J.L.W. v. Huron-Perth CAS, 2008 CFSRB 25

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

J.L.W.

v.

Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: April 14, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 25

Indexed as: J.L.W. v. Huron-Perth CAS (CFSA s.68)

Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Jurisdiction - J.L.W. v. Huron-Perth CAS (CFSA s.68), 2008 CFSRB 8, 2008 CFSRB 08

INTRODUCTION

1On March 4, 2008, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) held a hearing on the application of J.L.W. (the “Applicant”) regarding a complaint against the Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C11 (the “Act”). Ms. J.L.W. complained that the Society gave her no other choice but to voluntarily sign over care for one of her children, E.W1., as she did not want to risk losing another child, E.W2.

BACKGROUND

2The Applicant is the mother of J.M. aged 14, E.W1. aged 8 and E.W2., aged 6. The Applicant has been a single mother since F.W., the father of E.W1. and E.W2., left home. The Applicant had initial involvement with the Society back in the year 2000 regarding her first child J.M.. The Society became involved with the Applicant again in February 2006 as a result of allegations of inappropriate discipline. Though the allegations were not verified, the Society remained involved with the family on a voluntary basis.

3The Applicant alleges that she was only seeking temporary relief with her boys because they did not have a father, but that the Society gave her no other option but to sign E.W1. into their custody. The Applicant contends that she only signed over custody because the Society told her that if she did not, they would take both boys (E.W1. and E.W2.). She felt it would be better to lose one child instead of two. In the Board’s pre-hearing conducted on November 27, 2007, the Applicant articulated the issues in regard to her application to the Board. The issues were further flushed out during the Board’s jurisdictional hearing held on January 14, 2008 where the Board heard the Society’s motion for a determination as to whether the Board had jurisdiction to review this application. In its written jurisdictional decision dated February 14, 2008, the Board found that it had jurisdiction pursuant to subsections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act with respect to the following issues:

1. complaint that she was not heard regarding her concerns about Society worker M.M. and his ability to effectively carry out the responsibilities of his job;
2. concerns about injuries and illness suffered by E.W2. while in the Society’s care and her opportunity to be heard and given reasons for any decisions regarding the child’s treatment/services while under the Society’s care;
3. complaint arising from the Society’s apprehension of E.W2. on January […], 2007 and whether the Society educated the Applicant on the impact of the Temporary Care agreement and whether her concerns about revisiting the decision and possibly taking back E.W2. into her care were heard and reasons provided in relation to the decision.

FACTUAL FINDINGS

Issue 1: Complaint against worker M.M. and his ability to effectively carry out the responsibilities of his job

4The Applicant testified that she is not comfortable with Mr. M.M. as E.W2.’s case worker because: 1) he bites himself as a stimulus to stay awake because of his type 2 diabetes; 2) he has spoken inappropriately to her during a past case conference and; 3) he provided E.W2. with coffee from Tim Horton’s. This last incident occurred very recently and was not part of the application to the Board. She indicated that in a letter to S.E., the Society’s Children’s Services Manager, she asked for Mr. M.M. to be removed, although her initial complaint (in May 2007) was just to voice her concerns. She decided to formalize her complaint in October 2007 and asked for removal after she perceived that M.M. lied about the concerns she raised. She now thinks he should be removed from his job. In the Society’s response letter, they proposed a meeting to discuss her concerns, but she declined the meeting because she was not interested in continuing to have Mr. M.M. as the case worker and there was no indication that he would be removed.

5Ms. S.E testified that she discussed the matter with Mr. M.M. and that he did acknowledge that he bites his knuckles and that he gave coffee to E.W2. when he asked for it, but denied making inappropriate comments. The Society presented evidence that they provided an opportunity for the Applicant’s concerns to be heard and proposed short and long term options to address her concerns in regard to this matter. The Society indicated that they felt that in the short-term, it would not be beneficial to either party to remove Mr. M.M. from the case, given his longstanding and positive connection with E.W2., but that they would be willing to explore a replacement in the long-term. The Applicant claims that she was not made aware that Mr. M.M. denied making comments during the meeting with Ms. S.E.. Ms. S.E. could not recall if she had informed the Applicant. There have been no other complaints against Mr. M.M. since November […], 2006. The Society concludes that there is not much more that could be done at this point as they have provided an avenue for the Applicant to express and resolve this concern.

