The file was coded as a 31B, caregiver causes and or caregiver response to child’s emotional harm or risk of emotional harm. The file was assigned a seven-day response. S.G. indicated that she had called to set up an appointment with the mother on or around June 21, 2023, and did a safety assessment interview with the Youth on June 22, 2023. She was satisfied that the Youth was safe while in the care of the mother.

16S.G. testified that she explained to the Applicant that the Youth did not wish the Applicant to be called from June 18, 2023, to June 21, 2023, as this would exacerbate the situation. The Youth experienced mental distress following the Applicant showing him legal documents that included sexual assault allegations made by his mother against the Applicant. It was explained to the Applicant that a safety plan was arranged with the mother to which she agreed to call the police if she was concerned that the Youth was at risk for self-harm.

17S.G. testified that on October 4, 2023, when she, the Applicant, P.S., C.D and Jennifer Binnington “J.B”. attended a meeting at the Respondent’s office, it was explained again to the Applicant that the reason he was not called was that he was the reason for the Youth wanting to harm himself. Contacting the Applicant would have put the Youth at a higher risk of emotional harm. The mother did not have to call the police as per her safety plan. She maintained contact with the Youth who had stabilized emotionally.

18In P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33, at paras. 13-14, the Board described the purpose of ss.68.1(4) and (5) and addressed s.68.1(4) 4 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, allowing applicants 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 that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

19The CFSRB’s jurisdiction in an Application under section 120(4)4 of the Act is limited to determining whether the Respondent has heard an Applicant’s concerns. The CFRSB does not have the authority to evaluate and make determinations about the substance of the Respondent’s decisions.

20Regarding the above caselaw, in this case, the Applicant’s concerns regarding the delay in reporting to the Applicant were heard during this initial meeting on June 28, 2023, and again on October 4, 2023. Active listening and discussions about the Applicant’s concerns were taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. It was explained to the Applicant that the reason for not being informed was because it would have caused the Youth further harm, and the Youth did not wish that the Applicant be called. The mother had maintained contact with the Youth who had stabilized emotionally. I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard.

Issue two: the Respondent heard the evidence and explanations in support of his belief that the Youth was not suicidal.

21The Applicant stated that from June 19 to June 21, 2023, he had parenting time with the Youth. During that time, he stated that the Youth had historically requested to see court documents and he showed him documents from the Crown. The Youth was not suicidal during these days and had gone to several restaurants with the Applicant. The Applicant indicated that the Youth was affected emotionally but this was due to the stress of his education. The Applicant provided letters from the Youth’s school in June 2023 praising his accomplishments. The receipts from restaurants and the emails from the Youth’s school were provided to S.G. at this meeting.

22S.G. testified that she informed the Applicant of the reasons for the Youth’s mental health crisis at the initial meeting on June 28, 2023. She stated that she reviewed the emails from the Youth’s school and the restaurant receipts that were provided by the Applicant to prove that the Youth was not in a suicidal mind frame. S.G. explained that the Youth stated that he was feeling emotionally upset/had expressed wanting to end his life after he saw these legal documents about his mother.

23The Applicant further asked that S.G. review the prior judgment from 2011 and indicated that the mother was embellishing the situation. It was explained to the Applicant by S.G. that the Youth was genuine and credible, and she did not feel that the Youth was being influenced by his mother.

24The Applicant was not in agreement with the decision of the Respondent finding that he had emotionally harmed the Youth by showing the Youth the court documents involving the allegations made by the mother. S.G. discussed her findings with the Applicant again on July 31, 2023, by telephone and the Applicant voiced his objections to S.G.

25A structured case conference was then set up on August 1, 2023, with S.G and the Respondent Directors as S.G. wanted to bring the Applicant’s position that he was not in agreement with the findings of emotional harm to her supervisors. Further recommendations were made regarding follow-up with the Youth’s healthcare providers at that time.

26At the hearing, the Applicant continued to state that the mother had made up all of the Youth’s complaints. However, the Youth’s interview with S.G. did not support the Applicant’s testimony. The Respondent had explained this to the Applicant; the Applicant disagreed.

27The Applicant's concerns regarding whether the Respondent heard his reasons for his belief that the Youth was not suicidal were verified by his testimony that his concerns were addressed. He stated that he provided emails from the Youth’s school and restaurant receipts for review. He voiced his concerns regarding the mother’s false claims against him and he felt that the Youth was being coached by the mother. The Respondent responded to these concerns, indicating that the Youth could have suicidal thoughts and not express them to the Applicant and that the Youth was credible and not influenced by the mother. I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard. The Applicant simply did not agree with the Respondent’s position.

Issue three: the Respondent failed to hear his concerns that they were blaming him for his son’s suicidal thoughts without a proper investigation.

28The Applicant testified that the Youth was experiencing stress from his schooling. The mother was not telling the truth. The police should have been called to investigate the past occurrences and the Court contacted to do the same. The school could have been called as they had three psychologists. The Family Physician should have been called. The Youth should have been tested for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder “ADHD”.

29S.G testified that she spoke to the relevant treating professionals such as the Youth’s counsellor, psychologist, and naturopath just after the time of the incident. They expressed that the Youth was experiencing conflict with the Applicant due to the incident that occurred in which legal papers were shown to the Youth. The Youth was tested for ADHD as a result of S.G. requesting this to be done based on hearing the Applicant’s concerns that he believed that the Youth had been diagnosed with ADHD. The Youth was not diagnosed with this condition. The Youth had no longer been in the care of the Family Physician when the incident occurred.

