CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
DW
Applicant
-and-
Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk
Indexed As: DW v Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
DW, Applicant
Self-represented
Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, Respondent
Jeffery Hustins, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
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”).
2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3The Applicant is the mother of one child, RW-F (“the Child”). The Respondent has been involved with the Applicant since October 21, 2024 and was previously involved with her between April 2, 2024 and September 25, 2024.
ISSUES
4The following are the allegations and issues for hearing as confirmed in the Pre-Hearing Report dated December 6, 2024:
The Applicant alleges that she was not heard and/or provided with reasons for the following:
The Applicant alleges she was not heard and not provided reasons for why an investigation was not opened after reporting to the Respondent she witnessed ongoing yelling and fighting between the Child’s father and grandfather in the presence of the Child since June 2024.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard and not provided reasons for why an investigation was not opened after she reported an incident to the Respondent in or around September or October 2024 in which the Child was injured while in his father’s care.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard and not provided reasons for why, after expressing concerns about the Child not meeting his milestones to child protection worker, Amy DeAngelis and service manager, Lorraine Anderson, she was not provided information or a plan to ensure the Child is meeting his milestones.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard and not provided reasons for why child protection worker, Amy DeAngelis, instructed the Child’s doctor not to disclose the Child’s medical or appointment information to the Applicant.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard and not provided reasons for why the Respondent did not inform her they would investigate the Child’s father after she expressed concerns and provided the Respondent with a text message sent to her from the Child’s father indicating he was “overwhelmed” with caring for the Child.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard or provided reasons for why she did not receive a follow up on actions taken after worker, Krista Bartlett, informed the Applicant in April 2024 that the Child’s sleeping arrangements were unsafe.
The Applicant alleges that she was not heard or provided reasons for why the Respondent has not accepted letters and notes from the Applicant’s psychiatrist and therapist regarding the state of the Applicant’s mental health.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard or provided reasons for why, at a case conference meeting with the Respondent on June 6, 2024, a decision was made prior to the meeting that the Applicant would not be granted unsupervised or overnight visits by the Respondent.
The Applicant alleges she was not provided reasons for why child protection worker, Amy DeAngelis characterized the June 6, 2024 case conference meeting as “short” when it was over three hours long.
The Applicant alleges she was not provided reasons for why, after worker Katherine Cicero went on a “leave of absence”, there were no notes reflecting her recommendation that the Applicant have unsupervised and overnight visits after meeting with the Applicant in June 2024 and advising her she was making the recommendation.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard or provided reasons for why information was not provided to her on what steps would be taken after she reported safety concerns for the Child after witnessing and providing video evidence to the Respondent of instances such a the Child banging on the screen of an open second story window, hanging off a highchair and hanging off the dishwasher while in his father’s care.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard or provided reasons for why senior service lead, Erin Laforge questioned the Applicant’s mental health in a discussion with her in or around September 2024 after the Applicant provided the Respondent with a letter from her psychiatrist (on the day prior to the discussion) indicating that the Applicant was stable, taking medications and abstaining from substances.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard or provided reasons for why the Child’s father was not investigated after she reported his alcohol use, video game addiction and smoking in the presence of the Child.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard and not provided reasons for why, after she reported intimate partner violence against her by the Child’s father (financial, emotional and verbal abuse, and isolation) at the initial case conference, it was not noted or investigated by the Respondent.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard and not provided reasons for why, during her supervised visit with the Child in November 2024, a nurse specializing in reunification was not provided by the Respondent, and she was not informed she could have a support person present.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard and not provided reasons for why the Respondent staff was confrontational, intimidating and not working with her during her supervised visit with the Child in November 2024.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard and not provided reasons for why on November 18, 2024, after contacting child protection worker, Amy DeAngelis she informed the Applicant that service manager, Lorraine Anderson, was not at the office that day, which was not the case.
The Applicant alleges she was not heard and not provided reasons for why child protection worker, Amy DeAngelis, did not follow up with the Applicant to obtain consent after the Applicant’s therapist requested Ms. DeAngelis contact the Applicant.
RESULT
5With respect to the issues as set out in paragraph 4 of this Decision, having considered the testimony, the documentary evidence and, the parties’ written submissions, I make the following findings:
a. Issue 1; I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided her with reasons for its decision.
b. Issue 2: I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she was not heard by the Respondent. I also find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for its decisions until this hearing.
c. Issue 3: I find the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the Child’s development and that it provided her with reasons, all of which is demonstrated by the steps taken by Ms. DeAngelis to follow up on this issue and responding to the Applicant’s November 15, 2024 email regarding these concerns.
