SM v. Simcoe-Muskoka Child Youth & Family Services, 2025 CFSRB 20

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SM

Applicant

-and-

Simcoe-Muskoka Child Youth & Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Caroline Sand, Malcolm M. MacFarlane, Christine Staley

Date: February 21, 2025

Citation: 2025 CFSRB 20

Indexed As: SM v Simcoe-Muskoka Child Youth & Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

SM, Applicant

Self-represented

Simcoe-Muskoka Child Youth & Family Services, Respondent

Jeffery Hustins, 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 Applicant seeks a review of the Respondent’s decision to refuse his application to adopt H.C. and J.C. (the “Children”).

2The Children are currently in the care of the Respondent under a court order for Extended Society Wardship. The court ordered that the Children be removed from the care of their biological mother. The Applicant is cohabitating with the Children’s biological mother. The Applicant seeks to adopt the Children and presented a plan to the Respondent for the Children’s adoption that involved the Children residing with the Applicant and the Children’s biological mother.

3The Respondent refused to consider the Applicant’s adoption plan both because of the brief time the Applicant and the Children’s biological mother had lived together, and because it would be inappropriate for the Respondent to consider placing the Children in a home with a biological parent whom the courts had determined was not capable of caring for the Children.

4The Respondent argued that the proper course of action for the Applicant and the Children’s mother was to bring a Status Review Application to the Court based on a material change in the mother’s circumstances. Such action could lead to the Court reversing its decision to place the Children in Extended Society Care.

ISSUES

5Is it in the Children’s best interest to rescind or confirm the Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s application to adopt the Children?

RESULT

6The Panel finds that it is in the Children's best interest to confirm the Respondent's decision not to proceed with the Application for adoption.

7On February 4, 2025, the CFSRB issued the following Order:

The CFSRB confirms the Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s Application to adopt H.C. and J.C.

8The reasons for the Order are set out in this Decision.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

9The Respondent’s witnesses provided the evidence for their examination in chief through Affidavits which were adopted during their testimony. The Respondent did not enter any other documents into evidence.

10The Applicant testified. The Applicant did not enter any documents into evidence. The Applicant stated he was unaware of the directions in a December 19, 2024 Prehearing Report to submit documents to be relied upon in the hearing by January 17, 2025. At the outset of the hearing, the Applicant expressed a desire to enter a report from the mother's counsellor into evidence. The Applicant was instructed to forward a copy of this report to the Respondent and the CFSRB but did not do so and did not refer to this report in his testimony or further request to enter this report in evidence. The report did not pertain to the Applicant who is the focus of this Application and therefore would have had limited relevance to the issue to be determined.

11The Respondent raised the issue of whether the Applicant had even formally applied to adopt the Children. In her Affidavit, Respondent witness and society adoption worker Danielle D’Eon set out the Respondent’s position that the Applicant “had simply completed an Intake Inquiry and not an application to adopt” (para 16).

12Despite the above position asserted by the Respondent’s adoption worker, the Respondent on October 7, 2024 forwarded to the Applicant an adoption refusal letter dated September 24, 2024. In this letter the Respondent advised the Applicant of his right to appeal the adoption refusal decision to the CFSRB, which the Applicant subsequently did.

13The CFSRB, in hearing this matter and in this decision makes no finding regarding the issue of whether the Applicant formally applied to adopt the Children. The panel’s decision in this matter is based entirely upon an analysis of the best interests of the Children under Section 179 of the CYFSA.

14The Applicant proposed calling the mother as a witness. Both parties presented submissions on whether the Panel should consider hearing from the mother. The Panel ultimately decided it did not need to hear from the mother to determine the issue set out before it, as it could come to a decision based on the Applicant’s testimony alone.

ANALYSIS

The Respondent’s Decision to Refuse the Applicant’s Application to Adopt the Children is in the Children’s Best Interests

15In this Application, the CFSRB must determine if the Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s Application to adopt the Children is in the Children’s best interests.

16The Respondent’s position is that it is in the Children’s best interests that they continue in the extended care of the Society as ordered by the courts while appropriate permanency planning takes place. Further, it is the Respondent’s position that it would be inappropriate to pursue an adoption that involved placing the Children in a home where one of the parents was an individual from whom the courts had removed the child through an order for Extended Society Care.

