RR v. Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry, 2024 CFSRB 9

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RR Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane Date: February 01, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 9 Indexed As: RR v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

RR, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry, Respondent Melanie Verdone, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed on October 17, 2023 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”)

2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. The Applicant alleges the Respondent did not give her the opportunity to be heard when a decision that affected her interests was made, and that the Respondent failed to give her reasons for its decisions that affected her interests.

3The hearing on the merits took place by videoconference on January 16, 2024.

4The Applicant testified.

5Respondent witnesses Shannon Snelgrove a Child, Youth and Family Worker with the Respondent, testified.

ISSUES

6This Application originally consisted of 17 issues identified at pre-hearing on November 28, 2023.

7At the start of the January 16, 2024 hearing on the merits, the parties agreed to proceed with this matter as a Mediation/Adjudication.

8The Mediation/Adjudication resulted in the withdrawal of four issues, and the settlement of twelve issues. The remaining issue, Issue #12, which proceeded to adjudication is as follows:

1. The Applicant alleges the Respondent did not hear her concerns regarding placing her daughter in the care of the Applicant’s mother.

BACKGROUND

9The Applicant is the mother of a Child aged 9 months.

10During her pregnancy, the Applicant received prenatal services from the Respondent.

11During the prenatal services, the Applicant disclosed a history of mental health issues that led the Respondent to be concerned regarding the Applicant’s ability to care for the Child following the Child’s birth.

12During the prenatal services, the Applicant also provided information to the Respondent regarding a history of abuse by her mother.

13Following the birth of the Child, the Applicant informed the Respondent that she no longer wished to receive services from the Respondent. Despite the Applicant’s wishes, due to its concerns regarding the risk of the Child being impacted by the Applicant’s mental heath issues, Respondent staff continued to attend the Applicant’s home in an effort to engage the Applicant in a further assessment process.

14On April 26, 2023, the Applicant informed Respondent staff that they should seek a court order if they wished to engage with her further.

15On April 28, 2023, Respondent staff attended the Applicant’s home with a court order providing for the Child to remain with the Applicant under the supervision of the Respondent. At this visit, in part triggered by the Applicant’s incorrect belief that the Respondent intended to apprehend the Child, the Applicant is alleged to have been mentally unstable and expressing suicidal ideation. Respondent staff were requested by the Applicant to take the Child into their care. The Applicant subsequently attended a hospital where she was assessed and discharged after a brief stay. The Child was taken into care and placed with the Applicant’s mother.

16At a subsequent court appearance on May 2, 2023, the Child was placed in the care of the Respondent and continued placed with the Applicant’s mother until these arrangements broke down after approximately one week, at which time the Child was moved to a foster home where they remained until they were returned to the Applicant’s care on October 4, 2023.

the law

17Section 120(4)4 of the Act indicates that the following matters may be reviewed by the Board:

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

18Section 15(2) of the Act confirms that:

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.

19The CFSRB has explained the right to be heard under section 120(4)4 of the Act as follows:

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. P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33 (para 14)

20Section 120(7) states that after reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.

analysis

Did the respondent hear the applicant’s concerns regarding placing the child with the applicant’s mother?

21The Applicant testified that the Respondent was aware that her mother had a child protection file related to past emotional and physical abuse of the Applicant. According to the testimony of the Applicant, the Applicant’s history of abuse by her mother was discussed during team conferences prior to the birth of the Child, and the Respondent was aware of this history. Testimony from Respondent Witness Shannon Snelgrove confirmed that these discussions with the Applicant took place during the course of the prenatal services provided by the Respondent.

22Based on the evidence, I find that the Respondent was aware of the Applicant’s history of abuse by her mother prior to the birth of the Child.

23What is less clear is how much opportunity there was for the Applicant to express her concerns regarding the Child being placed with her mother on April 28, 2023, the day the Child was apprehended and placed with the Applicant’s mother. I view the issue of whether the Applicant was heard regarding her concerns about the Child being placed with her mother as distinct from whether the Applicant was heard regarding her history of abuse by her mother. The Applicant testified that on the day the Child was apprehended, she did raise concerns with Respondent workers regarding the Child being placed with her mother, but that she did not believe her concerns were taken seriously. As evidence of the lack of consideration of her concerns she states that the Child was placed with her mother within an hour of the Child’s apprehension.

24On cross examination, the Applicant acknowledged that Respondent staff did not arrive at the Applicant’s home with the intention of Apprehending the Child. Respondent workers upon arrival at the Applicant’s home were faced with an unanticipated evolving situation pertaining to the Applicant’s mental health and need for medical attention. Respondent workers were in the position of needing to make a placement decision regarding the Child with little opportunity for advance planning or discussion with the Applicant whose mental state appeared fragile. These circumstances resulted in limited opportunity for the Respondent to engage in a thorough discussion with the Applicant of her concerns regarding placing the Child in her mother’s care. The decision to Apprehend evolved as a result of the Applicant’s mental heath condition at the time. The Applicant agreed with Respondent Counsel that there was not much time for discussion of the Child’s placement. None the less, the Applicant testified that no meaningful discussion of her concerns took place and that she did not believe her concerns were heard.

25Respondent witness, Shannon Snelgrove testified that the Applicant’s concerns regarding placing the Child with the Applicant’s mother were discussed on the day of the apprehension, however on cross examination Ms. Snelgrove stated that she was not present on the day the Child was apprehended and that she made this statement based upon subsequent discussions with the workers who apprehended the Child and subsequent review of documents pertaining to that day. Because Ms. Snelgrove does not have firsthand knowledge of events that transpired and discussions that took place on the day the Child was Apprehended, I am unable to rely upon her evidence that discussion of the Applicant’s concerns regarding placing the Child with her mother did, in fact, take place. The Respondent did not enter into evidence any of the documents that Ms. Snelgrove referred to in her testimony.

26The only direct evidence I have regarding what discussions took place pertaining to placing the Child with the Applicant’s mother following the apprehension come from the Applicant, who stated that she raised the issue and that she did not believe Respondent workers heard her concerns.

27Based on the test for being heard outlined at paragraph 19 above, the simple fact that the Applicant raised her concerns when the Child was apprehended does not mean that she was heard by the Respondent. I have no evidence before me indicating that Respondent workers engaged in meaningful discussion with the Applicant regarding the Applicant’s concerns about placing the Child with her mother following the Apprehension as required by this test. The testimony of the Applicant is that the Child was placed with her mother within an hour of the decision to Apprehend the Child. I have heard no evidence indicating that Respondent workers took steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicate with her in a manner such that the Applicant felt her concerns were taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

DECISION

For the reasons set out above, I find that the Respondent did not hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding placing the child with the Applicant’s mother. Because the Act limits the Orders I can make, as outlined at paragraph 20 above, there is no Order I can make and no further relief I can provide to the Applicant. The file is now closed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

28Pursuant 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.