Issue 4: I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions.
d. Issue 5: I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, the incident in this allegation. In any event, and by the Applicant’s admission, the Respondent provided her with reasons for not sharing information with her.
e. Issue 6: I find the Respondent heard the Applicant and provided her with reasons for decisions in relation to her reported concerns about the Child’s sleeping arrangements at the father’s residence.
f. Issue 7: I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent did not accept the letters and notes from the Applicant’s psychiatrist and therapist. In fact, the Applicant acknowledged in her testimony that these letters and notes were received by the Respondent
g. Issue 8: I find that the Applicant has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent did not hear her or provide her with reasons for having decided prior to the case conference that it did not agree to her having unsupervised or overnight access.
h. Issue 9: I find that no ‘decision’ was made by the Respondent for which it was required to provide reasons.
i. Issue 10: I find the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for not being provided to her regarding the particulars of the steps it had taken in response to her reported safety concerns.
j. Issue 11: I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant and provided her with reasons for not providing her with particulars of the steps it had taken in response to her reported safety concerns.
k. Issue 12: I find that there was no decision made by the Respondent in relation to this issue for which it was required to provide reasons.
l. Issue 13: I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s reported concerns about the Child’s father’s alcohol use, video game addiction and smoking in the presence of the Child. I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons regarding its follow up with the Child’s father until after the commencement of this proceeding.
m. Issue 14: I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she made a report of intimate partner violence towards her by the Child’s father nor has she established that any decision was made by the Respondent with respect to this allegation for which it was required to provide reasons.
n. Issue 15: I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she was not heard or provided with reasons for the Respondent not providing her with a reunification nurse for her supervised access.
o. Issue 16: I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she was not heard or provided with reasons by the Respondent in relation to the November 6, 2024 supervised visit.
p. Issue 17: I find that this allegation is not related to any service provided by the Respondent to the Applicant nor was there any decision made by the Respondent for which it was required to provide reasons. No determination is required on this issue.
q. Issue 18: I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for not requesting a Release from her and speaking with the therapist until after the Applicant started this proceeding.
ANALYSIS
Issue 1: Was the Applicant heard and was she provided with reasons for the Respondent not conducting an investigation into her report that she witnessed ongoing yelling and fighting between the Child’s father and grandfather in the presence of the Child since June 2024?
6The Applicant testified that when she raised concerns about the ongoing yelling and fighting between the father and grandfather, and historical abuse between the grandfather and father, she was not told by the Respondent if an investigation was opened.
7It is the submission of the Applicant that decisions by the Respondent related to investigations into allegations of child protection concerns involving the Child and background checks for people in the home with the Child, are decisions affecting the Child which, in turn, affects her interests. For this reason, the Applicant submits she is entitled to reasons for the Respondent’s decision.
8In support of her position, the Applicant filed an excerpt of her CPIN in relation to a May 23, 2024 home visit which confirms the Applicant reported her concerns about the Child’s paternal grandfather including historical abuse and, his yelling and screaming. In that recording, the child protection worker, Brittni Harris, advised the Applicant that she would be investigating her reported concerns and, would be setting clear expectations with the Child’s father and paternal grandfather that the Child not be exposed to any yelling or screaming.
9Laura Dickson is a protection service manager for the Respondent and was the service manager assigned to the Applicant’s file from May 28, 2024 to September 25, 2024. Ms. Dickson swore an affidavit dated December 30, 2024 which constituted her examination-in-chief in this matter.
10Ms. Dickson’s affidavit states that the Respondent followed up on the Applicant’s concerns about the Child’s paternal grandfather, including conducting interviews with the Child’s paternal grandfather, his ex-wife, and the Child’s father.
11I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns as demonstrated by it investigating those concerns, as confirmed by Ms. Dickson. The Applicant chose not to cross-examine. I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons because it advised the Applicant during the May 23, 2024 home visit that it would be investigating her concerns and setting expectations in relation to the Child’s exposure to yelling.
Issue 2: Was the Applicant heard and was she provided with reasons for the Respondent not conducting an investigation after she reported an incident in or around September or October 2024 in which the Child was injured while in his father’s care?
12The Applicant testified that the Respondent denied her request for reasons it did not conduct an investigation into her report of an incident in September or October 2024 in which the Child was injured while in his father’s care. The Applicant testified that she had spoken with an individual who had allegedly witnessed the Child’s father pick the Child up by the back of his sleeper and pulled him approximately twenty feet to a sofa.
13Lorraine Anderson is a service manager employed by the Respondent. Ms. Anderson swore an affidavit dated December 30, 2024 which was made an exhibit in this proceeding. According to Ms. Anderson’s affidavit, the Applicant’s file was closed on September 25, 2024. The Applicant contacted the Respondent twice in October 2024 to report concerns about the Child’s father. Following the first of these contacts, the Respondent received a report from local police after the Applicant requested a wellness check further to her concerns about the Child in his care. Ms. Anderson’s affidavit evidence is that the outcome of these calls was not shared with the Applicant due to privacy legislation. She states that, after receiving a third call from the Applicant in October 2024 reporting concerns about the Child in the father’s care, the Respondent opened its current child protection investigation.
