CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
J.R1. & J.R2. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Date: March 13, 2008 Citation: 2008 CFSRB 18 Indexed as: J.R1. & J.R2. v. CAS of Toronto (CFSA s.144)
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicants, J.R1. and J.R2., applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) for a review of a decision made by the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society” or “CAS”) to refuse their application to adopt the child, A.T. born the […] day of July, 2002. A formal letter from the Society dated the […] day of January, 2008 was sent to the Applicants advising them of this decision as required by subsection (2) of section 144 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The relevant provisions of section 144 with respect to a review by the Board are as follows:
144(1) Decision of society or licensee – This section applies if,
(a) a society decides to refuse an application to adopt a particular child made by a foster parent, or other person
144(3) Application for review – A person who receives notice of a decision under subsection (2) may, within 10 days after receiving the notice, apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision subject to subsection (4).
2It is the position of the Society that it is in the best interests of A.T. to be placed for adoption with another adoptive family (a family that has now been identified after a lengthy search process) and which the Society believes is best suited to meet the needs of the child. Accordingly, the Society asks the Board to confirm the decision to refuse the application to adopt A.T.. It is the position of the Applicants that it is in the best interests of A.T. that she be adopted by them and that the decision of the Society to refuse their application be rescinded.
BACKGROUND
3The Applicants, J.R1. and J.R2., were foster parents for A.T. from June […], 2005 to February […], 2007 on a basis arranged between the Society and C.T.F.H. (“C.T.F.H.”), a private operator providing foster care under contract to the Society. A.T. became a Crown Ward without access on September […], 2006 and the Society began to focus on permanency planning for the child shortly thereafter. The child had been in four or five other placements before coming to reside with the Applicants. The child left the care of the Applicants after the Applicants resigned as foster parents with C.T.F.H.. The resignation letter from the Applicants to C.T.F.H. was dated November […], 2006 (Exhibit R5) and, after that date, the Applicants sought an association with another private foster home operator, M.C.’s.S..
4On February […], 2007, matters between the Applicants and C.T.F.H. came to a head after a plan of care meeting and shortly afterwards February […], 2007 was set as the date for A.T. to leave the Applicants’ home. On February […], 2007, the Applicant, J.R1., indicated that he was “done with fostering” and that C.T.F.H. could “do what they want”. On February […], 2007, the child was removed to another foster home operated by C.T.F.H. where she remains to the present time pending a decision by the Board. The Applicants had expressed interest in adopting A.T. and continued to express that interest after February […], 2007. On April […], 2007, in a discussion with N.H., CAS Children’s Services Worker, the Applicants indicated they would still like to foster this child and adopt her and did ask to see her at that time. A case note from C.B., CAS Supervisor, dated June […], 2007 (Exhibit R10) records a message from the Applicant, J.R1., to the effect that he still wants to adopt A.T. and which interest continued through to a meeting with the Society on November […], 2007 and to the present time.
ANALYSIS
5The Board must make a decision in this matter having regard to the best interests of the child as provided for in subsection (11) of section 144 as follows:
144(11) Board decision – The Board shall, in accordance with its determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, confirm or rescind the decision under review and shall give written reasons for its decision.
6In considering the best interests of a child, the Board must take into consideration the circumstances detailed in section 136(2).
7The Society adduced evidence from C.B. (Branch Director) who spoke to the adoption process generally and, in part, to this specific case. The witness indicated that multiple factors are considered in permanency planning with a view to finding a “forever” family that best supports the child’s needs. There was some early concern with respect to a placement with these foster parents because a “red flag” had surfaced for J.R1. in respect of child management related to an occurrence on November […], 2006 at the nursery school involving possible inappropriate discipline by J.R1.. Simcoe CAS investigated and had no child protection concerns and simply recommended some parenting education for J.R1.. Adoption by these Applicants was considered by the Society and declined for various reasons which can be summarized in part as follows:
(a) The Applicants’ long term commitment to the child was in question as a result of the events leading up to the removal of the child on February […], 20081. The Society was concerned that the Applicants put their adult issues with C.T.F.H. before the best interests of the child by resigning at a time when they were not in a position to continue as foster parents for A.T. afterwards. It was also of concern to the Society that the Applicants did not rescind their resignation even after it was apparent in the last week of February that they were not approved by an alternate licenced foster home agency and would lose A.T. as a result (after the child had been with them for over one and one-half years).
