CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
J-LM
Applicant
-and-
Hamilton Child and Family Supports
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Christine Staley
Indexed As: J-LM v Hamilton Child and Family Supports (CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
J-LM, Applicant
Self-represented
Hamilton Child and Family Supports, Respondent
David Sider, 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, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2A pre-hearing report dated July 18, 2025, set out the issues for the hearing.
3A full day video hearing was held on October 1, 2025.
ISSUE
4The issue are:
a. Was the Applicant heard by the Respondent when she told it about the long history of her ex-partner’s domestic violence, coercive controlling behaviour, abuse against her, and his related criminal charges;
b. Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with the outcome of the investigation that resulted in verification of her having poor parenting skills that presented a risk to the child;
c. Was the Applicant provided reasons by the Respondent for why it did not investigate an alleged second tailbone injury to her son and did not inform her about it;
d. Was the Applicant heard by the Respondent when she requested counseling services for her child and provided reasons for why those services were not provided;
e. Was the Applicant provided with details of the Respondent’s service plan for her, which would have allowed her to move forward; and
f. Was the Applicant provided with reasons for why the Respondent told her it was inappropriate for her to report her concerns about her child being hurt and unsafe in her ex-partner’s care, as expressed in an email to her on July 31, 2024.
CONCLUSION
5The CFSRB finds that the Applicant was not provided with reasons for issue 5b, but there are no further remedies to be provided.
6The CFSRB finds that the Applicant was not provided reasons for issues 5c) or 5 d) above.
7The Applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard on issue 5a) and provided an opportunity to be heard and provided reasons for issues 5e), 5f).
ANALYSIS
8The Applicant is the mother of 3 children and resides in the Hamilton area. The Respondent opened an investigation in October 2023, where three visits with the Applicant were conducted. The Applicant and the Applicant’s ex-partner, the father of one of the Applicant’s children, C, were involved in family court proceedings during this time.
9Shortly after, C was placed in the care of his father, who resided in Guelph. The Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (FACS – GW) proceeded to open a file to engage with C and his father.
10The Respondent also maintained their file with the Applicant and transferred it to ongoing care in December 2023 after the completion of the investigation. The file was assigned to a Child Protection Worker, EM, and then subsequently transferred to another worker, KT.
11The family court proceedings were suspended in June 2024 when the Respondent commenced Child Protection proceedings seeking a Supervision Order for the Applicant’s children, with the Applicant’s two older children to be placed with her, and the Applicant’s youngest child, C, to be placed with his father.
Issue a) Was the Applicant heard by the Respondent when she told it about the long history of her ex-partner’s domestic violence, coercive controlling behaviour, abuse against her, and his related criminal charges?
12The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear her when she told it about the history of her ex-partner’s domestic violence, abuse, and related criminal charges. She specifically testified that notwithstanding that she reached out for help and reported her concerns over 100 times, she felt discredited, ignored and brushed off. She believes that the Respondent’s failure to hear her concerns can be evidenced in the fact that the issues between herself and her ex-partner have been classified as “parental conflict,” not “partner violence”.
13The Respondent submits that it heard the Applicant. In the alternative, the Respondent argues that the allegations and criminal charges of the ex-partner have been placed before the court, making this allegation outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB. Specifically, the concerns expressed about the Applicant’s ex-partner were issues that would have been the subject of the family court matter and the Child Protection proceedings.
14The role of the court in a Child Protection hearing is not to consider or weigh whether a party has been heard or not. It is to examine and decide on the best interests of the child. As such, I disagree with the Respondent and I do not find that the issue of whether the Applicant was heard on this concern was outside the jurisdiction of the CFSRB~~.~~
15Section 120(4)4 of the Act requires the Respondent to ensure that the Applicant has an opportunity to be heard when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about services they are receiving. An application deemed eligible under this section, is limited to reviewing only whether an applicant has had an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they are concerned about services they are receiving. The CFSRB’s jurisdiction does not include hearing allegations related to a society’s general practices or the decisions that they made based on the information it had or received.
