CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
A.L.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Nipissing and Parry Sound
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Date: July 17, 2007
Citation: 2007 CFSRB 30
Indexed as: A.L. v. CAS of Nipissing and Parry Sound (CFSA s.68)
1The Applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on the 15th day of April, 2007 pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) being a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of Nipissing and Parry Sound (the “Society”).
2The application was determined to be eligible on April 26, 2007 and the Applicant and the Respondent Society were advised of this eligibility decision by correspondence from the Board dated May 1st, 2007.
3A pre-hearing was held by teleconference on June 14th, 2007 with participation by the Applicant, Donald Wallace as legal counsel for the Society, and M.D., CAS supervisor. No issues of jurisdiction were raised at pre-hearing, no settlement was made and, accordingly, a hearing was scheduled for July 5th, 2007 in North Bay, Ontario.
4The application to the Board listed one matter for Board review, specifically, that the Society failed to comply with Clause 2(2)(a) of the Act as provided for in subparagraph 4 of section 68.1(4). Clause 2(2)(a) of the Act provides as follows:
“2.(2) Service providers shall ensure,
(a) that children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving; and…”
5The Applicant gave evidence on her own behalf and filed one exhibit marked “A1” being a report dated July […], 2007 from her therapist, J.C., of a child and family services facility. The Society called three witnesses: M.D., child protection supervisor, S.B., case worker, and C.F., case worker. J.C. was not called as a Society witness although so listed at pre-hearing. C.F. was not listed as a witness at the pre-hearing and it was the position of the Society that this was simply an omission by the Presiding Member and that, in fact, the Society had always intended to call this witness and had so indicated at pre-hearing. There was no objection by the Applicant to C.F. giving evidence and, in fact, the Applicant consented and was not caught by surprise.
6The Applicant submitted a two page letter dated April 15th, 2007 with her application detailing the events giving rise to this complaint. These events occurred in April […], 2007. Before April […], 2007, the Applicant had involvement with the Society for a number of years and it was her evidence that generally this relationship had been satisfactory and collaborative and the Applicant had looked to the Society for assistance from time to time in the past. The Applicant further gave evidence that she hoped this good relationship would continue in the future and attributed her recent concerns as only arising after a new case worker, C.F., was assigned to her file. It was clarified during the hearing that no internal complaint was submitted by the Applicant to the Society and there was some discrepancy in the evidence as to whether or not the Applicant was given a brochure with respect to the Society’s formal internal complaint procedures in April […], 2007. The case worker, S.B., in her evidence, recalled giving such a brochure to the Applicant when the Applicant left the Society premises on the day in question and the Applicant indicates emphatically that she received no such document. A copy of the brochure which the Society alleges was given to the Applicant in April […], 2007 was marked as Exhibit “R1”. Regardless of whether or not the brochure was given to the Applicant, the evidence before the Board is that no internal complaint was filed. As such, the application before the Board is a direct complaint under section 68.1.
7In the course of the hearing, a factual dispute arose with respect to an incident in 2003 wherein the Applicant was said to have endangered her personal safety in highway traffic and the Applicant took the position that no such incident ever occurred. Although this consideration could not be before the panel as an inaccuracy in the Society files (the possibility of an inaccuracy just arose during evidence), it may be useful if the Society and the Applicant were to meet to discuss and resolve this consideration. It would be open to the Applicant to raise this concern in a complaint to the Society pursuant to section 68 should the issue not first be resolved informally.
8The Applicant’s complaint arose because in April […], 2007, the Society chose to apprehend J., the nine year old daughter of the Applicant, on the basis of information received earlier that day from a therapist for the Applicant, J.C. J.C. had met with the Applicant in the morning and felt there was a serious safety concern for the child due to threat of suicide by the Applicant. The Society treated this information seriously since the Applicant had a history of poor emotional health and past suicidal ideation. The child was apprehended from school on the Friday afternoon and the Applicant was advised by telephone by her case worker, C.F. The Applicant then attended at the Society offices that afternoon. A meeting took place late in the day for about forty-five minutes to one hour between the child protection supervisor, M.D., S.B., a CAS case worker, and the Applicant. The Applicant was understandably upset and angry about the apprehension. During this meeting the Applicant put forward her plan that her daughter, J., remain with a friend of the Applicant in Sturgeon Falls over the weekend and that she would stay in North Bay until the Society concerns could be satisfactorily addressed. The representatives from the Society listened to this plan and discussed the situation at length with the Applicant but were not satisfied that the child would not be at risk if left with the friend of the Applicant that weekend. Although the friend of the Applicant was known to the Society somewhat as an attendee of supervised access visits by the Applicant and otherwise in connection with this file, his suitability as a caregiver for this child had never been assessed.
9It was clear from the evidence of the Applicant that in the final analysis her complaint is that the CAS placed her daughter in care for a few days and would not accept her alternative plan. The temporary placement for J. was in a foster home where her brother, L., a Society ward, resided. As a matter of fact, the child was placed with the friend of the Applicant and his parents by the Society the following Tuesday (a plan somewhat similar to that proposed by the Applicant on the preceding Friday) and this arrangement was formalized by Court Supervision Order on Wednesday. Having regard to all of the circumstances, including the relevant history and the fact that the issue arose on a Friday, the panel finds that the Society acted in a timely fashion in investigating protection concerns and in giving the Applicant the opportunity to be heard and to voice her concerns with respect to the services then provided. Although the Applicant believes she was not heard by the Society on the Friday of the apprehension, the panel finds that in fact she was given ample opportunity to be heard and the Society simply chose a different path. The fact that the child was placed with the friend of the Applicant and his parents within a few days supports the Society’s position that in fact the Applicant was heard and her plan was investigated and implemented in a timely fashion having regard to the obligations upon the Society as set out in the Ontario Child Protection Standards and otherwise as part of the mandate to protect children.
10The Applicant further alleged that the supervisor, M.D., was condescending and rude to her and, when presented with this proposition, M.D. denied and submitted to the panel that she acted professionally and appropriately at all times. This was supported by the evidence of S.B. who was present during the interview process. During her evidence, M.D. graciously took the opportunity to apologize to the Applicant if the Applicant felt she had been condescending and rude (which was not admitted). The panel found this gesture by M.D. to be sincere and generous under the circumstances.
11The Applicant filed a report from her therapist, J.C., (Exhibit “A1”) and the Society did not object to this report being admitted in evidence subject to submissions with respect to weight and relevance. It was clear from the evidence given by the case worker, C.F., that the information she received by telephone in April, 2007 from J.C. indicated a more imminent concern with respect to suicide by the Applicant than that contained in the report. C.F. admitted quite candidly in her evidence that she may not have apprehended the child, J., on the Friday in April had the information given to her that day by J.C. been as stated in her written report. This is an unfortunate situation but beyond the jurisdiction of the Board.
12Having regard to all of the above, the Board concludes that the Society did not breach section 68.1(4). Accordingly, the complaint made by the Applicant is dismissed as permitted pursuant to subparagraph (e) of section 68.1(7).
Gregory Price
Presiding Member
Gail Gonda
Panel Member
John Gates
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 17th day of July, 2007.