14I find the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she was not heard by the Respondent. The evidence of the Respondent was that its intake screening department received the Applicant’s reports, it reviewed a police report on the day after the first of the Applicant’s calls in relation to the police wellness check, and the Respondent opened a child protection file on October 20, 2024 after a report by the Applicant with concerns for the Child in the father’s care.
15The Applicant’s evidence that she was not provided with reasons by the Respondent for the decisions it made in relation to her first two reports of child protection concerns in October 2024 is uncontroverted. Ms. Anderson’s affidavit states that the outcome of the Applicant’s reports was not shared with the Applicant due to privacy legislation but there is no evidence that the Respondent advised the Applicant of this.
Issue 3: Was the Applicant heard and provided with reasons why, after she expressed concerns about the Child not meeting his milestones to child protection worker, Amy DeAngelis and service manager, Lorraine Anderson, she was not provided information or a plan to ensure the Child is meeting his milestones?
16The Applicant testified that she expressed concerns that the Child was not meeting his milestones, especially in relation to speech. It was her evidence that Amy DeAngelis, a child protection worker employed by the Respondent, assured her that the Child was meeting his milestones. The Applicant questioned how Ms. DeAngelis could conduct this assessment given that she is not a health care worker.
17Ms. DeAngelis swore an affidavit dated January 3, 2025 that constituted her evidence-in-chief. In her affidavit, Ms. DeAngelis acknowledged that the Applicant had raised concerns regarding the Child’s development on a few separate occasions, but most notably through an email dated November 15, 2024. Ms. DeAngelis’ affidavit evidence was that she responded to the Applicant on November 16, 2024 that it appeared the Child was showing signs of speech readiness. She also stated that none of the Respondent’s child protection staff who had worked with the family had identified any concerns with the Child’s development or growth.
18During cross-examination by the Applicant, Ms. DeAngelis testified that her view that the Child was doing well developmentally was based on her observations of the Child, conversations with the Child’s father, the fact that the Child’s doctor did not have concerns about the Child’s development, and the observations of other child protection staff. Ms. DeAngelis acknowledged that, although she always responded to the Applicant in a timely way, she could have better explained that she could not share anything further with her due to the confidentiality provisions in the Act.
19Ms. Anderson’s affidavit evidence was that, on October 25, 2024, during a telephone conversation with the Applicant, the Applicant expressed concern that the Child was delayed in his development although she had not seen the Child in person for sometime. Ms. Anderson’s affidavit evidence is that she advised the Applicant that Ms. DeAngelis found the Child to present as on par with peers in terms of his development. As there were no concerns assessed with the Child’s development and the matter was in the investigation stage, a plan was not required or made regarding the Child’s development.
20I find the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the Child’s development and that it provided her with reasons. This is demonstrated by the steps taken by Ms. DeAngelis to follow up on this issue and responding to the Applicant’s November 15, 2024 email regarding these concerns notwithstanding that, as acknowledged by Ms. DeAngelis, she could have done a better job of explaining to the Applicant that additional information could not be shared due to the confidentiality provisions of the Act.
Issue 4: Was the Applicant heard and provided with reasons for child protection worker, Amy DeAngelis, instructing the Child’s doctor not to disclose the Child’s medical or appointment information to the Applicant.
21The Applicant testified that Ms. DeAngelis instructed the Child’s doctor not to disclose the Child’s medical or appointment information to her and did not provide her with reasons.
22In support of her allegations, the Applicant relies on a letter by a Clinic/Administration Manager, Family Medicine Teaching Unit, Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre (“the Centre”), dated November 18, 2024. The letter states that the Centre had been advised by the Respondent on October 31, 2024 that the Child’s father had sole custody, and that the original request to withhold all appointment information from the Applicant was at the request of the Child’s father. The letter indicated that Ms. DeAngelis had confirmed the information continued to stand ‘as is’, and directed that future requests for information should be obtained through Ms. DeAngelis.
23Ms. DeAngelis’ evidence that she did not instruct the Centre to withhold medical information about the Child from the Applicant, just the dates of medical appointments. She confirmed this in an email to the Applicant on November 15, 2024. Ms. DeAngelis’ evidence was that she was contacted by the doctor’s office to confirm the current custody and access arrangement, and confirmed with the doctor’s office that, at the time, the Child was in the primary interim custody of his father. The father had requested that appointment times not be provided to the Applicant. During cross-examination, Ms. DeAngelis’ testified that she did not know the reason the letter from the Centre directed that future inquiries should go through her.
24The evidence submitted by the Applicant for the hearing includes an email exchange between her and Ms. DeAngelis on November 15, 2024. In her emails to the Applicant on that date, Ms. DeAngelis offers to contact the doctor’s office and the father of the Child to obtain an update for her regarding the Child’s medical appointments. She advises the Applicant that she understands the Applicant would like to know when appointments are booked for the Child but that the Child’s father does not agree with this, and that there is nothing the Respondent can do about this.