(b) There had been some concerns with respect to Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (“ADHD”) medication requirements for the child of which the Applicants strongly disapproved. As well, the Applicants did not support the therapy recommended for the child and were advocating their own form of therapy (equine therapy) by obtaining a pony for the child and encouraging her in activities related to this animal. It was clear on the evidence that A.T. has special needs which will require significant resources working cooperatively to address effectively. A.T. was assessed by A.P., C.L.S., M.S.W., R.S.W., who made recommendations in an Assessment Report (Exhibit R2) dated January […], 2007, which included the following:
Recommendations:
A.T. needs extensive support and immediate intervention. She requires an approach that is open-ended, with a focus initially on the containment and inhibition of impulses which is necessary for treatment to be successful. She needs an opportunity to work on, for the first time, the developmental building blocks that she was not provided with in her early life. She will in time, need to work on the core issues of trauma, but she will likely require years of treatment before she can feel safe and trusting enough to attend to these issues. Her foster parents need to be open to working with the various professionals who might aid A.T. in developing an integrated sense of self. This is going to require a team made up of people who can help to support A.T. throughout her childhood and adolescence.
8The Society has concerns as to the ability of the Applicants to work with services in place and with respect to their ability to work cooperatively with various service providers to meet the needs of this child.
9The Board finds that the Applicants have some set views and may find it difficult to function as part of such a team and ignoring her medical requirements is a serious concern for the Board. During his testimony, J.R1. had difficulty controlling his anger and became somewhat agitated on at least two occasions.
10The Board finds further that the Applicants were so entrenched in their decision to terminate their relationship with C.T.F.H. and with that dispute that it did not occur to them to change their minds and, in fact, on February […], 2007, the child’s bags and other personal effects were packed and ready to go and the child left that day. The Applicants were aware that disruptions would be difficult for this child and generally of the importance of preventing a placement breakdown. The Applicant, J.R1., acknowledged in his evidence that he regretted the decision to resign, that this was a mistake, and that he should have waited until an association with a new private foster home operator had been established. The Applicant further agreed that his final resignation of February […], 2007 was a gamble and that he was hoping that something would occur to enable the Applicants to still maintain A.T. as their foster child with the assistance of the Society or otherwise.
11By June of 2007, adoption planning was in process for this child and A.T. was presented at the adoption resource exchange in the fall of 2007 since she was a somewhat older child with special needs and thereby a challenge to find a good adoptive match. A family has now been found for this child whom the Society believes have the strengths required to meet the needs of this child and to work effectively with service providers while remaining available for the child as strong parents and advocates for her. The family selected to adopt this child have special skills, including the ability to understand a traumatized child, are patient and tolerant and have the ability to work cooperatively with resources and service providers.
12K.M., Adoption Worker/Recruiter, gave evidence with respect to the adoption process and the fact that the adoption home study process is required for foster parent adoptions. It was the evidence of this witness that the child is agitated by the prospect of another move and that it is critical and of paramount importance that she be placed for adoption now after having been through five major moves. The witness also spoke of the new adoptive family as available now and having completed the entire approval process, including a “blind viewing” which took place last December. The effect on the child of delay in the disposition of this case is a serious consideration. In particular, not only would it take a considerable amount of time for the Applicants to complete the home study process, they may be considered not to be the ideal match to meet the requirements of this child at the end of the process. There has been no contact between the Applicants and child for one year now and the Board believes the perception of the child from the events of February […], 2007 would be that the move was permanent and that she was no longer part of the Applicants’ family.
