CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
M.G., C.C & D.C
v.
Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Indexed as: M.G., C.C & D.C. v. CAS of London & Middlesex (CFSA s.68)
Related Decisions: Reasons for Decisions on Jurisdiction - M.G., C.C & D.C. v. CAS of London & Middlesex (CFSA s.68), 2008 CFSRB 7, 2008 CFSRB 07
INTRODUCTION
1M.G., C.C., and D.C. (the “Applicants”) filed an application pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C11 (the “Act”) with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) against Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex (the “Society”) in which they allege:
The Society failed to comply with section 2(2)(a) of the Act; and,
The Society failed to provide reasons for decisions that affected their interests.
2It was agreed at the pre-hearing that the applications of M.G., mother of the children, and C.C. and D.C., grandparents of the children, would be combined into one hearing.
3On January 23, 2008, the Board heard the Society’s motion that the Applicants’ matters are before the Court and therefore, are not eligible for review by the Board under subsection 68.1(8) of the Act. The Board denied the motion of the Society and ruled it would proceed to hear the merits of all ten complaints.
4At the hearing all the evidence before the Board was heard. The Society did not call any witnesses.
BACKGROUND
5The application concerned the Society’s involvement with five children: S.L.D., 15 yrs old; J.D., 13 yrs old; K.D., 12 yrs old; C.M.G., 8 yrs old; and C.G., 6 yrs old.
6On November […], 2006 the Court granted the Society a six month supervision order for the children. K.D., C.M.G. and C.G. continued to reside in the care of their grandparents as per the Interim Order of Society Supervision granted November […], 2006. S.D. and J.D. were returned to the care of their mother M.G., under a Supervision Order on July […], 2007.
COMPLAINTS BEFORE THE BOARD
7M.G.’s Complaints
The Society conducted an investigation after a complaint by the school and found no reason for involvement. She wants answers and reasons for the Society’s involvement.
The Society threatened that they would drag the Court case out unless she signs a Voluntary Care Agreement.
The Society watches her home and harasses her. She is told she is a good parent but the Society does not allow the children to come home.
The Society’s involvement is personal. There are many accusations by the Society, but no proof.
The Society has threatened to take her children away without any proven facts. The Society went to Court with a protection application in order to remain involved with the family after she had voluntarily placed the children in the care of their grandparents.
8C.C.’s Complaints
The Society failed to answer and give her reasons for many of her questions regarding the goals for the children, the reasons why the children are in care, the Society’s expectations of her and the Society’s changing demands.
The Society has used her family history, which involves old issues against her, and applied it to her daughter. The Society does not have the facts regarding her history.
The Society said her health issues make her incapable of looking after her grandchildren without providing medical evidence. She stated she has not been heard on this issue.
[9] D.C.’s Complaints
The Society threatened to remove the children from their care if they (Cs) did not sign up for the Kinship program.
The Society has concerns but the Applicants do not know what the concerns are. They do not get answers from the Society.
RELEVANT LEGISLATION
10The relevant legislation considered by the Board is set out below:
68.1 (4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a).
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
Section 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.
Additional legislation considered by the Board related to the complaint that the facts of the family history may not be accurate in society records or files is set out below:
68(5) If a complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the complaint review procedure:
- An alleged inaccuracy in the society’s files or records regarding the complainant.
ANALYSIS
Complaint # 1 – The Society conducted an investigation after a complaint by the school and found no reason for involvement. Ms.M.G. wants answers and reasons for the Society’s involvement.
11Ms.M.G. stated that in April 2006 the Society intake worker, N.G., reported that there were no protection issues or reasons for Society involvement based on the investigation conducted after a complaint was made by the children’s school. The school reported concerns to the Society about the supervision of the children in Ms. M.G.’s home in the morning prior to coming to school. On occasion, Ms. M.G. would leave her son J.D. unsupervised for over 20 minutes while she dropped the other children at school.
12Although she was told by Mr. N.G. that there were no reasons for Society involvement after completion of the investigations, he threatened to take Ms. M.G. to Court if she did not get her son J.D. help. At the time of this investigation, Ms. M.G. was attempting to get counselling for her son. P.D., the Society worker, was already involved. Ms. M.G. had been working with Mr. P.D. to help resolve long-standing issues at school with her children. At one point, she was discussing a transfer of her children to another school. Ms. M.G. stated she did not have any issue with the investigation being done. Her concern was with the threat made by the intake worker.
13In September 2006, P.D., along with some other Society workers, made a full “home invasion” at the mother’s home. The visit scared the children. During the same period, the Society began making demands about work needing to be done to the home.
14In October 2006, Ms. M.G. discussed the transfer of the care of her children to her parents with Mr. P.D.. She understood this would result in having no further Society involvement. She did not feel she received direct answers when she asked why the Society remained involved.
