CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
C.E. and T.M. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Date: December 17, 2007
Citation: 2007 CFSRB 72
Indexed as: C.E. and T.M. v. CAS of Toronto (CFSA s.144)
1This is the decision of the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) to review the decision of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“CAST”) refusing the application of the Applicant and T.M. to adopt K.C.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
2A preliminary matter was raised by CAST with regard to material provided by the Applicant to the Board and CAST on November 1, 2007. CAST indicated its objection to a number of the materials included in the submission, although it considered some to be acceptable. CAST had no objection to the following exhibits identified by the Applicant, set out below:
A Exhibit B, pages 1 – 27.
B Exhibit F, page 5b.
C Exhibit F, pages 18 – 19.
D Exhibit C, pages 1 – 21.
E Exhibit E, pages 10 – 17.
F Exhibit F, page 13 – 14.
3After deliberation, the Board agreed to accept the materials to which CAST had no objection. The exhibit material was re-ordered in the format as listed above. The other material was to be considered as an aid to memory for the Applicant, and was available to her during her sworn testimony.
INTRODUCTION
4An adoption home study was completed by Renfrew Child and Family Services (“RCFS”) on August […], 2007 on behalf of CAST, for common-law spouses, the Applicant and T.M., of […], Ontario, who are seeking to adopt K.C., born in Toronto on March […], 2006.
5K.C., is a biological half-sister of the Applicant and T.M.’s adopted daughter K.A., born in Toronto on February […], 2004. K.A. is the biological daughter of the Applicant’s nephew, S.N., and was originally placed with the Applicant and T.M. on an Order of Supervision through CAST. The Applicant and T.M. were later awarded custody of K.A. by the Court, and adopted K.A. privately in October, 2007. K.A. and K.C. are half-sisters through their mother.
6CAST relied on the recommendation of the home study, completed by RCFS on August […], 2007, which was not to approve the Applicant and T.M. as adoptive parents for K.C.
7On October […], 2007, CAST informed the Applicant and T.M. that the decision of the Society was not to place K.C. with them. The Applicant applied to review this decision with the Board.
8The Board, in accordance with Section 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”), must decide what action is in the best interests of the child in this case, and either confirm the decision of CAST not to approve the home study assessment, and refuse to proceed with the Applicant and T.M.’s request to adopt K.C., or to rescind the decision of CAST.
BACKGROUND
9The Applicant and T.M. have been common-law partners since 1999. The Applicant has a son, R.T., from a previous relationship, who is now twenty-one years old and in the Canadian military. T.M. has no biological children.
10In 2004, the Applicant approached CAST indicating that she and T.M. were interested in providing a home for K.A., her nephew S.N.’s newborn infant, with the hope that S.N. would, in the future, be able to parent K.A. himself. A homestudy was completed by RCFS, on behalf of CAST, and K.A. was placed with the couple on a Supervision Order. The couple was later awarded custody of K.A., and adopted K.A. privately in October, 2007. K.A. has been diagnosed with fetal alcohol syndrome (“FASD”).
11The Applicant and T.M. had previous contact with RCFS in 1999 when they applied to RCFS to act as foster parents. A homestudy was done in 2000, and the couple was told that they would not be considered as foster parents. The reason given was that their relationship was too new at that time. The Applicant also approached RCFS in 2000 with a request to establish a shelter for homeless youth on behalf of a non-profit organization. In 2002, the Applicant contacted RCFS to reactivate the request to become foster parents. She and T.M. were told by the Society that it would not proceed with their application, based on T.M.’s past criminal record which included four impaired driving charges.
12In September 2006, CAST approached the Applicant and T.M. regarding their interest in adopting K.C., K.A.’s newborn half-sister. At that time, the Applicant inquired about the possibility of a financial subsidy for the adoption and was informed that RCFS did not provide this form of support.
13A homestudy, related to the potential adoption of K.C., was undertaken by RCFS, in September 2006, on behalf of CAST. There was a recognition by RCFS, at that time, that there were concerns on the part of the clients regarding their previous relationship with P.H., the worker assigned to the homestudy. P.H. had been responsible for their 2000 homestudy, and for discussions with them in 2002.