16In paragraphs 41 and 43 of social worker EM’s affidavit for the Children Protection proceeding, she provides evidence of being advised by the father of his criminal charges and no contact order. In paragraph 48, she states “the mother made repeated statements to [LP] and to me about the father’s history of substance use, criminal behaviour, and abuse towards herself and her children, and her worries that this pattern of behaviour was continuing while the father had [C] in his care”.
17Further, a Child Protection Information Network (CPIN) log dated August 14, 2024, prepared by Joel Martin, provides a history of the file which outlines a history of concerns around violence, both verified and not verified.
18I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns about her ex-partner’s history of domestic violence, abusive behaviour and criminal charges as evidenced by their inclusion in court documents and in the history overview provided in CPIN.
Issue b) The Applicant alleges the Respondent did not provide her with the outcome of the investigation that resulted in verification of her having poor parenting skills that presented a risk to the child?
19The Applicant alleges that she was not provided with reasons on why she was found to be lacking parenting skills.
20The Respondent submits that it provided reasons for the outcome of the investigation verifying the allegation of the caregiver having limited caregiving skills.
21As confirmed by a contact log dated December 6, 2023, a transfer meeting with the Applicant, LP and EM was conducted at the Applicant’s home. The log states that EM advised of the Respondent’s ongoing role, discussed the [plan of service] and the drafting of a service plan to guide work through ongoing involvement. There is no notation specifically stating that the Applicant was told about the investigation or its outcome.
22During cross-examination, Joel Martin stated that written confirmation of the verification would not have necessarily been signed off on by the Applicant, but from conversations he had with EM, he understood that she reviewed the parenting issues that resulted in the verification with the Applicant on December 6, 2023. He could not point to any written confirmation that EM had in fact told the Applicant about the investigation or verification.
23During the hearing, the Applicant argued that it was not until she proactively reached out to KT via text on April 29, 2025, that she was ever provided an explanation for the verification.
24On May 6, 2025, KT sent an email which acknowledged the Applicant’s request for formal clarification regarding what remains outstanding in terms of compliance. The email explains the basis for the Respondent’s ongoing involvement, and what must be demonstrated in order for the Respondent’s intervention to no longer be needed.
25Based on the evidence presented by the Applicant and the Respondent’s log, I find that the Applicant was not provided with information about the investigation or the resulting verification in December 2023. I understand the Applicant’s frustration in feeling she did not have this information much sooner, however, I find that she was in fact provided reasons for why the investigation resulted in verification and what was required of her on May 6, 2025. As such, there is no further remedy that the Board can order.
Issue c) Was the Applicant provided reasons by the Respondent for why it did not investigate an alleged second tailbone injury to her son and did not inform her about it?
26The Applicant argues that C suffered two tailbone injuries in December 2023. She submits that she knew of the first one and reported it to the Respondent. She alleges that a second injury occurred, which was admitted to by C’s father on December 28, 2023, but she was not informed about it. The Applicant alleges that this second injury was not investigated and was simply referred to as a “rash” in the Respondent’s report. She submits that she did not know about this second injury until she received disclosure in August 2025. She argues that she has not been provided with reasons for not being told about the injury or why it was not investigated.
27The Respondent submits that attempts were made in March 2024 to speak to the Applicant about her concerns, but she initially refused to meet with the Respondent to discuss them. When a meeting eventually took place, the topic of the tailbone injury did not come up.
28On December 6, 2023, the Applicant disclosed concerns to LP and EM about an alleged tailbone injury in which C was shown on video stating that his father had hurt him. An investigation was initiated into allegations of risk of physical harm, but not verified. On March 25, 2024, the Applicant texted the Respondent again about an alleged tailbone injury and included what appears to be the same video. It appears that the Respondent believed that this was a different and subsequent injury the Applicant has been referring to in her Application.
29However, it appears that there was confusion as to the injuries being spoken about. From her Application and clarification at the hearing, the Applicant’s question about the second injury is based on a comment made by C’s father on December 28, 2023. Specifically, on para 56 of EM’s affidavit for the Child Protection proceedings she states “On December 28, 2023, I received a call from [the father]….that C was having toileting issues, leading to rash-y marks on his tailbone and up his back…”. Reference to this rash is made in CPIN logs as well.