17The Applicant’s position is that he is knowledgeable regarding the children’s mental, physical and emotional needs. Having raised children with similar needs the Applicant submits that he is well positioned to provide a loving and caring home for the Children that will maintain the sibling relationship between the Children and maintain contact with the Children’s biological mother whom he asserts has made significant progress in addressing the issues that led the children to be removed from her care.

18The Panel assessed the evidence based on the Best Interests of the Child criteria set out in subsection 179(2) of the Act.

The Child’s Physical, Mental and Emotional Needs, and the Appropriate Care or Treatment to Meet Those Needs: Subsection 179(2)(c)(i)

19The panel finds that the Children’s best interest regarding their physical, mental and emotional needs and appropriate care and treatment to meet those needs would not be met through the Applicant’s plan to adopt the Children.

Needs of the Children

20The Affidavit and testimony of Respondent Child Protection Worker Chantal Sicard de Carufel-Leduc describes in detail the physical, mental and emotional needs of the two Children, and the appropriate care and treatment required to meet those needs.

21Ms. Carufel-Leduc’s evidence states that Child H.C. age 4, is diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, is being screened for Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, and has asthma. H.C. struggles with social communication and language issues. H.C.’s behaviours are described as being unpredictable and impulsive. H.C routinely runs into items such as tables and structures resulting in bruising and injuries. H.C. can be extremely aggressive if he does not get what he wants.

22The Child J.C. is also described as diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder and is also being screened for Fetal Alcohol syndrome. J.C has significant issues with verbal and non-verbal communication and restrictive and repetitive behaviours. J.C. requires sensory integration treatment and caregivers must learn what triggers him and how to introduce him to any new sensory items such as food or objects.

23Both Children have been exposed to domestic violence and substance abuse by previous care providers. Both children have behavioural challenges both at daycare and at home. J.C. can have episodes for up to two hours in length where he will scream, cry, hit, and attempt self harm requiring skilled caregivers knowledgeable in behaviour management techniques. Further, H.C. does not recognize “stranger danger” and will go with strangers if not monitored constantly.

24The Children require persistent and constant supervision and assistance with all aspects of daily living from caregivers who have a thorough understanding of Autism and Autism Spectrum behaviours. The Children’s caregivers currently require three adults to manage the Children and provide them with the level of care and supervision they require to stay safe. The current caregivers are a specialized home with sensory equipment and special beds for the Children. The Children will require significant therapy on a long-term basis including speech therapy and occupational therapy. The Children will require constant advocacy for both private and public services.

Applicant’s Submissions

25The Applicant testifies that he raised two children, one of whom has Autism Spectrum Disorder, and has a grandchild who also has Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Applicant reports that these individuals are successful and achieving well in their lives which he submits is a reflection of his skills in parenting children with Autism Spectrum Disorder. The Applicant submits that he is financially secure and has a home that would accommodate the Children with a backyard and a dog that is a gentle Lab/Pitbull mix. The Applicant did not see any cause for concern about bringing the children into a home with a large dog. He submits that his background in the armed forces as a medic and his experience raising children with Autism Spectrum Disorder qualifies him to parent children with complex needs such as those identified above. The Applicant further testifies that he has extensive experience in education and that he would be able to assist the Children in achieving educational success.

26The Applicant acknowledges he has never met the Children, but states he has seen videos of them from prior to the time the Children came into care in 2022 and based on these videos he is confident he could manage the Children’s behaviours.

27Given that the youngest Child would have been an infant in any videos from 2022 and the oldest Child about age two, the Panel is skeptical that such videos would provide the Applicant with an accurate understanding of the Children’s current needs and behaviours.

Panel’s Findings

28The Applicant’s testimony demonstrated that he had an inadequate understanding of the severity and complexity of the Children’s physical, mental and emotional needs. The Applicant repeatedly referred to his own children and grandchildren’s success with Autism Spectrum Disorder and was of the belief that the Children who are the focus of this Application would be capable of achieving similar success. The Applicant in his testimony referred to his own child as having “a touch of autism” that required patience, a structured environment, and regular routines. He later testified that his child’s doctor had referred to his son as having “autistic tendencies.” The Applicant acknowledges that his son and grandson are both high functioning relative to the Children he is applying to adopt. The Panel is concerned based on the Applicant’s testimony that he has limited experience with children with profound Autism Spectrum Disorder.

