CM v. Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society, 2025 CFSRB 40

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CM Applicant

-and-

Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: April 01, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 40 Indexed As: CM v Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (the “Act”).

2The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on March 11, 2025.

3The Respondent submitted its Response on March 20, 2025.

4Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure permits the CFRSB to decide an Application based on the Application and the Response. I find that I have sufficient information before me to make a decision. In addition to the filed Application, the Applicant has provided approximately 200 emails, various corporate documents, and excerpts from selected legal documents. In addition to the Response, the Respondent has submitted various emails, court documents, photographs, and government identification.

ISSUES

5The issue before me is whether the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided reasons regarding his complaints that:

a. it failed to hear his assertion that he is not Justin Ubdegrove, but Carson Mcintyre, and that his biological parents are Reba McEntire and Stompin’ Tom Connors; and

b. it removed his child based on inaccurate information.

RESULT

6I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided reasons for its decisions. The Application must be dismissed.

ANALYSIS

A) The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided reasons for why they dismissed his assertion that he is not Justin Ubdegrove, and that Reba McEntire and Stompin’ Tom Connors are his biological parents.

7The Applicant alleges that he has not been heard or provided reasons as to why the Respondent dismissed his claims that: a) he is not Justin Ubdegrove, but Carson Mcintyre; and b) Reba McEntire and Stompin’ Tom Connors, two country music celebrities, are his biological parents.

8The Applicant asserts that he was switched with his cousin, who is the real Justin Ubdegrove, at the age of 8 and submits in the Application and accompanying documentation that he has DNA evidence to prove it. He also alleges that the various children’s aid societies do not believe him about his real biological parents because they have done internet searches and say they have found no evidence to suggest that Reba McEntire and Stompin’ Tom Connors were a couple, or that Reba McEntire has more than one biological child. He submits that this is insufficient evidence to conclude that he is wrong.

9The Respondent acknowledges that these specific allegations have been made several times. It submits that it has considered the allegations about parentage in the context of a long and well documented history with the child welfare system, and the Applicant’s ongoing and deteriorating, significant mental health struggles.

10The Respondent further submits that the Applicant has had legal representation who has brought the concern of identity forward in the past. The Applicant has voiced his concerns of parentage and identity to qualified medical, health and service professionals who have provided reports and communications to the Respondent and that have been used as evidence in various child protection court proceedings.

11The Respondent requests that the CFSRB consider as well that the Respondent has 14 non-child protection openings with the Applicant since 2019 related to requests for records and complaints related to this allegation which have included legal counsel and the Ontario Ombudsman, as well as over 600 emails for this specific Application. The Applicant has identified using different names during those openings including Justin Ubdegrove, Karson McEntire, Carson Mcintyre and has used different dates of birth.

12The Respondent has provided a detailed history of its involvement with the Applicant as both a child and as an adult and submits that it is very confident that it knows and can confirm the identity of the Applicant and his biological parents. The Respondent has communicated this to the Applicant.

13The Respondent’s first involvement with the Applicant’s family of origin began prior to his birth, in 1991 and 1992, then again beginning in 2002 until he was discharged from care in 2008 under the name of Justin Ubdegrove. The Respondent provided a statement of live birth and multiple court documents with respect to the Applicant’s parents and protection orders for him as a child. The Respondent has also submitted photographs of the Applicant as a child.

14As further context, the Respondent has provided information about the involvement of other child welfare organizations between 1992 and 2001 which includes the period during which the Applicant claims to have been switched with his cousin. It submits that the records that it has reviewed from these organizations demonstrate that the Applicant could not have been switched at the age of 8 with his cousin.

15The Respondent has also been involved with the Applicant in his capacity as a parent beginning in 2016. The Respondent submits that it was present with the Applicant and the mother of the Applicant’s child (“Child”) at the hospital when the Child was brought to a place of safety. He attended court appearances, filed an Answer and Plan of Care, and was represented in doing so by duty counsel.

16The Respondent has provided photographs of the Applicant with the Child that were taken by a Respondent worker. These pictures match the picture on the formal government issued identification submitted by the Respondent.

17The Applicant has been treated both voluntarily and involuntarily at various hospitals throughout his life for significant mental health episodes. The Respondent has provided various medical and psychiatric reports confirming the Applicant’s significant diagnoses. This includes a medical report dated March 22, 2016, that notes that the Applicant had a preoccupation with a delusion that Reba McEntire and Stompin’ Tom Connors are his parents.

