CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
L.P. v. The Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin
REASONS FOR DECISION
WRITTEN REVIEW
Date: December 10, 2007
Citation: 2007 CFSRB 70
Indexed as: L.P. v. The CAS of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin (CFSA s.68)
1In the matter of an application by L.P., received on October 5, 2007, for a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board of a decision by Sudbury-Manitoulin Children’s Aid Society and in the matter of a written hearing dated December 10, 2007.
INTRODUCTION
2L.P. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on October 5, 2007, pursuant to subsection 68.1(1) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) against the Sudbury-Manitoulin Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”).
3The complaint before the Board is that the Society refused to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint, as described in subsection 68.1(4)1. It is clear from the application filed, that the Applicant’s complaint is also one described in subsection 2(2)(a) of the Act, that she complains she did not have an opportunity to be heard when she had concerns about the services she was receiving.
4The Board determined on October 12, 2007 that the application, prima facie, was eligible for review, meaning the application was eligible to proceed to the next step in the Board’s process. The Applicant and the Society were notified of this decision by mail on that date.
5The Society filed a summary reply on October 18, 2007. The Board decided that the summary reply is sufficient in this case to conduct a written review of the application, pursuant to subsection 68.1(5) of the Act and Section 13 of Ontario Regulation 494/06 “Complaints to a Society and Reviews by the Child and Family Services Review Board” (O. Reg 494/06).
BACKGROUND
6The Applicant and her husband, R.P., are the parents of T.P. When she was 14, T.P. was placed in the home of G.T. and R.T., approved foster parents, from April […], 2006 until August […], 2006 when she was returned to the care of her birth parents. T.P. came into Society care a second time on October […], 2006, to present. As of October […], 2007 T.P. has been home on an extended visit, and the Society plans to terminate her wardship.
7T.P. and R.T. have had contact on a number of occasions since T.P. left the foster home.
ISSUES
8The issues for the Board to determine are whether the Society refused to proceed with the Applicant’s complaint, and whether the Society provided the Applicant with an opportunity for her concerns to be heard.
SUBMISSIONS
9In her application to the Board, the Applicant complains that R.T.’s ongoing involvement with T.P. is improper, and that the Society has not taken appropriate steps to discipline her and prevent further involvement with the P. family. The Applicant refers to various oral complaints she has made to the Society in the past.
10Her specific complaints are:
in June 2006, T.P. stopped communicating with her parents after several weeks in the foster home;
in September 2006, when T.P. ran away from home, R.T. met with T.P. and did not inform anyone she had done so, and later let T.P. hide in her garage without informing anyone;
after a second arrest, T.P. ran away from CAS care and was again found after contact with R.T.;
in October 2006, while at the group home, R.T. called T.P. on the phone and replied to a letter T.P. sent her. The Applicant also complains she was told by the Society at the time not to slander the foster mother.
There was a delay in receiving a copy of the psychiatric assessment.
In June 2007 T.P. again hid at R.T.’s home after running away, but was no longer at the home by the time the Society workers arrived to get her;
that the foster mother is setting a bad example for other children in her care, by allowing children who are running from the police or under the influence of drugs or alcohol to stay overnight;
in September 2007 R.T. responded in writing to a letter she received from T.P., apparently in contravention of a written plan that had been devised in July 2007 between R.T. and the Society. The Applicant feels the Society did nothing about her complaint to them on this occasion.
R.T. allowed T.P. to board a bus by herself to another town during summer vacation, and that while there she was allegedly allowed to drink alcohol.
11The Applicant appears to submit, in her application, that the Society did not respond to her oral complaints because on each occasion, contact continued between T.P. and R.T.
12The Society notes that the Applicant did not file a written complaint with the Society, but complained orally on numerous occasions about the involvement of the foster mother with her daughter. The Society submits that the verbal complaints were all dealt with verbally.
13Through its summary reply, the Society explained what it did in the past to respond to the concerns raised by the Applicant. It explained how each decision taken by the Society was arrived at. The Society replied that some of the complaints against R.T.’s actions were not substantiated, and therefore no further action was taken by the Society.
14With respect to the Applicant’s concern that R.T. should have no future contact with T.P., the Society notes: “We continue to expect that R.T. will not initiate any contacts with T.P. but certainly we are unable to enforce T.P. not initiating such contacts.”
ANALYSIS
15The Board is satisfied through its review of the summary reply, that all the complaints raised in the Application to the Board were raised previously with the Society and the Applicant was heard by the Society in relation to these complaints.
16The Society explained in its summary reply its response to each complaint made orally by the Applicant. It further described actions taken by the Society as a result of her complaints. Some examples follow.
17Paragraph 5 dealing with a phone call from R.T. to T.P. around Christmas time, for example, notes that the Applicant was informed of the call and the circumstances surrounding it.
18The Society notes the instructions it gave to R.T. regarding no further contact with T.P., and notes that R.T. properly advised them on a number of occasions when she was contacted by T.P. It also describes actions taken when R.T. made an error in judgement regarding this issue.
19The Society notes that it instructed a treatment facility outside the Society’s jurisdiction, where T.P. was receiving treatment, that there was to be no contact with R.T. The Society notes that it made a review to investigate the Applicant’s complaints around whether R.T. allows children in her care to drink alcohol.
20The content of the response makes it clear that the Society is knowledgeable about each of the incidents listed by the Applicant in her application, and has actively investigated them.
21The Applicant feels the Society has been unresponsive because it has not disciplined the foster parent, and has not been able to ensure that R.T. does not “interfere” with the Applicant’s family in the future. The fact that the Applicant disagrees with the Society’s response to her complaint does not mean that she was not heard by the Society. It is also clear that even if the Society had not listened to the Applicant about her concerns (which the Board does not find), the Board cannot grant the remedy sought by the Applicant.
22In this application, the Board has only the power to grant the remedies available to it under Section 68.1 of the Act, as follows:
s.68.1(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,
(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;
(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;
(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;
(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;
(e) dismiss the complaint; or
(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.
23The Board notes that no further remedial orders have been prescribed by the Legislature.
24The Board finds the Society has been responsive to the Applicant’s oral complaints and provided her with the opportunity to be heard regarding her concerns about the service she was receiving. As there was no written complaint, there was no requirement on the Society to instigate its internal complaint review procedure (O. Reg. 494/06 s.2 requires that a complaint under subsection 68(1) of the Act be in writing).
CONCLUSION
25For all of the above-noted reasons, the Board dismisses the complaint.
[26]
Heather Gibbs
Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 10^th^ day of December, 2007.