P.D. and his supervisor Mr. D. intimidated her and the children by coming to her home on November […], 2007 unannounced to serve court papers. On November […], 2007, Mr. P.D. made another unannounced visit. This time the visit was to her parent’s home to serve court papers for an appearance the next day.
15Custody arrangements for the children to Mr. and Mrs. C.C. were made in November 2006.
16Ms.M.G. stated that although she had no issues with the investigation that took place, at no time, while her situation was before the Court, was she provided a chance to discuss these threats or the inappropriate behaviour of Mr. P.D. She further stated that the inappropriate behaviour of the assigned Society workers did not end with Mr. P.D., but has continued with others.
17The Society Intake Worker, Mr. N.G., provided reasons for the Society involvement in April 2006 while investigating the report from the school that the children were being left unsupervised in the home.
18In September 2006, during a home visit, the Society workers informed Ms.M.G. the Society was continuing their involvement due to the physical condition of the home and the behaviour concerns related to the children.
19On November […], 2006 court papers were served to Ms. M.G. by her Society worker, P.D.. An interim supervision order was granted on November […] 2006 of which the complainant would have received a copy.
20Therefore, the Board concludes that the Society remained involved with the family for reasons that were separate from the investigation it conducted following the school report and that it did provide reasons for their continued involvement.
21The Board dismisses the complaint made pursuant to section 68.1(4)5 of the Act.
Complaint #2 - The Society threatened that they would drag the Court case out unless she signs a Voluntary Care Agreement.
22Ms. M.G. says the Society threatened her with dragging out the Court case if she did not sign the voluntary agreement. These threats were made as a means for the Society to get its way. She agreed to a six month voluntary order, which she did not receive until after she turned custody over to her parents in November 2007.
23Ms. M.G. reported that she was approached by T.U., the Society worker, in July 2007 to discuss the conditions of the children’s placement because they were causing problems at her parents. Ms. M.G. did not agree with her and was told by Ms. T.U. that the children would not be able to come home.
24In a settlement conference held in August 2007, a Society lawyer and T.U. approached Ms. M.G. again with a three month supervision order. Ms. M.G. testified that the Society’s position was that if she did not sign the papers, the case would go to trial and they would drag it out as long as they could. Her understanding was that the three children would be returned home at the end of the order.
25Ms. M.G. said she attended a meeting in October 2007 where she again felt threatened by the Society because the Society said that it would go for Crown Wardship of her children if she did not adhere to the checklist of home repairs outlined in her health, safety and building inspections.
26There was no evidence that the Society intended to threaten Ms. M.G. but rather to make her aware of the course of action it would have to take if it continued to have concerns about the best interests of the children. The Board believes that Ms. M.G. perceived the expression of the Society’s intentions in regards to its concerns as a threat even though they were not intended as such.
27The Board finds that Ms. M.G. did have the opportunity to be heard about the placement decisions regarding her children in a series of meetings on June […], 2007, September […], October […] and the settlement conference of August […], 2007.
28Therefore the Board dismisses this complaint made pursuant to section 68.1(4)4 of the Act.
Complaint #3 - The Society watches her home and harasses her. She is told she is a good parent but the Society does not allow the children to come home.
29Ms. M.G. acknowledges the Society had an order which allows workers to enter her home at any time. However, she felt it was not necessary to watch the home given this order. In addition, she felt she was being “harassed” when the Society worker did visit. It was not necessary to have three police officers come to the home with the Society worker.
30The Society contends that it does not have control over how the police respond to a case.
31The Board concludes that the Society has the authority to watch the home, Ms. M.G. was aware that the Society was acting pursuant to the order and therefore, it cannot be said that she did not know the reasons as to why the Society was monitoring her home.
32Therefore the Board dismisses this complaint made pursuant to section 68.1(4)5 of the Act.
Complaint #4 - The Society’s involvement is personal. There are many accusations by the Society, but no proof.
33Ms. M.G. stated that she felt the treatment by the Society made her feel “guilty”: she was told she was a “good parent” and yet the Society continued to remain involved with her family. Because she lives in a small town, her neighbours and others knows her involvement with the Society and this results in people talking about her family circumstances.
34The Board concludes that there were other reasons for the Society’s involvement beyond being told by a Society worker she was a good parent. The reasons for the Society involvement were provided to Ms. M.G. in the Society letter of June […] 2007, the Settlement Conference Addendum dated August […], 2007 and minutes of a meeting held September […], 2007. As such, Ms. M.G. was provided with the reasons for the Society’s involvement pursuant to section 68.1(4)5.
35Therefore the Board dismisses this complaint made pursuant to section 68.1(4)5 of the Act.