13There were also concerns expressed by the Society with respect to the fact that the Applicants have not completed the home study process which includes preliminary screening (police, residency history, child welfare, etc.), medicals, interview with the family and Pride training. The Applicants were aware at least by August of 2007 that they would require a home study and Pride training to proceed with an adoption of this child and, although engaging to some extent with Simcoe CAS, the home study process has not really started for these Applicants at this time and will take many more months to complete.
14N.H., CAS Children’s Services Worker, spoke to the background of A.T. and described her as having a horrible background involving the worst case of neglect and domestic violence in a home with no routine, no limits and possible sexual assaults on the child. As a result, this child has very high needs, including problems making attachments and with relationships, including aggressive behaviours. This witness indicates that the child requires patient parents who need to understand the impact of her trauma on her and who are committed to many years of family involvement and dedication to the child to support her emotional well-being and individual therapy and growth needs. The child is described as being demanding and very draining with complex needs. Although the Applicants had previously been viewed favourably as prospective adoptive parents, “abandonment” concerns have now arisen and a placement back with the Applicants may, in the view of this witness, traumatize the child.
15Both J.R1. and J.R2. gave oral evidence and submitted a document (Exhibit A-1) setting out reasons why the Applicants would make good adoptive parents for A.T.. There is no question that J.R1. and J.R2. genuinely love this child and regret their decision to resign from C.T.F.H. leading to the removal of A.T. from their home on February […], 2007. The Applicants also brought an album of photos showing A.T. in various settings while in their care, which the Board had the opportunity to view. J.R1. spoke of his tendency to be protective of children and the fact that both he and his wife have lots of contacts in the community to provide all the resources needed to properly parent A.T.. J.R1. also spoke of the difficulties encountered by both Applicants in navigating the home study process with Simcoe CAS, which they initiated in August of 2007 and which has not moved forward in any meaningful fashion to date. J.R1. further confirmed that he should have calmed down before resigning on February […], 2007 and acknowledged that he made a mistake. The witness confirmed that he disagrees with the need for medications for this child in respect of her ADHD and noted that the child did well during the placement in their home and that having a pony worked great for the child. The witness also spoke of the next opportunity to engage in Pride training through Simcoe CAS as being in April (about a nine week program), which would mean a home study for the Applicants could not be completed until at least June of 2008. J.R2. spoke of the fact that the child was an important part of her family and that she wished an opportunity to complete the Pride/home study and to be considered as adoptive parents. Neither Applicant was able to satisfactorily explain in evidence how they could expect the child to trust them again having regard to the circumstances of her removal from their home on short notice on what was indicated to be a permanent basis.
CONCLUSION
16The Board has considered all of the provisions contained in section 136(2) of the Act in making a determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, A.T.. The considerations the Board considers most significant in this case are as follows:
136(2) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:
The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.
The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.
Any other relevant circumstance.
17It is the decision of the Board that it is in the best interests of the child to confirm the decision under review that the child not be adopted by the Applicants. In this case, the best interests of the child are served by an adoption placement as soon as possible so that this child can become part of a family able and willing to meet her needs over the long term. To delay adoption in order to permit these Applicants to complete the adoption application requirements is not in the best interests of this child on the facts of this case. The Board further finds that the circumstances surrounding the child leaving the Applicants’ home are such that it may be traumatic for the child to return to that home. Those facts raise an additional concern with respect to the commitment of the Applicants to meet the physical, mental and emotional needs of this child over the long term. The Society has found an adoptive family for this child that the Society believes can meet the needs of the child and provide the child with a secure place as a member of that family on a long term basis and that plan should now be implemented.
DECISION
18The Board confirms the decision of the Society to refuse the application to adopt A.T..
Gregory Price Presiding Member
Lorna King Panel Member
Nycole Roy Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 13th day of March, 2008.