GM and KM v Child and Family Services of Grand Erie, 2024 CFSRB 65

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

GM and KM

Applicants

-and-

Child and Family Services of Grand Erie

Respondent

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon

Date: May 21, 2024

Citation: 2024 CFSRB 65

Indexed As: GM and KM v Child and Family Services of Grand Erie (CYFSA s.192)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

GM & KM, Applicants

Sandra Askew, Paralegal

Child and Family Services of Grand Erie, Respondent

Alexis Kinnear, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (“the Act”). The Applicants seek a review of the Respondent’s decision to refuse their application to adopt the child, ZS.

2The Applicants became foster parents of ZS, on January 9, 2022, shortly after his birth.

3The Applicants, during a meeting with the Respondent Society on November 16, 2023, expressed their interest in adopting ZS. The Applicants were advised during that meeting that in accordance with a Family Group Decision Making Conference, the family had identified 3 potential permanency plans for ZS and that the Respondent Society was moving forward with assessing the second plan identified by the family.

4On November 17, 2023, the Respondent Society provided the Applicants with a letter advising that the permanency plan they put forward was denied, attaching the Minutes from the meeting held on November 16, 2023, and attaching a printout from a part of the CFSRB’s website.

5There is a question as to whether on April 9, 2023, the Applicant applied to adopt ZS. They assert that they did and that the Respondent Society refused their application to adopt that day.

6The Applicants brought this Application on April 11, 2023.

ISSUES

7At the Case Management Conference on April 18, 2024, two preliminary issues were identified:

i. Does the November 17, 2023, letter satisfy the notice obligation in subsections 192(2)(a) and 192(2)(b) of the Act?

ii. Did the Applicants make an Application to adopt ZS in April 2024?

Results

8I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicants with the required notice of their decision to refuse the Applicant’s adoption application in November 2023. Given this finding there is no need to determine whether the Applicants made a further Application to adopt in April 2024.

ANALYSIS

Does the November 17, 2023, letter satisfy the notice obligation in subsections 192(2)(a) and 192(2)(b) of the Act?

9Under S. 192 where a Society decides to refuse an application to adopt a particular child by a foster parent the Society must give at least 10 days notice in writing of the decision to the foster parent and include in that notice the person’s right to apply for a review of the decision. A person who receives notice of a decision has 10 days after receiving notice to apply to the CFSRB for a review of the decision.

10The CFSRB has found that it is essential that notices under section 192(2) be crystal clear. In a decision dealing with section 192 the CFSRB stated:

…the notice requirements of the Act are mandatory. They serve several important purposes. First, they notify foster parents and prospective adoptive parents of decisions that significantly impact their lives and the lives of the children in their care. Second, they tell foster parents and prospective adoptive parents that they have a right to have those decisions reviewed by the CFSRB. Third, they provide clarity about the time period in which foster parents and prospective adoptive parents can apply to the CFSRB. That period is very short – only 10 days from when notice is received. This short time period ensures that children and families do not remain in a state of uncertainty for a prolonged period. For these reasons, it is essential that notices under section 192(2) be crystal clear…..

When an adoption application is refused, the foster parents or prospective adoptive parents must be told explicitly about their appeal rights including the time limits to appeal.

JT and CT v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2019 CFSRB 74 at para 12

11The CFSRB has found that when an adoption application is refused written notice to the prospective adoptive parents must make specific reference to the applicable section of the Act and use the wording from that section. In a decision dealing with section 144 (now 192) the CFSRB stated:

… a notice from a Society under s.144(2)(a) [now s.192(3)(a)] must include a specific reference to s.144(3) and use the wording from this provision to satisfy the requirement in s.144(2)(b) of the Act. Preferably this notice letter would also include the name, address, telephone and facsimile numbers for the Board and reference to the Board website …

JC & TB v. Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2011 CFSRB 2 at para 10.

12The Respondent submits that the November 17, 2023, letter complies with its’ notice obligation required by section 192(2). They submit that the information attached to that letter provided specific information related to filing an Application with the CFSRB for a review of a written notice to refuse an adoption application, stating that there is a large, bolded heading “Deadline” that specifically advises of the 10-day review period. The Respondent describes this as clear and concise language and states that there was no possibility for confusion related to the process of filing an Application with the Board.

13In their letter to the Applicants dated November 17, 2023, the Respondent stated, “we are assessing a family plan that was developed through the Family Group Decision making conference and will not be proceeding with an assessment of your permanency plan for ZS.”

14Attached to the letter of November 17, 2023, were “[Applicants] Meeting Minutes”, which state, “We confirmed that the agency is proceeding with the assessment of the 2nd family plan as per the FGDM conference and not the [Applicant]’s. It was explained that the plan will be fully assessed, and should it not be viable then we would explore any other plan(s) that was presented. If there are no viable kin/kith plans, then the Society would be in a position to assess the [Applicant]’s.”

15The letter of November 17, 2023, also stated, “We have enclosed information on the Child and Family Services Review Board that we spoke about during our meeting”. The attached meeting minutes state, “We provided information on the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) i.e. It is an independent tribunal which can be access by individuals/families for various reasons, one being when an application for adoption has been refused.” The CFSRB information referred to is a printout from a portion of the CFSRB’s website.

16I find that the November 17, 2023, letter and attached information do not meet the requirements of section 192(2). Neither document includes a specific reference to section 192(3) nor uses the wording of that section. Nor did the letter specifically state that there was a 10-day time limit on filing an appeal. The deadline referenced by the Respondent is buried in a website printout.

17The November 17, 2023, letter and attachments are confusing in relation to the adoption plan being put forth by the Applicants being denied. The letter states at paragraph 3, “will not be proceeding with an assessment of your permanency plan for ZS”, while the minutes state on page two paragraph 1, “should it not be viable then we would explore any other plan(s)” and “if there are no viable in/kith plans, then the Society would be in a position to assess the [Applicant]’s.”

18The Respondent sent the letter by regular mail on November 20, 2023. It was not read immediately as the Applicants were expecting an e-mail. The Applicants found and read the letter on November 29, 2023. The exact date on which the letter was received and read is not determinative of the issues before me.

19I find that the November 17, 2023, letter does not satisfy the notice obligation in subsections 192(2)(a) and 192(2)(b) of the Act. Given this the 10-day deadline to apply for review pursuant to section 192(3) notice period under 192 does not apply. It is, therefore, not necessary to decide whether the Applicants again applied to adopt in April 2024.

ORDER

20Application CA24-0059 shall proceed to a hearing on the merits.

confidentiality order

30Pursuant 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.