Complaint #5 - The Society has threatened to take her children away without any proven facts. The Society went to Court with a protection application in order to remain involved with the family after she had voluntarily placed the children in the care of their grandparents.
36Ms. M.G. had signed over custody and voluntarily placed the children in the care of their grandparents effective November […], 2007. In a meeting on November […], 2007, she was asked by the Society Worker, P.D., to sign a voluntary service agreement. She stated that Mr. P.D. was aware of her decision to sign over the custody of her children to her parents, believing this would end the Society’s involvement.
37The Board heard the Society acted on their concerns, which they felt were in the best interest of the children with regards to the protection application and continued involvement with the family.
38The Society provided reasons to Ms. M.G. why the three children, K.D., C.G. and C.M.G. would remain with their grandparents at a June […], 2007 meeting.
39Therefore, the Board dismisses this complaint.
Complaint #6 - The Society failed to answer and give her reasons for many of her questions regarding the goals for the children, the reasons why the children are in care, the Society’s expectations of her and the Society’s changing demands.
40Mrs. C.C. testified that she already had custody of the children before the supervision order was signed on November […]. However, the Society made it clear that once a supervision order is issued, it takes precedence over all other agreements.
41Mrs. C.C. says the CAS workers did not follow through with the items discussed at their meetings together. After a meeting, workers would call a few days later and change their minds on what was discussed or agreed to in the meeting. This created confusion for her as a caregiver for her grandchildren. Mrs. C.C. stated she had no issues with the Society itself, but was not getting answers to her questions.
42She was told there would be meetings held every two weeks and yet, over a 12 month period, there were only four meetings. Mrs. C.C. stated that she had to initiate the meetings that took place with the Society. She further stated if the Society worker could sit outside her home in a car for four hours, they should be able to attend meetings.
43The Society worker made reference to parental standards held by the Society. When Mrs. C.C. requested these standards in writing, the worker did not provide them. Mrs. C.C. did not feel she was getting straight answers to her questions about these standards. She felt put off or ignored when she was looking for answers. In the Society’s response to this inquiry as to why these standards were not provided, Society counsel, Mr. Cormier, stated that there are volumes of standards, but they are not in layman’s terms and would be difficult to understand.
44Mrs. C.C. disagreed with the Society’s position that it was not that she was not provided reasons, but that she did not like the reasons she received. She stated the Society only responded when she asked for meetings. Mrs. C.C. provided evidence of minutes from meetings that took place with the Society. She felt it important to highlight that the portions that relate to home upkeep were in reference to her daughter, Ms. M.G.’s home and not hers. She is taking the position that if the concerns expressed in the documents are in regard to Ms. M.G., she does not understand why she and Mr. D.C. cannot get permanent care of the children. The Society’s position is that because of the family relationship, matters in Ms. M.G.’s home would have to be addressed as she has direct access to the children while at her parents.
45The Board concludes that the Mrs. C.C. was informed of the Society’s expectations and reasons why the children were not in the permanent care of the grandparents. These reasons were outlined in the minutes of a meeting of September […], 2007, copied to Mrs. C.C.. Mrs. C.C. acknowledged that she was aware of the reasons in a letter dated January […], 2008 to the Board where she makes reference to occasions and meetings where the “the social workers have laid out their terms and conditions.”
46Accordingly, the Board dismisses this complaint made pursuant to section 68.1(4)5 of the Act.
Complaint #7 - The Society has used her family history, which involves old issues against her, and applied it to her daughter. The Society does not have the facts regarding her history.
47Mrs. C.C. did not provide details regarding this complaint. Given this is the third generation of the family involved with the Society, the Board finds it was reasonable for Mrs. C.C. to be concerned about how her past family history was being collected by the Society and applied to her daughter’s current situation.
48At the heart of this complaint is the belief that there are inaccuracies in the Society’s file regarding this family’s history. These alleged inaccuracies can only be heard by the Board after the Applicant has made an internal complaint under the Society’s Internal Complaints Review procedure pursuant to section 68(5) of the Act. Upon completion of that process, the Board can review the Society’s decision should Mrs. C.C. request this be done.
49Therefore the Board dismisses this complaint.
Complaint #8 - The Society said Mrs. C.C.’s health issues make her incapable of looking after her grandchildren without providing medical evidence. She stated she has not been heard on this issue
50Mrs. C.C. felt she was not given the opportunity to be heard on issues regarding her health and the impact of caring for her grandchildren. She felt the workers’ comments that her health issues made her incapable of looking after her grandchildren as threatening conduct.
