TZ v. Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, 2025 CFSRB 13

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

TZ Applicant

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk Date: February 7, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 13 Indexed As: TZ v Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

TZ, Applicant Self-represented

Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, Respondent Jeffery Hustins, Counsel

OVERVIEW

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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (“the Act”). A hearing was held by videoconference on January 9, 2025.

ISSUES

2The Application consists of the following complaints under subsection 120(4)5 of the Act:

• The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for why the Respondent did not open an ongoing file or verify concerns regarding risk to the child from the mother’s mental health issues and post-separation conflict following the Applicant’s April 14, 2022 conversation with Respondent workers; and,
• The Applicant alleges that the Respondent amended a May 2022 letter to the Applicant’s ex-partner that affected the Applicant’s interests and the Applicant was not provided with reasons for the Respondent’s amendment to that letter.

RESULT

3Having reviewed the testimony and documents presented at the hearing, I find the following:

1. The Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for not opening the file to ongoing service in relation to concerns about post-separation conflict;
2. The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for it not verifying concerns regarding risk to the child from the mother’s mental health issues, or with respect to its decision not to open an ongoing file in relation to these concerns.
3. The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for its amendments to the May 20, 2022 letter it wrote to the mother.

ANALYSIS

Background

4The Applicant is the father of a young child (“the Child”).

5The Respondent conducted an investigation further to concerns pertaining to post-separation conflict between the Applicant and the mother of the child (“the mother”), and concerns about the potential impact of exposure to that conflict on the child.

6The child protection investigation started on or about April 13, 2022. The child was in the full-time care of her mother at that juncture. The Applicant advised the Respondent that he had commenced a legal proceeding under the Children’s Law Reform Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12 with respect to the Child, and that there was a court date in June 2022.

7During the course of the Respondent’s child protection investigation, the Applicant was charged criminally with assault of the mother which reportedly occurred in the child’s presence. The Applicant denied assaulting the mother and alleged that it was the mother who assaulted him. As a result of the criminal charges, release conditions were imposed by the criminal court, including a prohibition on the Applicant having contact with the mother.

8The Applicant expressed his concerns about the mental health and parenting capacity of the child’s mother to the Respondent on several occasions.

9On May 17, 2022, the child protection worker who had conducted the investigation spoke with the Applicant by phone. She informed him of the Respondent’s verification decision and plan to close the file. The Applicant advised her he had ‘worries” and wanted to see the child. The Respondent provided the Applicant with a closing letter dated May 20, 2024. In that letter, the Respondent states that it had verified that the child had been exposed to partner violence between the Applicant and the mother. It confirms that the file is being closed.

Issue 1: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for it not opening an ongoing file or verifying concerns regarding risk to the child further to the mother’s mental health issues and the post-separation conflict?

10It was the Applicant’s evidence that he begged the Respondent to keep the file open. He acknowledged that the Respondent provided him with a reason for the file not being opened to ongoing service. More specifically, the Applicant testified that the reason he was given is that the Respondent’s protection concerns were about the child’s exposure to conflict between the parents and that the criminal condition prohibiting contact between the Applicant and the mother alleviated this concern.

11Regarding the Applicant’s reported concerns about the mother’s mental health, the Applicant was not provided with information by the Respondent about any investigations it conducted in relation to these concerns, including verification decisions, or the basis for its decision to close the file.

12The Respondent takes the position that it could not share any information about the mother with the Applicant due to the confidentiality provisions of the Act. However, there was no evidence adduced that this was conveyed to the Applicant as the reason they could not provide him with the information he requested.

13The investigating child protection worker testified that she did not have concerns about the mother’s parenting or care of the child. She further testified that the file was not opened to ongoing service as this is a voluntary process and the mother was not agreeable to ongoing services. There is no evidence that any of this was conveyed to the Applicant. The fact that this evidence was given by the investigating child protection worker without objection by Respondent’s counsel, suggests this was information that the Respondent does not view as it being prohibited by legislation from sharing and that could have been provided to the Applicant.

14While I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for not opening the file to ongoing service in relation to concerns about post-separation conflict, it did not provide the Applicant with reasons for not verifying concerns regarding risk to the child from the mother’s mental health issues, or with respect to its decision not to open an ongoing file in relation to those concerns.

Issue 2: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for amending its May 20, 2022 letter to the mother?

15The Applicant is in possession of two letters sent by the Respondent to the mother. The Applicant did not obtain the letters from the Respondent. The original letter is dated May 20, 2022. The second letter replaces the May 20, 2022 letter. It bears a date of May 20 2022 and underneath that date the following is written, “*updated on June 16, 2022, as per Ms. [mother’ surname] request”.

16The notable differences between the two letters are as follows:

• Original letter: “The Society has verified that your mental health is threatening to interfere with your child caring abilities”.

This sentence is replaced with the following in the replacement letter:

“The Society also verified concerns regarding your mental health as you have acknowledged that you live with mental health diagnoses and continue to be able to meet the child’s needs”.

• Original letter: “Currently, the Society has assessed that the child’s needs are being met”

The replacement letter indicates an update was received from the mother on June 16, 2022 regarding her participation in services. The above sentence from the original letter is replaced with the following:

“Currently, the Society has no concerns for your care to (…) as the child’s needs are being met.”

17The Applicant’s evidence is that he was “blindsided” in his family law case related to parenting issues with respect to the child by the changes to the May 20, 2022 letter.

18The evidence of the investigating child protection worker was that the outcome/verification did not change in the replacement letter. She testified that the wording was changed at the mother’s request after she provided the Respondent with an update on her mental health and services, as reflected in the replacement letter.

19There was no evidence before me that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for it making the changes it did to the letter. Moreover, there was no evidence that the Respondent informed the Applicant about any legal limitations in the information it could disclose to him without the mother’s consent due to its obligations under Part X of the Act.

20I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for its changes to the May 20, 2022 letter. While the Respondent provided some reasons for its changes to the May 20, 2022 letter during the hearing, I find that it did not provide sufficient reasons in plain language.

ORDER

21The Respondent shall provide the following, in writing, to the Applicant, within 15 days of this Order:

a. The reasons it did not verify concerns regarding risk to the child related to the mother’s mental health and open on ongoing file in relation to these issues, to the extent the Respondent is legally able to provide this information to the Applicant;

b. The reasons it made the changes that it did to the May 20, 2022 letter on June 16, 2022, to the extent it is legally able to provide this information to the Applicant; and

c. To the extent the Respondent is constrained from providing the reasons ordered above in (a) and (b), the reasons why it cannot do so including the specific sections within Part X of the Act and an explanation of the provisions in plain language for its inability to provide additional information.

22The file will be closed once the Respondent has complied with this Order. Until then, I will remain seized of this matter.

23The Applicant shall notify the CFSRB by February 24, 2025 of any alleged breach of this Order.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

24Pursuant 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.