25In the November 15, 2024 email exchange referenced in paragraph 24 of this Decision, Ms. DeAngelis advises the Applicant that she does not believe it would be in anyone’s best interests for the Applicant to attend doctor’s appointments with the Child’s father. In the emails, Ms. DeAngelis provides reasons for this based on incidents involving the Applicant at prior medical appointments and reports by the doctor’s office of their communications with the Applicant.
26I find the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and responded to the Applicant, in writing, advising that it had not instructed the Centre to withhold information from her, but did agree she should not attend appointments with the Child’s father, providing reasons for this position. The correspondence from the Centre, relied upon by the Applicant, does not state that the Respondent instructed it not to release information to the Applicant. In any event, I put little weight on the letter from the Centre which is an unsworn document for which there was no opportunity for cross-examination.
Issue 5: Was the Applicant heard and provided with reasons by the Respondent for it not informing her it would investigate the Child’s father after she expressed concerns and provided the Respondent with a text message from the Child’s father indicating he was “overwhelmed” with caring for the Child?
27The Applicant did not identify a timeframe for this alleged incident in her evidence. Furthermore, she testified that the Respondent told her it could not provide her with information about this due to the privacy provisions of the Act.
28The Respondent submits that this issue was not addressed in its evidence in chief due to the Applicant’s inability to identify a timeframe when she alleges this occurred. It further submits that, even if the timeframe could be identified, it would be prohibited by the Act from disclosing any investigations or actions that the Society may or may not have taken with an individual other than the Applicant.
29I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, the incident referenced in this allegation. I further find that, even if the incident in this allegation had been particularized and established by the Applicant, she acknowledged in her testimony that the Respondent provided her with reasons for not sharing information about its response with her.
Issue 6: Was the Applicant heard and provided with reasons for the Respondent not providing her with follow up on actions taken after worker, Krista Bartlett, informed the Applicant in April 2024 that the Child’s sleeping arrangements were unsafe?
30The Applicant testified that she raised concerns about the Child’s sleeping arrangements at his father’s residence on April 1, 2024 with Krista Bartlett, a child protection worker employed by the Respondent.
31Her evidence was that nothing was done by the Respondent on the date of her report.
32The Applicant testified that the Respondent did nothing to address her reported concerns until April 2, 2024. The Applicant testified to her understanding that Ms. Bartlett conducted a home visit with the Child at his father’s residence on April 2, 2024. It was the Applicant’s evidence that, after the April 2, 2024 home visit, Ms. Bartlett advised her that the sleeping arrangement had been unsafe but that the Child now had safe sleeping arrangements when in his father’s care.
33Ms. Bartlett’s affidavit evidence was that she conducted a home visit with the Child’s father and the Child on April 2, 2024. Her evidence was that safe sleep was assessed during this home visit, and the initial concerns related to unsafe sleep were addressed prior to the Child going to bed that night. This was shared with the Applicant.
34In her cross-examination of Ms. Bartlett, the Applicant asked the reason she did not do anything the day the Applicant reported her concern. Ms. Bartlett testified that, as soon as she found out, she addressed the Applicant’s concerns that night.
35I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns about the Child’s sleeping arrangements and provided reasons, all demonstrated by Ms. Bartlett’s quick follow up and advising the Applicant of the outcome.
Issue 7: Was the Applicant heard and provided with reasons for the Respondent not accepting letters and notes from the Applicant’s psychiatrist and therapist regarding the state of the Applicant’s mental health?
36Katherine Cicero is a child protection worker employed by the Respondent and who worked directly with the Applicant. Ms. Cicero swore an affidavit dated December 30, 2024 that was made an exhibit in this proceeding.
37Ms. Cicero’s affidavit evidence was that between June 17th and 18th, 2024 she and Ms. Dickson received a letter from the Applicant’s psychiatrist, a letter from a mental health therapist, an email from the Applicant attaching a letter from a pregnancy service and, an email from an addiction specialist. Ms. Cicero’s evidence was that on July 22, 2024, she provided the Applicant with a copy of the safety plan pertaining to the Applicant that she had received from the addictions therapist working with the Applicant.
38During her testimony, the Applicant acknowledged that the Respondent had accepted the letters from her psychiatrist and therapist regarding the state of her mental health.
39I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent did not accept letters and notes from her psychiatrist and therapist. Indeed, the Applicant acknowledged in her testimony that the Respondent had received her professionals’ letters and notes. Additionally, it was evident from the evidence of the child protection workers involved that they considered the content of the letters from the psychiatrist and therapist in making decisions regarding the Child.
Issue 8: Was the Applicant heard or provided reasons for the Respondent deciding, prior to a case conference meeting with the Respondent on June 6, 2024, that the Applicant would not be granted unsupervised or overnight visits with the Child?
40The Applicant testified that she attended a case conference with Ms. Cicero and Ms. Dickson on June 6, 2024. She alleged that she was not heard by the Respondent as it had decided prior to the meeting that it would not permit her to have unsupervised or overnight visits with the Child. The Applicant was inconsistent. At one point during her evidence-in-chief, the Applicant testified that she was having unsupervised access and the issue was overnight access. The Applicant testified that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons for its decision in relation to her access.