51Mrs. C.C. submitted a statement from her family physician addressing her health condition and her ability to care for her grandchildren. She referred to a letter from Dr. J.C., stating that she “suffers from a discoid lupus disorder which is disfiguring but does not impede her from parenting or caring for her grandchildren. This is not an infectious disease and is not contagious. It is a connective tissue disorder”. The Society did not provide any evidence to support that it had taken this information into account and therefore the Board concludes that Mrs. C.C. did not have the opportunity to be heard regarding this complaint.
52The Board upholds this complaint under subsection 68.1(4)4 of the Act.
Complaint #9 - The Society threatened to remove the children from their care if Mr. & Mrs. C.C. did not sign up for the Kinship program.
53Kinship Services were implemented in an effort to assist the grandparents in their efforts to care for the grandchildren residing with them. A Society Kinship Worker, Z.G., was assigned. In response to being in the Kinship program a parenting assessment for the Cs was arranged by the Society. The Cs stated the Kinship Program was a “God send”.
54Z.G. the Kinship Worker and the Family Transitional Support Worker, B.S., presented an update regarding the Kinship program, along with a review of services, to Mr. and Mrs. C.C. at a September […], 2007 meeting.
55The Board concludes that the discussions and meetings with their Kinship Worker, along with accepting financial supports, such as purchase of beds, provided the opportunity to be heard and participate in the decisions affecting their interests as related to the Kinship program.
56Therefore the Board dismisses this complaint made pursuant to sections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act.
Complaint #10 – The Society has concerns but the Applicants do not know what the concerns are. They do not get answers from the Society.
57The Society Supervisor, M.L., along with a Society worker, met on June […], 2007 with Ms.M.G. and Mr. D.C. to discuss a plan to reintegrate S.D. and J.D. back into M.G.’s care, while the other three children would remain with the Cs. A letter dated June […] 2007 was forwarded outlining the other concerns discussed at the meeting and inviting the Applicants to contact the Society if there were any questions.
58The Society submitted at the Settlement Conference on August 9 2007 the reasons why the children are in need of protection. The Society’s concerns were that Ms.M.G. demonstrated a consistent and escalating inability to ensure the provision of a safe, stable environment. She was unable to ensure her residence was at an acceptable level of cleanliness. There were ongoing concerns regarding inadequate supervision and her inability to manage the children’s behaviours and ensure consistent, stable, age appropriate routines. The children missed extensive amounts of school and Ms.M.G. exposed them to ongoing conflict in her relationships.
59Mr. D.C. attended a meeting on October […], 2007 where the Society Supervisor, Mr. D., stated because of the expressed concerns, the Society was considering Crown Wardship of his three grandchildren, K.D., C.M.G. and C.G..
60Mr. D.C. reported that T.U., the Society worker, spoke to another person outside the Society about this case, which he considered a breach of confidentiality. Although this concern was not part of the initial complaint, the Board heard it even though it was not about services sought or received by the Applicants.
61The Society submitted that T.U., the Society worker, had spoken to the mother of the alleged father of S.L.D.’s unborn child. The Society worker was discussing planning with the potential paternal grandmother in the event that S.D. could not care for her newborn.
62The Board concludes, with respect to complaint #10 that the Applicants were informed of the Society’s concerns regarding their ability to care for the children. The Board also concludes that the concern expressed regarding the breach of confidentially was addressed by the explanation provided by the Society.
63The Board dismisses the complaint that the Applicants were not informed of the Society concerns or heard regarding the reasons for the Society involvement.
CONCLUSION
64The Board finds that the Society gave the Applicants the opportunity to voice their concerns with respect to the services provided and the Society provided reasons for the decisions it made pursuant to sections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Act with respect to all complaints with the exception of complaint #8. The Board therefore dismisses all of the complaints except for complaint #8. Complaint #8: the Society said Mrs. C.C.’s health issues make her incapable of looking after her grandchildren without providing medical evidence. She stated she has not been heard on this issue.
65The Society did not provide any evidence to support that it had taken this information into account and therefore the Board concludes that Mrs. C.C. did not have the opportunity to be heard regarding this complaint. Therefore, the Board orders the Society to conduct an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting to hear this complaint pursuant to section 68.1(7)(a) of the Act.
66The Board also recommends that the Society provide the Applicants with an overview of the expected standards in writing regarding what it means to be a good parent.
67Finally, Mrs. C.C.’s concern related to possible inaccuracies in the Society’s file or record of past family history can be pursued through the Society’s Internal Complaint Review Panel. If she is not satisfied with the Society’s decision or the Society refuses to proceed, Mrs. C.C. can apply to the Board upon completion of the complaint review procedure pursuant to section 68(5) of the Act.
David Griffiths
Presiding Member
Gail Gonda
Panel Member
Walter Rogers
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario, this 29th day of April, 2008.