14The homestudy, begun in September 2006, was conducted by P.H. using the new SAFE “Structured Assessment Family Evaluation” protocol, and was completed in June, 2007. During that period the Applicant and T.M. undertook the PRIDE course, required by RCFS of all prospective foster and adoptive parents. This course was given by P.H.
15For two months prior to its receipt, CAST contacted RCFS with concerns regarding the length of time being taken to complete the homestudy for the Applicant and T.M. On June […], 2007 CAST received the completed homestudy, which was forwarded by RCFS with no prior discussion with the Applicant and her husband. Subsequently, there were concerns raised by them with regard to factual errors in the report. This was the first indication they had had that the recommendation of the homestudy was negative. RCFS met with the Applicant and her husband and, in August 2007, produced a revised homestudy which contained corrections of fact. CAST reviewed the recommendations of the revised homestudy, conferred with staff of RCFS, and agreed to accept its recommendation.
16The Applicant and T.M. were informed of the decision to refuse their application to adopt K.C. by CAST on October […], 2007.
The Society Submitted:
17The reasons for its decision not to approve the Applicant and T.M. as adoptive parents, based on the information in, and the conclusions of, the homestudy were as follows:
1 The Applicant’s difficulties in collaborating with professionals as a member of a team;
2 The risk to K.C. in terms of the Applicant’s ability to protect K.C., based on the Applicant’s early history of sexual abuse;
3 The Applicant’s past pattern of multiple male relationships, some of whom demonstrated issues related to alcohol, drugs and violence;
4 The lack of capacity of the Applicant and T.M. to acknowledge responsibility for their actions, particularly T.M., with regard to past criminal charges and the issue of smoking;
5 Potential stress in the home if K.C. were to be adopted, because K.A. is diagnosed as a child with fetal alcohol syndrome;
6 K.C.’s potential special needs given that she was exposed prenatally to drugs and alcohol, her mother suffers from schizophrenia, and her father (and his medical history) is unknown.
18The Society further submitted that:
7 The Structured Assessment Family Evaluation (“SAFE”) homestudy is a more thorough evaluation than previous adoption homestudies;
8 A homestudy for the purpose of adoption is more exhaustive and demanding than a homestudy completed for the purpose of fostering or supervision by the Society. This explains why applicants may have been approved for fostering or supervision, but not for adoption.
9 The decision to decline the Applicant and T.M. as potential adoptive parents for K.C. was based on the overall rating of SAFE. Scoring, in this case, was at a concerning level.
10 On occasion, social workers are reassigned if there is a conflict between client and worker, although attempts are made beforehand to understand and resolve the nature of the conflict.
11 It is the practice of CAST to advise their clients if a homestudy appears to be approaching a negative outcome, so that there are no surprises to the clients.
12 CAST does not rely on psychometric testing in its adoption homestudies.
13 It is the policy of CAST that its workers retain all notes related to their files.
14 CAST’s experience with the Applicant with regard to the issue of acting cooperatively as a member of a professional team was that she did at times get ahead of the process and was a little “pushy”.
15 RCFS has advised CAST that, should the placement of K.C. with the Applicant and T.M. go forward, it is not prepared to supervise the placement during the adoption probation period of six months.
Witnesses for Cast Submitted:
19P.H., Resource Worker, RCFS submitted that:
1 He was assigned to complete the homestudy for the Applicant and T.M. because they were in his geographic area;
2 He was aware of concerns regarding his past history with the Applicant and T.M. He raised this issue in his first meeting with them and was told it was not a problem.
3 There are objective ratings in SAFE. His conclusions were based on those objective ratings.
4 The concerns of the homestudy completed for K.C. related to issues of capacity, the demands of a second child, lack of processing and ownership of their own history by the Applicant and T.M.
5 The reason for rejecting the Applicant and T.M. as foster parents in 2000 was because their relationship was too recent. Later requests were rejected because T.M. refused to accept responsibility for his criminal charges.
6 He did not advise the Applicant and T.M. of the results of the homestudy earlier, because he did not know the outcome until it was completed.
7 The notes and data used for the 2007 homestudy were not retained and are now not available.
8 He told people during PRIDE sessions that the Children’s Aid Society was like God; more powerful than the police or the Court.