41Ms. Cicero’s d evidence is that she did not have carriage of the file on June 6, 2024.
42Ms. Dickson’s evidence is that she was the protection service manager at the time of the June 6, 2024 case conference and attended the case conference. Ms. Dickson’s evidence was that the Applicant was already having unsupervised access as of the June 6, 2024 case conference. The case conference assisted in formulating a safety plan for the Applicant and the Child during her unsupervised access. The Respondent was not supportive of the Applicant having overnight access at the time of the case conference and this position was known ahead of the case conference.
43Ms. Dickson’s affidavit evidence was that, at the June 6, 2024 case conference, the Applicant participated in a plan to work towards considering expanding her parenting time with the Child.
44I find that the Applicant has not demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the Respondent did not hear her or provide her with reasons for having decided prior to the case conference that it did not agree to her having unsupervised or overnight access. The Applicant was having unsupervised access at the time of the case conference, however, there were concerns and the Respondent wished to implement a safety plan. The Applicant was inconsistent in her evidence and testified as to important facts that were contradicted by the evidence, including with respect to Ms. Cicero’s involvement. The Applicant chose not to cross-examine Ms. Dickson who testified as to the status of access at the time of the case conference and the discussions at that conference regarding a plan to towards implementing a safety plan with a view to increasing the Applicant’s access.
Issue 9: Was the Applicant provided with reasons for Amy DeAngelis, child protection worker, characterizing the June 6, 2024 case conference meeting as “short” when it was over three hours long?
45The Applicant testified that the duration of the June 6, 2024 case conference was approximately three hours. She alleged that Ms. DeAngelis had described the case conference as ‘short’ and did not provide her with reasons for this.
46Ms. DeAngelis testified that she was not at the case conference. Her affidavit evidence was that she characterized the case conference as short based on a case note from the previous ongoing file that stated the case conference had to end early due to conflict occurring by the Applicant towards the Child’s father.
47The Applicant did not adduce evidence that she had asked the Respondent for the reason Ms. DeAngelis had described the June 6, 2024 case conference as short.
48I find that it is irrelevant whether Ms. DeAngelis referred to the case conference as short or not as I find that no ‘decision’ was made by the Respondent for which reasons were required.
Issue 10: Did the Respondent provide the Applicant with reasons for why, after worker Katherine Cicero went on a “leave of absence”, there were no notes reflecting her recommendation that the Applicant have unsupervised and overnight visits after meeting with the Applicant in June 2024 and advising her she was making the recommendation?
49The Applicant testified that Ms. Cicero advised her in June 2024 that she was recommending the Applicant have overnight access. According to the Applicant, Ms. Cicero went on a leave of absence, following which she was told there were no notes by Ms. Cicero with this recommendation.
50I infer that the ‘decision’ at issue by the Respondent was that there should be no unsupervised or overnight access by the Applicant with the Child. This is related to Issue 8 in this matter.
51Issue 8 pertained to the Respondent’s decision against the Applicant having overnight access as of the June 6, 2024 case conference. Although the Applicant claimed at some points in her testimony that the decision at issue included her not having unsupervised access, that was incorrect as the Applicant was having unsupervised access as of June 6, 2024.
52It was Ms. Cicero’s evidence during cross-examination that she met the Applicant for the first time on June 24, 2024. At that juncture, the Applicant was exercising unsupervised access, with a safety plan in place. Ms. Cicero testified that she continued to make recommendations and assess the Applicant’s progress through July and August 2024 and, that she made no recommendations for overnight access.
53As found in the context of Issue 8, as of June 2024 the Applicant was having unsupervised access and there was a plan formulated at the June 6, 2024 case conference with a potential for future increases in the Applicant’s access.
54I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that there was a decision in June 2024 by the Respondent for the Applicant to have unsupervised access as she was already having it, nor was there a decision she have overnight access. Therefore, there was no requirement for the Respondent to provide reasons.
Issue 11: Was the Applicant heard or provided reasons for why information was not provided to her on what steps would be taken after she reported safety concerns for the Child after witnessing and providing video evidence to the Respondent of instances such as the Child banging on the screen of an open second story window, hanging off a highchair and hanging off the dishwasher while in his father’s care?
55Ms. DeAngelis’ evidence was that the Applicant had raised concerns about the Child leaning against a second story window that was not fully closed, as well as a concern about the Child holding onto other objects in an effort to stand. Ms. DeAngelis’ evidence was that she advised the Applicant that she had addressed this concern but could not disclose anything more than this as it would be a breach of the Child’s father’s personal information.
56Ms. Anderson’s evidence was that she advised the Applicant on October 25, 2024 that Ms. DeAngelis had assessed there were no concerns regarding the care being provided to the Child by his father. On October 29, 2024, Ms. Anderson agreed to arrange a meeting with the Applicant and her counsel. The Applicant responded that email communication would be sufficient.