30As the Respondent failed to understand that the Applicant’s complaint was in regard to the father’s December 28, 2023, statement, I find that they did not discuss it with the Applicant, including why they did not investigate it or tell her about it.
Issue d) Was the Applicant heard by the Respondent when she requested counseling services for her child and was she provided reasons for why those services were not provided?
31The Applicant argues that she was not heard by the Respondent when she requested services for her C, and she was never provided with reasons for why those services were not provided.
32The evidence presented by the Applicant was that while C was in her care, he was receiving various services and resources. However, while C was in the care of his father, she no longer had any information about the services C was receiving, including whether or not C was still going to programs. She submitted that she reached out to EM 13 times to request that C receive counselling but was either ignored or told that her son already had too much on his plate.
33The Respondent argues that the Applicant’s son was in the legal care of his father during this time and was receiving services in another jurisdiction, namely the father’s jurisdiction. As such, it was C’s father who had primarily responsibility for the programs and services being provided to C and he was being supported by FACS - GW. Further, the Respondent submitted that they believed that the Social Worker in Guelph was providing the Applicant with this information.
34Mr. Joel Martin provided in his affidavit that he was advised by KT that she verbally told the Applicant that C’s father was working with his school to get counselling. However, when questioned during the hearing, Mr. Martin stated that the Respondent was aware of the services the father was using but did not know what information was provided to the mother about that.
35I understand the Respondent’s argument that the father and FACS - GW had primary control and information around services, however, no persuasive evidence has been provided that these circumstances were communicated to the Applicant. As such, I find that she was not provided reasons for why she was denied services, regardless of which Agency was responsible.
Issue e) Was the Applicant provided with details of the Respondent’s service plan for her, which would have allowed her to move forward, and she was not provided with reasons for this.
36The Applicant alleges that she was never provided details of the service plan or for the reasons she did not receive the details. She specifically alleges that what she received from the Respondent lacked details. When she asked the Respondent for clarity on what she should be doing under her plan, she was told that the plan wasn’t a checklist, only listed what an effective service plan was, and what the SMART goals were.
37The Respondent submits that details were provided to the Applicant. As part of the Child Protection proceedings, the Applicant was provided with the protection application, affidavit, Plan of Care and Settlement Brief. All of these documents outline the Respondent’s concerns, reasons, and plan.
38The Respondent further provided as evidence an email KT provided to the Applicant on May 6, 2025, in response to the Applicant’s response for formal clarification of the plan. This email listed the items the Respondent believed remained outstanding in terms of compliance, what had been completed and the basis for which the Protection Order was granted and continued.
39Given the above documentation, I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with details which would allow her to move forward.
f) Was the Applicant provided with reasons for why the Respondent told her it was inappropriate for her to report her concerns about her child being hurt and unsafe in her ex-partner’s care, as expressed in an email to her on July 31, 2024.
40The Applicant alleges that the Respondent told her it was inappropriate for her to report concerns about C and was not provided reasons for why she was told this.
41The Respondent submits that the Applicant was never told to not report concerns, but rather to focus on spending time with her son during access visits, and report concerns after the visit.
42The CPIN log written by EM on August 6, indicates that she left a voice message with the Applicant and “cautioned against taking photos of C’s body and asking questions where he got various marks, her time with C should remain focused on him and she could speak with [d]/myself if she had concerns during/after a visit.”
43The Applicant provided the voice mail with her documentation, which confirms the CPIN log above. In reviewing it, it is clear that the respondent worker provided reasons for why she advised that it was not appropriate to take pictures or ask C questions about alleged injuries. It was advised that the Applicant should focus on her time with C and raise any concerns with the Respondent after the visit.
44I find that the Respondent provided reasons for why the Applicant was told it was inappropriate to focus on reporting concerns about C during her visits.
ORDER
45The Application is upheld in part.
46Within 30 days, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with detailed written reasons for the following:
a. why it did not investigate an alleged second tailbone injury to her son and did not inform her about it. For clarity, the second tailbone injury is that injury referred to by C’s father on December 28 as a rash; and
b. why the Applicant was not provided services for herself or C by the Respondent when she requested them.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
47Pursuant 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.
Christine Staley
Christine Staley
Member