Issue 2: Concerns about injuries and illness suffered by her son E.W2. while in the Society’s care and her opportunity to be heard and given reasons for any decisions regarding the child’s treatment/services while under the Society’s care

6The Applicant testified that she was concerned that she did not get sufficient information about the dog bite that E.W2. suffered while in foster care, although she was contacted shortly after the incident. At the time, she was not actively involved in E.W2.’s life due to court matters and other ongoing issues. She had her cousin call, and found out then that E.W2. was in the hospital due to an infection in the stitches a week after the incident. She understands that the foster mother had told E.W2. to keep his face away from the dog and that the incident happened while the foster mother was in the bathroom. Ms. J.L.W. testified that the foster mother should have known that telling E.W2. to keep his face away was not sufficient, and that if she had to warn him, it should have been a red flag that an injury could occur. The only information she has on the accident is based on what she asked and still does not know the type of dog involved in the incident. She feels that the accident could have been prevented if the foster mother had taken more precaution especially knowing that E.W2. has behavioural problems. The Applicant indicated that she has problems getting hospital reports of the accident and that she was told by the hospital that reports would not be provided without the Society’s approval and that she would have to go through her lawyer to obtain them.

7The Applicant also testified that she has had problems obtaining the police report in regards to the fire that E.W2. had started in his bedroom. She herself had called the police out of concern for E.W2., but she has no idea what information was included in the police report. The Applicant further indicated that on numerous occasions she has asked Society workers for these and other reports, such as doctor’s reports, and has not been provided with any of them. T.J. communicated that the report information is not available to her and this highlights a process gap. The Applicant only received one report card but would like other reports such as child progress reports. Though she has monthly case conferences, these are more for E.W2. than they are for J.L.W.. She has to go to E.W2.’s family physician, who would have obtained final copies of medical reports, in regard to E.W2..

8The Applicant disputed Society counsel’s line of questioning that she was only interested in the medical reports because she has solicited a lawyer to engage in a lawsuit against the Society. The Society indicated that the direction provided to the Applicant to obtain the report through her lawyer was due to the fact that once the Applicant got a lawyer involved, there is an obligation on Society counsel to communicate only with Ms. J.L.W.’s counsel.

9The Society agreed that reports such as medical, school, etc. on E.W2. should be provided to the Applicant through the family service worker. This would have been standard practice and if this was not happening then there is a gap in the process. It was also indicated that if the children’s service worker provided reports directly (something that could happen during access visits) to the Applicant then the family service worker would have to be advised. The Society has no objections to providing reports and is willing to work with the Applicant to provide these reports. The Society committed to reviewing the communication gaps internally and putting measures in place in order to ensure that information flow does happen as required.

10As per the policy outlined in the Temporary Care Agreement, parents would generally receive a copy of the Temporary Care Agreement. There is no standard communication plan that goes along with this agreement.

Issue 3: Complaint arising from the Society’s apprehension of E.W2. on Jan. [...], 2007

11The Applicant testified that E.W2. came home from treatment at the M.V.Centre on December […], 2006. However, the Applicant had no relief or guidance over the holidays as no one from the Society was available to support her during that time. Since M., her parental support worker, was on holidays, she had a first appointment following E.W2.’s return home scheduled for January […], 2007. The Applicant stated that she was very anxious to discuss a couple of issues that had happened over the holidays. E.W2. was displaying aggressive behaviour, had gotten into a fight with E.W1. and there was an instance where E.W2., E.W1. and her nephew were playing with pet rats over the Christmas holidays and the rats were found dead the next day. The Applicant’s sister blamed E.W2. for the death of the rats. However, M. called to cancel the appointment. Ms. J.L.W. was very disappointed since she was looking forward to the visit to get some relief. In her distress she vented to M. about some of the issues that occurred over the holidays and the next thing she knew two Society workers showed up at her house and took E.W2. away. She was surprised by this because she only told M. she needed a break and gave this same message to the two Society workers who came to her home. Her friend S.F. was also present and related the incident in her letter filed with the Board. Ms. J.L.W. testified that the Society workers told her that E.W1. was at risk with E.W2. present in the home and that if she did not sign over E.W2. to the Society that she would run the risk of losing both children. She felt she was left with no choice but to sign the Temporary Care Agreement as she did not want to lose E.W1. too.

