C-LP v. Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, 2024 CFSRB 32

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

C-LP Applicant

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: March 21, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 32 Indexed As: C-LP v Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

C-LP, Applicant Self-Represented

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, Respondent Karen O’Keefe, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant is the mother of one boy (the “Child”) who currently resides with his father. The Applicant was concerned about the Respondent’s decision to remove the Child from her care and place him with her mother. The Applicant alleged she was not provided reasons for decisions that affected her life and the Child’s life. She alleged that the Respondent had not been accountable for its actions. Finally, the Applicant wanted to know what she could do to have the Child returned to her care.

2The Applicant and the Respondent mediated the Applicant’s Complaint and agreed on a final Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated January 8, 2024. The Agreement represented a full settlement the issues raised in her Application. The Agreement consisted of 9 detailed Terms with an implementation date of February 23, 2024, and a compliance date of March 1, 2024.

3The Respondent provided the Applicant with a letter dated February 23, 2024, which included its responses to all 9 Terms. On February 26, 2024, the Applicant sent the CFSRB an e-mail alleging that the Respondent had not complied with the Terms of Settlement. She reported that she had not been provided with a copy of her file. She also indicated that some of the statements in the Respondent’s letter were untrue. The Applicant requested additional evidence related to the allegations made about her and additional answers to her questions.

4The parties attended a videoconference on March 12, 2024, to review the non-compliance allegations. At that time, the Respondent’s Counsel conceded that the Applicant had not been provided a copy of her file in compliance with Term 1. Counsel indicated that the file would be provided to the Applicant on the same day. A follow-up videoconference was scheduled for March 21, 2024, to give the Applicant some time to review the file.

5The parties reconvened by Zoom on March 21, 2024, to review the Terms. At the onset of the videoconference, the Applicant indicated that she had a list of questions for the Respondent. Counsel indicated that the Respondent would be happy to receive the questions and would provide the Applicant with responses within 2 weeks. The Applicant indicated that her questions would address several of her concerns regarding the Terms of Settlement.

THE LAW

6The CFSRB found the Application to be eligible for review under sections 120 (4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. The Act outlines the rights of Applicants, the duties and obligations of Children’s Aid Societies, and the mandate of the CFSRB.

7Section 120(4) of the Act reads as follows:

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 subsection 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 subsection 15(2).
5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
6. Such other matters as may be prescribed.

Subsection 120(7) indicates that: After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant (e) dismiss the complaint

8The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or validity of a decision made by a Society in any given situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.

9In an allegation of non-compliance, an Applicant’s statement of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society does not negate or invalidate those reasons. As outlined below, the Applicant disagrees with many of the responses provided by the Respondent.

ANALYSIS OF NON-COMPLIANCE ALLEGATIONS

10At the videoconference the Applicant conceded that the Respondent had complied with Terms 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9. I considered the remaining 4 Terms.

11After reviewing the documents before me, I find that the Respondent has met its commitments and obligations as set out in the Agreement and as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”) in relation to Terms 1, and 6. Terms 2 and 3 will be fulfilled through the Respondent’s answers to the Applicant’s further questions.

12These are the reasons for my findings.

Term 1: Disclosure of the Applicant’s File

13The Applicant indicated that she had received the disclosure and that it covered the time period stated in the Settlement Agreement. The Applicant expressed her frustration with the number of redactions in the file. Counsel explained that the redactions were required to comply with the privacy of third parties which is outlined in Part X of the Act.

14The parties agreed that the Applicant could obtain more detailed information in the form of the Respondent’s responses to her list of questions.

15While the disclosure of the Applicant’s file was delayed, I find that the Respondent has complied with this Term.

Term 2: Identification and Justification of Risks

16The Respondent provided written explanations in relation to the Applicant’s parenting capacity; concerns regarding child neglect; concerns regarding the Applicant’s mental health; the decision to have the Child placed with his grandmother; and decisions related to the Applicant’s access to the Child.

17As outlined above, the Applicant continued to have questions regarding the decisions that each Respondent worker made; the reasons for the decisions; and the steps that were taken by the Respondent. The Applicant will provide the Respondent with these questions on or before March 22, 2024. The Respondent will provide the Applicant with answers to the questions on or before April 9, 2024 (date adjusted for 2 statutory holidays).

18Given the discussion and responses provided, I find that the Respondent has complied partially with Term 2 and will provide the Applicant with answers to additional questions that the Applicant has identified.

Term 3: Placement of Child Pursuant to Voluntary Agreement

19The Respondent provided a written explanation for this Term. The Applicant agreed that she would include any additional questions she might have regarding the placement of her son with his grandmother in the list of questions provided to the Respondent.

20For these reasons, I find that the Respondent has complied partially with Term 3.

Term 6: Applicant’s Concerns for the Child in the Care of His Father

21The Applicant indicated that she remained concerned with the health and safety of her son, and she wanted regular updates about him.

22The Respondent’s answer to the Applicant indicated that the Child’s file (with another protection agency) had been closed. As such, the other child protection agency could not provide her with any updates on the health and well-being of the Child. Counsel reported at the non-compliance videoconference that she had passed along the Applicant’s request to the other child protection agency; however, there was little that could be done as the file was closed.

23The Applicant remained concerned with the health and safety of her son. The Applicant understood that her only recourse to obtain updates is through Family Court as the file had been closed.

24Based on the information provided by the Respondent, I find that the Respondent complied with the Term by expressing the Applicant’s desire to have regular updates on her son from the other child protection agency. Unfortunately, given that the file was closed, the Respondent did not have any further jurisdiction to address the issue. As such, I find that the Respondent complied with its request to the other child protection agency for regular updates; however, it could not ensure that the other agency would comply.

SUMMARY

25After having reviewed the response and allegations of non-compliance, I have found that the Respondent has complied fully with Terms 1 and 6. The Respondent has partially complied with Terms 2 and 3. The Applicant will be provided with responses to her additional questions which will address the Applicant’s remaining concerns with the Applicant’s decision-making and actions in relation to her and her son.

ORDER

26The Applicant will provide the Respondent with a list of questions on or before March 22, 2024.

27The Respondent will provide the Applicant with written responses to the Applicant’s questions on or before April 9, 2024. The Respondent will confirm in writing with the CFSRB that it has provided the Applicant with responses.

28The file will be closed after the CFSRB receives notification that the Applicant has been provided with responses to her questions.

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.