29The Panel was also concerned that the Applicant minimized and discounted professional opinions expressed during the testimony of the Respondent witnesses regarding the intensity of supervision and time commitment required from the Children’s caregivers to meet the Children’s needs. The Applicant expressed during his testimony that he “can’t understand why two boys would need three adults to keep them safe.” Such a statement raises questions for the Panel regarding the Applicant’s understanding of the seriousness of the Children’s conditions.

30Further concerns were raised for the Panel by the Applicant’s unsupported beliefs expressed in his testimony that despite Autism and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome being biologically based, children can “progress up the spectrum” with proper care and that Fetal Alcohol Syndrome symptoms can change over time.

31The Panel was also concerned by the Applicant’s limited understanding of the supervision needs of the Children. This was demonstrated by the Applicant’s response to a question about managing trips into the community with the two children. Rather than recognizing the challenges and need for supervision the Children require to ensure a safe trip into the community such as for a doctor’s appointment considering the identified risks of H.C. running away and not recognizing “stranger danger” the Applicant instead saw a trip to the doctor as “a nice little trip” where he would take the Children together unaccompanied by another adult. He proposed using a kind of harness to prevent a Child from running away, which is prohibited by the Respondent.

32The Panel also found the Applicant’s formal knowledge regarding Autism Spectrum and Fetal Alcohol Syndrome was lacking. The Applicant acknowledged in his testimony that he never received formal training regarding autism for his son and that he “doesn’t know much about fetal alcohol syndrome.” The Applicant indicated a willingness to take a course in Autism Spectrum Disorder but has not yet done so. The Panel finds that despite the Applicant’s expressed confidence and lived experience with a child with high functioning autism, his formal knowledge and training in Autism Spectrum Disorder and his experience with profound Autism Spectrum Disorder is limited.

33The Panel is concerned that the Applicant’s limited understanding and minimization of the seriousness of the Children’s needs results in unrealistic planning for supports. Regarding the Applicant’s need for respite, he proposed asking a neighbour, who also has recently adopted special needs children, and his son, for help as caregivers. However the Applicant states he “probably wouldn’t need a break” despite a plan for the care of the Children that has minimal involvement of the Children’s biological mother who he states would most likely be working or in school. Further, the Applicant is unaware of what local supports are available for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in a small rural town with limited available resources.

34Finally, the Panel is concerned that the Applicant’s minimization of the risk of harm by the Children being aggressive with animals could jeopardize the placement and place the children at risk. The Applicant reports having a “Lab/Pitbull” in the home. Despite the Children’s identified aggressive behaviours, the Applicant was unconcerned regarding the risk of the Children harming the animal, or of the risk of the animal injuring the Children should the Children be aggressive with the dog.

35In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Applicant has an inadequate understanding of the Children’s physical, mental and emotional needs and of the appropriate care or treatment required to meet those needs. For this reason, the Panel finds that the Applicant’s plan to adopt the Children is not in the Children’s best interests.

The Child’s Physical, Mental and Emotional Level of Development: Subsection 179(2)(c)(ii)

36The Respondent’s evidence outlined above demonstrates the children have profound physical, mental and emotional delays in their development. As the children grow, these delays will need to be addressed through appropriate care and treatment. The Applicant’s testimony showed his limited understanding of the Children’s developmental delays. The Applicant did not appear to understand that the children’s disabilities are likely to be with them throughout their lives. This lack of understanding appeared to impact the Applicant’s ability to realistically plan for the Children’s treatment and care.

37For the above reasons, the Panel finds that it is not in the Children’s best interest to be placed for adoption with the Applicant.

The Children’s Race, Ancestry, Place Of Origin, Colour, Ethnic Origin, Citizenship, Family Diversity, Disability, Creed, Sex, Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity And Gender Expression: Subsection 179(2)(iii)

38No evidence was provided by either party regarding the Children’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, or creed. The Panel did not find this section of the Act to be applicable to the Panel’s determination of the issue.

The Child’s Cultural and Linguistic Heritage: Subsection 179(2)(c)(iv)

39No evidence was provided by either party regarding the Children’s cultural and linguistic heritage. The Panel did not find this section of the Act to be applicable to the Panel’s determination of the issue.