18In 2019, a complaint was brought against the Respondent by legal counsel who was representing a client who identified himself as Karson McIntyre. The complaint alleged that Justin Ubdegrove had improperly been identified as the father in child protection proceedings in 2016 and that Karson McIntyre was the real father. Counsel asserted the concern that his client had not been served or provided an opportunity to participate in the child protection proceedings.

19The Respondent submits that upon investigation, it was determined between the Respondent, and the counsel, that the person who had retained the counsel and identified as Karson McIntyre at that time, was in fact Justin Ubdegrove, the father from whom the Child was removed and who had participated in the legal proceedings with different legal counsel. The CFSRB has inferred that the Applicant’s counsel would have communicated this finding back to him.

20I find that the sheer amount of detail, information and records provided by the Respondent lends credibility to its submission that they have considered the Applicant’s concerns. The Applicant’s concerns have been raised by medical professionals as well as the Applicant’s legal representatives during various court and child protection proceedings. I find that the Respondent provided reasons for dismissing the assertion that the Applicant is not Justin Ubdegrove to the Applicant’s counsel at the time. Finally, by his own admission in his Application, the Applicant has been provided with reasons for the Respondent’s dismissal of who his biological parents are, even though he may not like or agree with those reasons.

B) The Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided reasons about his complaint that it removed his Child based on inaccurate information

21The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not hear his concern that it used inaccurate information when making the decision to remove his Child. Specifically, the Applicant alleges that the Respondent inaccurately identified Justin Ubdegrove as the biological father of the Child, not him, Carson Mcintyre.

22The Respondent submits it used accurate information when deciding to remove the Child; identity and parentage were not raised at the time that decisions were being made about the child; regardless, parentage was not relevant to the determination to remove the Child; and the Applicant had legal representation during all the child protection proceedings.

23The Respondent initiated child protection proceedings for the Applicant’s Child in May 2016. During these proceedings, Justin Ubdegrove was identified as the biological father of the Child. The Child was put into the Respondent’s temporary care on May 6, 2016, with a final Order granted by Justice Malcolm on August 25, 2016.

24The Respondent submits that the Applicant is the same person, Justin Ubdegrove, as the biological parent identified in the court proceedings, and as such, he was properly identified and involved in the legal proceedings. At all material times, the Respondent was confident that Justice Ubdegrove was the biological father of the Child. The Respondent relies on the evidence as provided in Issue A, above, to assert the veracity of this assertion.

25Court documents filed indicate that the Applicant was represented by legal counsel when decisions were made about the Applicant and his Child. The Applicant was present in court on May 6, 2016, assisted by counsel, and confirmed that he, Justin Ubdegrove, was the Child’s biological father. A concern about identity was not raised at this time.

26The Applicant filed an Answer and Plan of Care on July 6, 2016, with assistance of counsel, which confirmed Justin Ubdegrove as the father and he did not raise identity issues.

27The Respondent provided the Endorsement of Justice Malcolm finding the Child in need of protection on August 25, 2016, as well as the evidence replied upon during the child protection proceeding which included the Answer and Plan of Care, a June 3, 2015, Assessment for Criminal Responsibility prepared for criminal court arising from criminal charges against the Applicant, and two assessments completed by the Applicant’s treating psychiatrist proximate to the birth of the Applicant’s Child. None of the concerns that were considered in determining whether the Child was in need of protection involved the Applicant’s parentage.

28Finally, I note that the concern about identity with respect to the 2016 proceeding was brought to the Respondent’s attention in 2019 by the Applicant’s counsel as noted in paragraphs 18 and 19 above. Specifically, correspondence from the Applicant’s counsel to the Respondent stated, “My client advises me that he only recently learned that he is the biological father of the child who was the subject of the final order in the matter of file [file number redacted]. He further advises that, as such, he was not included as a party in the proceedings. It is his position that given these facts, he was not provided with the opportunity to present his case. This raises the issues of natural justice and the potential for the order to be declared null.”

29I find that the Applicant was represented when the decision to remove the Child was made and he had the opportunity to make his concerns known at those times. Regardless, the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concern about parentage and identity in 2019 from the Applicant’s counsel directly. I once again can infer that the Applicant’s counsel would have communicated the reasons that this concern was not a factor in deciding to remove the Child.

CONCLUSION

30The Respondent has heard the Applicant’s concern and provided reasons regarding his complaints that:

a. It failed to consider his assertion that he is not Justin Ubdegrove, but Carson McIntyre, and that his biological parents are Reba McIntyre and Stompin’ Tom Connors; and

b. It removed his Child based on inaccurate information.

ORDER

31ORDER

32The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

33Pursuant 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.