CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
PH and KH Applicant
-and-
Durham Children’s Aid Society Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk
Indexed As: PH and KH v Durham Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
INTRODUCTION
1This is an Application filed by the father and step-mother of three children (“the Children”) 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 deemed the Application eligible for review pursuant to sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3At a March 15, 2024 Pre-Hearing, the following issues were identified:
a. The Applicants allege that their concerns regarding advice provided by the Respondent Worker SF (parenting time; the Children’s choice of living arrangements and the decision by the Children not to have parenting time with their father) and its impact on the Applicants were not heard by Respondent staff;
b. The Applicants allege that they have not been provided with reasons as to why Respondent Worker SF addressed parenting time during its investigations, and became involved in issues that impacted on parenting time;
c. The Applicants allege that they were not provide with a written explanation about Worker SF’s communication about parenting time as they felt that parenting time was not a child protection concern;
d. The Applicants allege that Respondent staff (Worker SF) did not hear their concerns regarding parental alienation and did not investigate these concerns;
e. The Applicants allege that the Respondent did not hear their concerns that Worker SF was not impartial in dealing with them; was not professional; did not put his information in writing; and did not take accountability for his actions;
f. The Applicants allege that the Respondent Worker SF failed to hear their concerns regarding the Children’s disrespectful behaviour;
g. The Applicants allege that their requests to receive information via e-mail have gone unheard and unanswered by Respondent staff;
h. The Applicants allege that Respondent staff did not hear their concerns that staff came to meetings unprepared; and
i. The Applicants allege that Respondent Worker SF did not hear their concerns regarding the Children’s mother’s allegations and complaints.
4A second Pre-Hearing was held on March 21, 2024 in which it was determined that the hearing would be held in writing with timelines provided for submissions, and that the issues to be determined at the hearing were as set out in paragraph 3 above.
5Both parties filed their respective materials and submissions with CFSRB. Neither party filed affidavits or other sworn material. Their evidence in support of their respective positions is comprised of documents including excerpts from the Respondent’s records and written communications. I am satisfied that I have the information I require in order to determine the issues before me.
BACKGROUND
6As noted above, the Applicants are the father and step-mother of the Children.
7On June 14, 2023, the Respondent opened a file in relation to reported child protection concerns. The child protection concerns related to post-separation caregiver conflict and the impact on the Children. At the time of the file opening, the Children were between 11 and 15 years of age.
8An Ontario Family Risk Assessment was conducted by the Respondent that showed the family rated at a Moderate risk level. At the conclusion of the investigation, the Children were assessed as safe and the file was closed.
9On December 14, 2023, there was a second investigation by the Respondent further to an allegation by the Children’s biological mother that the Applicant Father had thrown a book at one of the Children. After completing the Ontario Family Risk Assessment, the Respondent submits that the results showed the family rated at a Moderate risk level. The Applicant Father acknowledged to the Respondent that he had thrown a book in the direction of one of the Children out of frustration at the child’s alleged misconduct. The Respondent concluded that the concerns the Applicant Father had caused physical harm to the Child were not verified and that the file should be closed.
ISSUES
10The issues for determination are:
a. Were the Applicants given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests were made, or a chance to be heard when they raised concerns about the services they were receiving ?
b. Did the Respondent Society provide the Applicants with reasons for decisions that affected their interests ?
ANALYSIS
11The relevant provisions of the Act are set out below:
Section 120(4) of the Act provides:
The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section…
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2);
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
Section 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 services they are receiving.
Issue #1: Were the Applicants given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests were made, or a chance to be heard when they raised concerns about the services they were receiving ?
12The pertinent issues and concerns of the Applicants on this issue are those listed at Paragraph 3 (a), (d), (e ), (f), (g), (h) and (i) of this Decision and will be addressed individually.
(a) Were the Applicants’ concerns regarding advice provided by the Respondent Worker SF (parenting time; the Children’s choice of living arrangements and the decision by the Children not to have parenting time with their father) and its impact on the Applicants heard by Respondent staff ?
13The Applicants submit that their concerns regarding the advice provided by the Respondent Worker SF on these issues to them, the Children and to the Children’s biological mother and her partner, the consequences of these discussions and, the Respondent Worker SF’s involvement in parenting time issues were not heard by Respondent.
14In support of their position, the evidence relied upon by the Applicants includes text messages with the Respondent Worker SF, their recollection of a meeting they attended with Respondent Worker SF on October 5, 2023, and excerpts from the Respondent’s records.
15In the communications submitted by the Applicants in support of their Application including in relation to this issue, there are numerous instances in which they raise their concerns about the conduct of the Children’s biological mother and her partner including concerns about parental alienation, and concerns about the children’s behaviour.
16In response, the Respondent provides the dates and particulars of numerous meetings, calls and other communications by them with the Applicants and submits there were additional opportunities and forums where the Applicants’ concerns and the impact on them were heard by Respondent staff.
17The Applicants do not dispute the dates provided by the Respondent when it says meetings and calls with one or both Applicants were held with the Respondent Worker SF, family services supervisors and other Respondent staff. The Applicants acknowledge meetings and discussion with the Respondent’s staff with respect to their concerns. They were not happy with the outcome of those meetings and discussions.
18I find that the Respondent provided the Applicants with numerous opportunities to raise