30At the October 4, 2023, meeting the Applicant continually expressed his belief that the Youth was being coached by the mother. The Respondent had reviewed each of the Applicant’s concerns and despite there being direct evidence from the Youth regarding the harm inflicted on him by being exposed to adult conflict, the Applicant was unwilling to accept this information. The Respondent indicated that the Applicant has not demonstrated insight into the emotional harm concerns, and the reasons for involvement.

31The Applicant's concerns regarding whether the Respondent blamed him for the Youth’s suicidal thoughts and did not do a proper investigation were verified by the Applicant’s testimony. The Applicant testified that he wanted more investigation for example the Respondent should have called the police, and the Courts for historical information. The Respondent should have called the Family Physician and the Youth’s school. The Respondent had read the Court’s decision which outlined the historical involvement of the police and followed up with the relevant treating health care professionals. The mother had indicated that the Youth was no longer under the care of the past Family Physician. The Respondent also followed up and acted on the Applicant’s concerns that the Youth had ADHD. I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard.

Issue four: the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding their advice for him not to bring his concerns to Court.

32The Applicant testified that during the October 4, 2023, meeting with the Respondent, he expressed that he wanted to go to Court to clear his name regarding the mental health allegations against him as being found that he emotionally harmed the Youth. The Applicant stated that the reason for attending Court was he wanted a new investigation, wanted to clear his name, and that the Respondent had just believed the mother. The Applicant testified that he did not bring this matter back before the Court but was intending to do so. He wanted a judge to decide if he harmed the Youth. He wanted the Respondent to go under oath in Court.

33S.G. testified that at the family services meeting on October 4, 2023, with the Applicant, P.S., A.C., and J.B., the possibility of litigation was discussed. However, it was suggested that the Applicant focus on trying to rebuild his relationship with the Youth. Suggestions were provided regarding rebuilding his relationship with the Youth. The Applicant refused all suggestions. The Applicant took the position that it was the mother who had orchestrated this complaint as she had done in the past. The Applicant would not accept any responsibility for the Youth’s mental distress due to him being shown the legal documents by him.

34S.G. testified that she told the Applicant that given the age of the Youth being 16 years old, the Court process would increase the conflict between him and the Youth. S.G. found that the Youth was mature for his age and genuine in what he related to her.

35Regarding the Applicant’s complaint that the Respondent did not support going back to Court but rather suggested an alternative to returning to Court and discouraged this, I find that the Respondent did this in an attempt to prioritize the rebuilding of the relationship with the Youth with the Applicant. Attending Court is a last resort and parties are encouraged to try to work through issues before initiating litigation. The Respondent indicated that they only offered suggestions of trying to work through the conflict with the Youth. The Applicant and the mother have been in high conflict since at least 2009. The continued conflict can only increase the emotional distress of the Youth and make a rebuilt relationship almost impossible.

36I find that the Applicant’s testimony verified that his concerns were addressed. I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard. The Respondent did not bar the Applicant from starting a motion to change or issuing a statement of claim and this could have been done by the Applicant if he chose to do so. A least intrusive plan was offered as opposed to litigation however the Applicant was not willing to partake in any way to repair his relationship with the Youth.

Issue five: the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the Respondent’s use of the word “Nazi” in reference to her parenting style and its impact on him and his mother were dismissed.

37The Applicant testified that on June 28, 2023, that S.G. used this word at a meeting with him and in front of his mother. The Applicant testified that after S.G. left he voiced concerns over the use of this word with his mother. He additionally indicated that he lost faith in the worker's ability to do an investigation because she used this word. The Applicant stated that he booked a meeting with S.G. and the two supervisors to discuss the use of this word. He indicated that he advised S.G. of his intention to address this at a meeting by telephone and a meeting was scheduled on October 4, 2023. He had concerns about S.G. not taking contemporaneous notes and noted that her use of this word was not in her notes from the in-person visit or in the call logs.

38The Applicant stated that at the meeting, he addressed the use of this word spoken by S.G. and that she did not apologize. He indicated that P.S. after hearing S.G. use the term “Nazi”, had nightmares about the Holocaust. He had spoken to Jewish friends, and he was emotionally affected by the word that was used by S.G.

39S.G. stated that she inappropriately used this word, in the context of a discussion they were having about how strict she was with bedtime routines for her children. She stated that she was a “Nazi” when it came to bedtime routines. S.G. stated that the Applicant responded to her by also referring to not being a “Nazi’ regarding his parenting. The Applicant responded that he denied that he also used this word during the meeting.

40S.G. stated that she was unaware before the October 4, 2023, meeting with the Applicant and her supervisors that she had caused mental distress and felt ambushed at the meeting. S.G. stated that at no time did the Applicant call her or speak to her in person expressing any emotional harm due to the use of this word.

41S.G. stated that she would have told her supervisors of this complaint if she had been notified of it by the Applicant. She expressed that taking notes is not a transcript, the notes are child-focused. S.G. expressed that the Applicant was unhappy because of the investigation and was lashing out at her.

42C.D. testified that the complaint of the Applicant was addressed at the meeting. The Applicant was provided with a written formal apology from the Respondent thereafter.

43Regarding the Applicant’s complaints that the use of the inappropriate word was not addressed, the Respondent addressed this at the October 4, 2023, meeting, which was followed by a formal letter of apology to the Applicant. I find that the Applicant’s complaint that the word Nazi was not in the notes was not relevant to his complaint of not being heard. I find that his complaint that he had expressed this complaint verbally to prepare for the meeting with S.G. was not plausible as she testified that she experienced shock when this was disclosed. I preferred and found the testimony of S.G. to be credible and consistent in that she readily admitted to the use of this word at that meeting. I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard.

Conclusion

44I find that the Respondent met its obligation to hear the Applicant’s concerns. I find that the Applicant was heard by the Respondent.

ORDER

45The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

46Pursuant 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.