The Importance for the Child’s Development of a Positive Relationship with a Parent and a Secure Place as a Member of a Family: Subsection 179(2)(c)(v)

40The Panel is concerned that the Applicant’s limited understanding of the physical, mental, emotional and developmental needs of the Children would result in an unacceptably high risk of placement breakdown should the Children be placed for adoption with the Applicant. Respondent witnesses, and specifically the Affidavit of Danielle D’Eon at paragraph 24 (b) further stated that the Society will not proceed with an adoption assessment if a couple has been in a partnership of less than two years. The Panel is concerned that the relationship between the Applicant and the Children’s biological mother is of just a few months’ duration, and this short a duration of relationship does not give the Panel confidence in the long-term stability of the couple’s relationship or the ability of the Applicant to guarantee the Children a secure place as a member of a family.

41For the above reasons, the Panel finds that it would not be in the Children’s best interests in terms of the need for the development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family for the Children to be placed for adoption with the Applicant.

The Child’s Relationships and Emotional Ties to a Parent, Sibling, Relative, Other Member of the Child’s Extended Family or Member of the Child’s Community: Subsection 179(2)(c)(vi)

42In his testimony, the Applicant submitted that his plan to adopt the Children and for the Children to reside with the Applicant and their biological mother was in the best interests of the Children. The Applicant argued that the Children’s biological mother had made significant changes that amounted to a material change in conditions and that she no longer posed any risk to the Children. He argued that as a writer and cartoonist, he works from home and can be present on a consistent basis to parent the Children. He presented a plan where he would be the primary caregiver for the Children as the Children’s biological mother would be working or in school. He argued that he can financially support the Children and ensure they attend required appointments and treatments. The Applicant argued that he could provide a structured environment for the Children that would meet their needs. He submitted that his plan would keep the siblings together and maintain a connection with their biological mother. He argued his plan would provide a loving and caring environment for the Children.

43In their testimony, the Respondent workers stated that the Applicant had never met the Children and therefore has no relationship with the Children and is unknown to them. Respondent witnesses further submitted that it would be inappropriate to place the Children with an adoptive parent who cohabitates with a parent from whom the Children were removed. The Respondent provided evidence that they informed the Applicant that the most appropriate course of action in this matter is for the biological mother to seek a status review through the courts to argue that there has been a material change in her circumstances that might alter the court’s decision regarding the children being placed in her care.

44In their testimony, Respondent witnesses stated that it is the Respondent’s permanency plan for both Children to be adopted together. This plan would preserve the sibling bond.

45The Application was brought by the Applicant alone and not the biological mother. The Panel’s task relates solely to the Applicant’s Application to adopt the children. Should the biological mother, who is not a party to this Application, wish to again parent the Children, the Respondent pointed her in the direction of a Status Review Application, as set out above.

46For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the best interests of the children are met by confirming the decision of the Respondent to refuse the Applicant’s Application for adoption of the Children.

The Importance of Continuity in the Child’s Care and the Possible Effect on the Child of Disruption of that Continuity: Subsection 179(2)(c)(vii)

47As discussed above at paragraph 39, the Panel is concerned that due to the Applicant’s limited understanding of the Children’s physical, mental, emotional and developmental needs, placing the Children with the Applicant would result in a high risk of placement breakdown. For this reason the Panel finds that the best interests of the Children would not be served by the Applicant’s plan to adopt the Children.

The Effects on the Child of Delay in the Disposition of the Case: Subsection 179(2)(c)(viii)

48The Panel finds that it is in the best interest of the Children for this matter to be resolved expeditiously so that the Respondent can engage in permanency planning for the Children through exploration and confirmation of an appropriate permanency plan for the Children that meets the Children’s physical, mental, emotional and developmental needs.

The Child’s Views and Wishes: Subsection 179(2)(a)

49It is the testimony of Respondent witness Chantal Sicard de Carufel-Leduc that due to the Children’s ages, lack of knowledge, developmental delays, and limited vocabulary and language skills it is not possible to determine the Children’s views and wishes in this matter. The Applicant did not introduce any evidence to dispute this testimony. The Panel finds that for the above reasons it is not possible to determine the Children’s views and wishes.

CONCLUSION

50For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s decision to not proceed with the Applicant’s Application to adopt the children is in the best interests of the Children.

ORDER

51The CFSRB confirms the Respondent’s decision to refuse the Applicant’s Application to adopt H.C. and J.C.

52The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

53Pursuant 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.

Released: February 21, 2025

Caroline Sand

Caroline Sand, Presiding Member

Vice-Chair

Malcolm M. MacFarlane

Malcolm M. MacFarlane, Member

Adjudicator

Christine Staley

Christine Staley, Member

Adjudicator```