20D.P., Resources Supervisor, RCFS submitted that:
1 She was aware of the clients’ concern regarding P.H., but thought that there had been an agreement between them and P.H. to proceed;
2 Changes in workers are occasionally made, based on clients’ concerns regarding a worker, but these are rare.
3 RCFS agreed to changes in the June 2007 homestudy in what it considered to be factual errors; other changes were not agreed to. The Applicant and T.M. were not necessarily in agreement with these decisions.
4 She felt that the homestudy assessment and report were accurate overall, but perhaps did not give enough weight to the Applicant and T.M.’s successful parenting.
5 The homestudy report took nine months to complete, which is lengthy but within the accepted range. RCFS did act in some haste to forward it to CAST. The clients were not given an opportunity to see the homestudy beforehand.
The Applicant Submitted:
1 Her main concern was that the homestudy conducted by P.H. lacked objectivity. She had had a previous negative history with P.H.
2 She advised P.E., her family worker, RCFS of her concerns regarding her previous difficult relationship with P.H., when the homestudy regarding K.C. was anticipated, and requested another worker;
3 She and T.M. did agree to work with P.H. and were assured by him that they would be advised during the homestudy process if it appeared that the outcome would be negative;
4 Issues identified in the 2007 homestudy were all known to the CAST before the homestudy began in 2006 because of the previous homestudy related to the placement of K.A.;
5 She disputes the information in the 2007 homestudy. There were incorrect facts and language with negative connotations included in the homestudy.
6 The homestudy, with its negative recommendation, was forwarded by RCFS to CAST without any prior discussion with the Applicant and T.M.
7 The length of time required to complete the homestudy was of concern.
21The Applicant further submitted:
8 Psychometric testing was administered to her and T.M. in 2000. This testing was relied on for the 2007 homestudy completed by RCFS.
9 With regard to the concern regarding her lack of respect for process, there were miscommunications between the Applicant and CAST. Confusion on the part of the Applicant regarding the differing forms of homestudy, and issues related to subsidy, may have accounted for her appearing to be “pushy” and for her frustration in attempting to access this information.
She has maintained a positive and professional relationship with RCFS staff other than P.H.
10 There were a number of issues between the Applicant and P.H. that were later clarified, for example, the issue of financial subsidy for childcare, but these clarifications were not reflected in the homestudy.
11 The Applicant’s success in parenting her son was not noted; the positive parenting of K.A. by the Applicant and T.M. was not given sufficient weight.
12 She disputes the fact that she has minimized her own history of sexual abuse. She offered to see an independent counsellor to deal with RCFS’ concerns regarding her history of being sexually abused, but this offer was not accepted. She was not comfortable discussing these matters with P.H.
13 With regard to the concern related to the future of K.A. and, potentially, K.C., there are family members who can be called upon to care for them in the event of the death of the Applicant and T.M.
14 The issue related to her past relationships with males is not relevant. She left these relationships because they were negative.
15 She and T.M. do not feel that the stress of having two children with FASD would be unmanageable. They have taken courses regarding FASD. The initial stage with K.A. was not easy but they worked it through.
16 With regard to T.M.’s reaction to the issue of his criminal record, he was confused, as he had once been mistaken for another individual with a similar name.
Witnesses for the Applicant:
22P.E., Family Service Worker, RCFS, submitted that:
1 He is currently on paternity leave;
2 He was assigned the file for the Applicant and T.M. in 2004 after K.A. had been placed with them by CAST;
3 His relationship with the Applicant and T.M. was cooperative and they did not hesitate to contact him, as needed;
4 In 2006 the Applicant told him that she had asked for another worker to complete the homestudy for K.C. He believes that he sent an e-mail to D.P., and had a conversation with her regarding this issue.
5 Had he been at work when he heard that P.H. was assigned as the worker, he would have said something further.
6 As a protection worker he understands the issue of risk, and does not see risk in the plan for the Applicant and T.M. to adopt K.C.