57Also on October 29, 2024, according to the affidavit evidence of Ms. Anderson, she advised the Applicant, by way of email, that there was no concern about the Child’s father arising from the photograph the Applicant had provided. Ms. Anderson provided reasons the photograph did not concern the Respondent.
58It is Ms. Anderson’s evidence that on November 18, 2024, she sent an email to the Applicant advising that the Respondent had followed up on all the concerns the Applicant had shared regarding the Child’s father. Further, that the specific details of the conversations with the Child’s father could not be shared due to privacy legislation.
59The Applicant acknowledged in her testimony that the Respondent had advised her it could not discuss its follow up in relation to her reported concerns about the Child’s father due to confidentiality constraints.
60I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant and provided her with reasons for it not providing her with particulars of the steps it had taken in response to her reported safety concerns.
Issue 12: Was the Applicant heard or provided reasons for why senior service lead, Erin Laforge questioned the Applicant’s mental health in a discussion with her in or around September 2024 after the Applicant provided the Respondent with a letter from her psychiatrist (on the day prior to the discussion) indicating that the Applicant was stable, taking medications and abstaining from substances?
61The Applicant did not address this issue in her testimony other than to refer me to her entire CPIN record.
62Erin LaForge, a senior service leader employed by the Respondent, gave evidence that she spoke with the Applicant on September 6, 2024 regarding a service complaint she had made. During the course of that conversation, the Applicant indicated that the Respondent had no reason to be concerned about her parenting ability. Ms. LaForge’s evidence was that she attempted to clarify that the Respondent had verified concerns about the Applicant’s mental health and that was the reason for its continued involvement with her. It was Ms. LaForge’s evidence, by way of affidavit, that the Applicant immediately took exception to this, said she would be filing a complaint with Ms. LaForge’s supervisor and ended the conversation.
63The Applicant did not cross-examine Ms. LaForge with respect to Issue 12. More significantly, the Applicant did not identify a decision by the Respondent for which it did not provide reasons.
64I find that there was no decision in relation to this issue for which the Respondent was required to provide reasons. The call between the Applicant and Ms. LaForge that gave rise to this complaint was in relation to a service complaint, not a decision by the Respondent.
Issue 13: Was the Applicant heard and provided with reasons by the Respondent for it not investigating the Child’s father after she reported his alcohol use, video game addiction and smoking in the presence of the Child?
65The Applicant testified that she advised Krista Bartlett that her relationship with the Child’s father ended as a result of his addiction to video games and alcohol. She said she reported her concerns about this to the Respondent and that it created a safety plan. Her complaint was that she was not provided with the safety plan or involved in the discussions to create it.
66The Applicant submits that whether an investigation was opened into her concerns affects her interest and she is entitled to receive reasons for the Respondent’s decisions so she can understand the decision-making process.
67Ms. Bartlett’s evidence was that information gathered during the course of the investigation pertaining to the Child was not shared with the Applicant and vice versa unless for the purposes of safety planning for the Child. Similarly, Ms. DeAngelis’ evidence was that when somebody reports a concern to the Respondent regarding the safety of a child, the Respondent does not disclose anything regarding its decisions in relation to the required follow up as this would be a breach of privacy under Part X of the Act. That, however, is not the point. At issue is whether the Respondent explained this to the Applicant as the reason for it not providing her with additional information.
68Ms. Cicero’s evidence by affidavit was that she met with the Child’s father on August 13, 2024 in relation to the Applicant’s allegations regarding his use of substances including alcohol, and smoking in the Child’s presence. According to Ms. Cicero, she did not discuss the allegation he was addicted to video games as she was not aware of this concern.
69I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns as demonstrated by its follow up with the Child’s father and creation of a safety plan, all of which was acknowledged by the Applicant.
70I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with its reasons for failing to provide her with additional information regarding its follow up with the Child’s father in relation to her reported concerns until the delivery of its material for this proceeding and hearing.
Issue 14: Was the Applicant heard and provided with reasons by the Respondent for why, after she reported intimate partner violence against her by the Child’s father (financial, emotional and verbal abuse, and isolation) at the initial case conference, it was not noted or investigated by the Respondent.
71The Applicant testified that she has been reporting the intimate partner violence against her by the Child’s father since the start of her involvement with the Respondent, and specifically at the initial case conference.
72The initial case conference was on April 26, 2024. The Applicant referenced Ms. Cicero and Ms. Dickson as the two child protection staff with the Respondent who were involved. However, the evidence of both Ms. Cicero and Ms. Dickson is that neither of them was involved with this case at the time of the initial case conference.
73The Applicant chose not to cross-examine Ms. Dickson. During the Applicant’s cross-examination of Ms. Cicero, she testified that the Applicant had disclosed to her that she had been in three prior relationships that were abusive, including with the Child’s father. Ms. Cicero’s evidence was that, when this was discussed in August 2024, she suggested to the Applicant that she engage in services for the past trauma cause by these relationships and referred her to services. Ms. Cicero testified that there had been prior discussions about the use of communication platforms by the Applicant and the Child’s father. There was no safety plan as the Applicant and the Child’s father were no longer together.