12The Applicant does not think that the Society acted in the best interest of herself and her children. She called the Society shortly after and went to the office to discuss reversing her decision but E.Y., whom she spoke with for over 30 minutes, talked her out of her wishes and indicated that it was not in her best interest to withdraw her consent. Ms. E.Y. had told her that she was in an emotional state to parent a child, and the Applicant doubted herself and her ability to care for E.W2.. Other than losing both children, the Society did not discuss any alternative options with her.

13The Society’s line of questioning revealed that at the time E.W2. had set fire to the home, he was already receiving four hours of Society care per week and was having problems at school. Both he and his brother E.W1. were kicked off the school bus. A Temporary Care Agreement for E.W2. was first put in place in May 2006 and extended once to December 2006 before he was released home to his mother. On the January […], 2007 incident when E.W2. was taken into care, the two case workers also provided feedback that E.W2. made comments about wanting to kill himself and his mother during her sleep and that he pretended to give his friend a “blow job” over his pants. The Applicant acknowledges that E.W2.’s behaviour was unacceptable but understanding the fact that he has severe behavioural problems, she does not understand why the Society paints a picture that he behaves differently while in foster care. She understands that he throws chairs across the room at the foster home and the Society is not making this out to be an issue.

14The Applicant indicates that since the January […], 2007 incident, there has not been any discussion of getting E.W2. back home. The Society clearly stated that the Applicant could apply to terminate the Temporary Care Agreement at any point in time providing she gave 5 days’ notice. There appears to have been a misunderstanding on the part of the Applicant as she indicated that she was not aware of this procedure and was only advised of a 5-day notice provision by a friend. The Applicant also indicated that she was not provided a copy of the Temporary Care Agreement on the day of the apprehension and was only given one after putting in a request to the Society.

DECISION

15The Board relies on the following legislation in its analysis and discussion in order to arrive at the decisions presented on this case.

68.1 (4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a).

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

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.

Issue 1: Complaint against worker M.M. and his ability to effectively carry out the responsibilities of his job

16The Board dismisses this complaint.

17The Board is satisfied that the Society heard the Applicant’s concerns and that it responded to these concerns effectively. However, the Society should consider that Mr. M.M.’s ongoing assignment to the case may act as an obstacle to the development of a healthy and trusting relationship with the Applicant and her son E.W2.

Issue 2: Concerns about injuries and illness suffered by her son E.W2. while in the Society’s care and her opportunity to be heard and given reasons for any decisions regarding the child’s treatment/services while under the Society’s care

18The evidence provided by both the Applicant and the Society regarding this complaint indicates that the Applicant was not provided with the information and reports that she is entitled to receive in a timely fashion. The Board upholds this complaint under subsections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Act and hereby recommends that the Society:

1. revise their internal communication process of information flow between the family services worker and the children services worker to ensure that information is being disseminated as required;
2. work with Ms. J.L.W. to devise a set of relevant reports and a provision schedule based on E.W2.’s progress while in the Society’s care;
3. look at the Society’s overall communication strategy with Ms. J.L.W. to ensure that her information needs are being met given that a common theme among most of the issues raised relates to a communication gap.

Issue 3: Complaint arising from the Society’s apprehension of E.W2. on Jan. […], 2007

19The Board did not hear evidence from Ms. E.Y. to counter the Applicant’s evidence regarding the events that took place on the day after the January […], 2007 apprehension of E.W2. and specifically:

a. whether Ms. J.L.W. clearly understood the impact of the decision she was making by signing the Temporary Care Agreement; b. if in conversation with Ms. E.Y. about revisiting the decision and possibly taking back E.W2. into her care, the Applicant was given a chance to express her concerns pursuant to subsections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Act and to receive reasons from the Society for the decision it was taking.

The Board upholds this complaint under subsections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Act.

20The Board further recommends that the Society meet with Ms. J.L.W. to review the Temporary Care Agreement, its terms and conditions and the process for requesting a change. The Board also recommends that the Society pay particular attention to assisting Ms. J.L.W. to fully understand the requirements that need to be met in order to bring E.W2. home and that it provides the necessary supports within its means to enable her to do so.

Heather Gibbs Presiding Member

Gail Gonda Board Member

David Griffiths Board Member