23J.L., Director of Resources, RCFS submitted that:
1 He met the Applicant and T.M. in 2004, before K.A.’s homestudy;
2 He found dealings with the Applicant and T.M. to be professional in nature;
3 He knew that she had previous concerns regarding her file in 2000; these had not been addressed as her file was closed;
4 He was aware of the Applicant’s concern that the issues in the 2000 file and the 2004 file could affect her later;
5 With regard to the question of the retention of notes, there is no requirement for resource workers to retain their notes or the psychological data upon which the homestudy is based.
24F.M., Infant Development Worker, RCFS, submitted that:
1 She is the Coordinator of Infant Development, RCFS;
2 K.A. was referred to her service in January 2005, but was not initially accepted because there appeared to be no developmental delay;
3 K.A. was accepted in March 2005, and discharged a year later, during which time F.M. visited the home every 2 - 3 weeks. K.A. has done well, and is now in a Montessori Program.
4 the Applicant worked cooperatively with her in a professional manner;
5 She does not feel comfortable in commenting on the issue of placing a second potentially FASD child in the home.
25A.S. submitted that:
1 She is a Registered Nurse;
2 In 2003 she took the PRIDE course with P.H.;
3 She got the indication that one needed to be a perfect family to adopt;
4 P.H. compared himself and the CAS to “God”;
5 She complained to D.P. about P.H. being overbearing and rude.
26T.M., subpoenaed by CAST, submitted that:
1 K.A. knows her sister and should be with her sister;
2 P.H. has twisted everything. For example, P.H. initially promised to hold two meetings with the Applicant and T.M. to discuss their past history, and then to decide if he should complete the homestudy. This was not done.
3 In their first meeting, P.H. called him an “asshole” and then spent the next forty minutes apologizing.
4 Although he has concerns with the RCFS, T.M. would still work with them.
ANALYSIS
27The issue before the Board is what action is in best interests of K.C. pursuant to Section 144(11) of the Act.
28The Board has heard concerns regarding the objectivity and reliability of the homestudy completed by RCFS on behalf of CAST.
29The Applicant raised concerns regarding the objectivity of the homestudy given a previous negative relationship that she and T.M. had with the worker who conducted the homestudy and the possibility that this affected negatively the outcome of the homestudy.
30The Board heard that there were concerns raised in the homestudy regarding the Applicant and her spouse’s inability to participate cooperatively as members of a professional team. The Board heard, however, that these concerns were not shared by other staff persons at
RCFS. The matter was also addressed by the Applicant, and was explained as her frustration with her inability to obtain answers and to understand RCFS’ processes.
31The Board heard further concerns that there may have been insufficient weight given to certain issues. For example, the successful parenting capacities of T.M. and the Applicant may not have been given sufficient mention in the study. On the other hand, undue weight may have been given to other issues, for example, the couple’s capacity to work cooperatively with professionals as members of a team.
32The Board was concerned that the notes and data upon which the homestudy was based were discarded, and are no longer available for review.
33There were additional concerns for the Board regarding the language and professional demeanour of P.H. For example, his comment to the Board that “the Children’s Aid Society is like God and is more powerful than the police or the Court” is of concern.
34The Board acknowledges the numerous concerns identified by both Societies in their search for an adoption placement that addresses the best interests of K.C.
35The Board, however, finds that the SAFE homestudy completed by RCFS may have been lacking in objectivity, given the concerns noted above, and the relationship of P.H. to the Applicant and T.M. The Board is particularly concerned because the notes and data upon which the homestudy was based are not available. The Board is aware that the decision of CAST was based on the conclusions of that homestudy.
36The Board is, therefore, of the opinion that to ensure an opportunity for an objective and unbiased homestudy, in the best interest of K.C., that a new homestudy should be undertaken.
37The Board therefore concludes that in accordance with subsection 136(2) of the Act, it is in the best interests of K.C. to have a new homestudy conducted in an objective and professional manner by a third party society or private adoption agency.
DECISION
38In accordance with subsection 136(2) of the Act, the Board rescinds the decision of CAST to refuse the adoption application of the Applicant and T.M. to adopt K.C. because it was based on a homestudy that was not conducted in an objective manner.
Gail Gonda Presiding Member
Celia Denov Panel Member
David Griffiths Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 17th day of December, 2007.