74During cross-examination, Ms. Bartlett testified that, based on her review of the Respondent’s file, the Applicant had not alleged intimate partner violence prior to the April 26, 2024 case conference, had not expressed concerns about attending a meeting where the Child’s father would be present and had not requested a virtual attendance. Ms. Bartlett testified that when she and the parents met on April 4, 2024, the Applicant advised her that it was her intention to remain in her relationship with the Child’s father on a long term basis. This is supported by the Respondent’s record for that time period which notes that the only abuse alleged by the Applicant was abuse she says she experienced as a child.
75The testimony of Ms. DeAngelis during cross-examination was that she did not recall the Applicant reporting to her that she had been the victim of intimate partner violence by the Child’s father.
76I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she made a report of intimate partner violence towards her by the Child’s father, nor has she established that any decision was made by the Respondent with respect to this allegation for which it was required to provide reasons.
Issue 15: Was the Applicant heard and provided reasons for why, during her supervised visit with the Child in November 2024, a nurse specializing in reunification was not provided by the Respondent, and she was not informed she could have a support person present?
77The Applicant testified that she had not seen the Child for over three months at the time of this supervised visit which took place on November 6, 2024. The Child was a little over a year old. According to the Applicant’s testimony, she was not told she could have a reunification nurse or a support person present for the access, and believes she was ‘set up to fail’ by the Respondent. The Applicant testified that the Respondent had a nurse on staff.
78The affidavit evidence of Ms. DeAngelis is that she conducted a file review prior to moving forward with this supervised visit and there was nothing in the file to suggest the Applicant would require additional support that a child protection worker could not provide. Also, the Respondent wanted to ensure parenting time could be resumed as soon as possible. Ms. DeAngelis’ evidence was that she did not offer the Applicant the opportunity to utilize her own support person during her parenting time and, in hindsight, should have done so.
79During cross-examination, Ms. Anderson testified that the Respondent does not have a reunification nurse on staff. She testified that there was no clinical presenting issue warranting any additional support being arranged for this visit and that was the reason it had not been arranged.
80The Respondent’s Response to the Applicant states that, following the issues with the November 6, 2024 access, the Respondent formulated a plan for there to be pre-access meetings for the Applicant and two family support staff. The Applicant was advised of this plan on November 19, 2024.
81I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she was not heard or provided with reasons for the Respondent not providing her with a reunification nurse. The Applicant was heard as demonstrated by the Respondent taking steps to address her concerns and arranging for the involvement of two family support staff.
Issue 16: Was the Applicant heard and provided with reasons for why the Respondent staff was confrontational, intimidating and not working with her during her supervised visit with the Child in November 2024?
82The Applicant testified that during her November 6, 2024 supervised visit with the Child, child protection worker Jessica VanDyk told her to put the Child on the floor, causing him to cry more, and that Ms. VanDyk then came into the room, stood over her and yelled at her. She also testified that Respondent staff were slamming the door to the access room, yelling at her to clothe the Child, threatening to call the police and that Ms. Anders told her the Child did not want the bottle of milk he was drinking at the time. The Applicant testified there was only one person who was not yelling at her and that she refused to hand the Child over to anyone other than this person.
83The affidavit evidence of Ms. Anderson was that the November 6, 2024 visit was supervised by Ms. DeAngelis and that Ms. Dyk was present for a large portion of the visit. Ms. Anderson’s evidence is that she was present at two points of the visit. The visit was supervised using a separate room with a viewing window. Ms. Anderson’s evidence was that she was called by Ms. DeAngelis and Ms. VanDyk to support them as the Child had been crying for approximately half an hour, the Applicant was insisting on providing skin to skin care to the Child despite the observation he was not comfortable with this, and she was not responsive to suggestions that the visit end and they try again another day. Ms. Anderson’s affidavit evidence was that the Applicant refused to return the Child and Ms. DeAngelis had to call the police for this reason. Ms. Anderson denied that she was shouting or inappropriate with the Applicant or that she had observed any of the Respondent’s staff shouting or being inappropriate with the Applicant.
84Ms. DeAngelis’ affidavit evidence was that she did not feel she was acting in a manner that was confrontational or intimidating. However, she recognized that the situation ended up being a stressful experience for the Applicant and the Child. She also recognized that she works in a system that can be perceived as overwhelming and intimidating to those who engage with it.
85I find the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that she was not heard or provided with reasons by the Respondent in relation to the November 6, 2024 supervised visit. As noted in relation to Issue 15, the Respondent arranged for the involvement of family support workers with a view to preventing a recurrence of the issues at the November 6, 2024 visit.
Issue 17: Was the Applicant heard and provided with reasons by the Respondent for why on November 18, 2024, after contacting child protection worker, Amy DeAngelis she informed the Applicant that service manager, Lorraine Anderson, was not at the office that day, which was not the case?
86The Applicant’s testimony on this issue was that she received an email from Ms. DeAngelis that Ms. Anderson was not working that day. The Applicant testified that she called the office and learned that Ms. Anderson was in the office. She spoke with Ms. Anderson who advised her she was leaving the office at 1:00 p.m., however, the Applicant testified that she called the office after 1:00 p.m. and was told Ms. Anderson was in the office and should answer her phone.
87Ms. Anderson’s evidence was that the Applicant sent an email to Ms. DeAngelis on November 18, 2024 and copied Ms. Anderson and other managers. Ms. Anderson responded that day by email that she understood the Applicant was awaiting some information from Ms. DeAngelis, that Ms. DeAngelis was not available that day, and that her return the next day was anticipated and that she would be able to provide the Applicant with a reply. Ms. Anderson’s evidence was that there was a meeting that morning regarding planning a visit for her with the Child and that Ms. DeAngelis would provide her with an update regarding this on her return.
88Ms. Anderson’s affidavit evidence was that the Applicant was not satisfied with her response and sent a further email that same date. The evidence of Ms. Anderson was that, in her response, she advised the Applicant that her concerns about the Child’s father had been followed up. Ms. Anderson’s evidence is that she advised the Applicant she would not be available the balance of the day. Ms. Anderson stated that she was not working from the Respondent’s office that day and was not advised on November 18, 2024 that the Applicant was seeking to speak with her.
89I find that this allegation is not related to any service provided by the Respondent to the Applicant nor was there any decision made by the Respondent for which it was required to provide reasons. No determination is required on this issue.
Issue 18: Was the Applicant heard and provided with reasons for why child protection worker, Amy DeAngelis, did not follow up with the Applicant to obtain consent after the Applicant’s therapist requested Ms. DeAngelis contact the Applicant?
90The Applicant did not testify on this issue other than to direct me to her Response in which she queries why a child protection worker would not have questions on the status of a mother in therapy who had experienced parental alienation for over three months. The Applicant’s position is that this was both irresponsible and incompetent.
91Ms. DeAngelis’ evidence was that the Applicant’s therapist asked to speak with her on November 11, 2024, and that she responded to the therapist on November 25, 2024 that she could not speak with her without a signed consent from the Applicant. Ms. DeAngelis’s evidence was that she had already received two letters of support from the therapist speaking to her observations and the work that was being done with the Applicant and did not have any further questions for the therapist.
92During cross-examination, Ms. DeAngelis reiterated the evidence in her affidavit. She also testified that, at this juncture the case was before the court and the Applicant had stated at court that she wanted all questions from the Respondent to be in writing. Ms. DeAngelis indicated that she did not have any questions.
93I find that the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for not requesting a Release from her and speaking with the therapist until after the Applicant commenced this proceeding.
EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
94Two issues arose during the course of the hearing.
Evidentiary Issue 1
95The first issue relates to the sufficiency of the Respondent’s disclosure.
96The Applicant, in her testimony and in her closing submissions, argued that she could not fully present her case without the “ministry forms for code verification meetings”, and referenced “Form 51B and Form 31C”. The Respondent’s submits that no such forms exist.
97The testimony of Ms. Anderson is that the ‘forms’ the Applicant is requesting do not exist. It was her view that the Applicant may be referring to codes for the eligibility spectrum.
98I find that the Applicant has not established, on a balance of probabilities, that the aforementioned forms exist and have not been disclosed by the Respondent.
Evidentiary Issue 2
99The second issue relates to the credibility of a witness and the weight to be put on her evidence.
100During the hearing, the Applicant alleged that one of the Respondent’s witnesses was intoxicated during her testimony. The Applicant repeated this allegation in her closing written submissions.
101I observed the witness in question as she testified and saw no evidence of intoxication. She spoke clearly and articulately and, was responsive to the questions put to her by the Applicant during cross-examination.
CONCLUSION
102For the reasons set out above, I find:
With respect to Issues 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 18, the Applicant did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that she was not heard or provided with reasons for the decisions by the Respondent.
With respect to Issues 2 and 13, I find the Respondent heard the Applicant. I also find that it did not provide the Applicant with reasons for its decisions until after the commencement of this proceeding.
With respect to Issues 9, 12, 14, the Applicant did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that there was a decision made by the Respondent for which it was required to provide reasons.
Regarding Issue 17, I find that this allegation is not related to any decision made by the Respondent for which it was required to provide reasons.
ORDER
103As of the date of the Application, the Respondent did not provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions in relation to Issues 2 and13, for which no order is made as the reasons were provided during the course of this proceeding.
104No determination is required with respect to Issues 9, 12, 14, and 17.
105The Application is otherwise dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
106Pursuant 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.
Dated at Toronto, April 2, 2025.
Donna A. Wowk
Donna A. Wowk
Vice-Chair