CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
G.C.
v.
The Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Date: May 16, 2008
Citation: 2008 CFSRB 47
Indexed as: G.C. v. The CAS of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas & Glengarry (CFSA s.68)
1The Applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on February 15, 2008 pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The Applicant alleged that the Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (the “Society”) had failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a) of the Act which states:
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.
2The Applicant also alleged that her case worker, R.W., was both unfair and indifferent in dealing with her case. She felt that R.W. was “biased and one-sided” in the way he conducted his initial investigation on November […], 2007. She stated that she was treated with “strong discrimination” and felt it was because she was an “ethnic minority”. The Applicant expressed the desire to have her children returned to her.
3During a pre-hearing teleconference held on March 19, 2008, the Applicant reiterated her belief that her case worker was “one sided and biased” and indicated that “she was not treated very well by the Society”.
MOTION ON JURISDICTION
4At the commencement of the hearing on April 29, 2008, the Society brought a motion challenging the Board’s jurisdiction to review the complaints made in the application. The Society argued that the Applicant’s issues had to do with access, particularly unsupervised access as it relates to the Applicant and her three children. Counsel for the Society provided evidence, in the form of an interim court order, at Tab 5 of the Society’s motion material, showing that the matter of access was being addressed by the Superior Court of Justice. In the order, Justice Kershman granted to the Applicant access to her children on December […], 2007 […] and stated, “If this visit goes well, the Children’s Aid Society will organize future access between the mother and the children.” Counsel for the Society argued that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear the application pursuant to subsection 68.1(8)(a) of the Act which states:
The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,
(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.
5The Applicant stated that the issue of unsupervised visits was not the only issue to be addressed. She also believed that she encountered discrimination in her dealings with the Society and felt that the Society’s treatment of her was biased.
DECISION ON JURISDICTION
6The Board, having weighed the evidence, rules that it does not have jurisdiction to make decisions on the issue of access. The Board agrees with the Society that access between the Applicant and her children is being dealt with by the Court and, as a result, pursuant to subsection 68.1(8)(a) of the Act, the Board does not have the jurisdiction to conduct a review of that issue. The Board also acknowledges that, even if the issue of access was not being dealt with by the Court, it does not have the mandate to address such issues.
7However, the Board recognizes its role as an entity that hears complaints from applicants regarding the services they receive from Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario. The Board therefore rules that it has jurisdiction to address the complaint of the Applicant regarding the treatment she received while accessing the services of the Society. The Board will hear the merits of this complaint.
HEARING
8The Applicant filed her complaint on February 15, 2008, and filed several documents thereafter with the Board, describing various instances, subsequent to the February 15, 2008 application date, in support of her argument to the Board of the inappropriate treatment she received from the Society’s employee. The Board ruled that it would hear evidence regarding instances of inappropriate treatment which the Applicant believed took place prior to the February 15, 2008 application date.
BACKGROUND
9In 2003, the Applicant had been diagnosed at a hospital, as having a Bipolar Disorder. Subsequent to this diagnosis and prior to the birth of their third child L.R. (born June […], 2007), the Applicant and her husband were experiencing stress in their marital relationship. On October […], 2007, the Society became involved with the family after receiving a referral from a nurse at another general hospital. The Applicant was accused of abusing her son J.R. Subsequent to the accusation of abuse, D.R. , the Applicant’s husband, took their three children and moved to his parent’s home. On December […], 2007, during an argument, the Applicant slapped her husband and, as a result, a Restraining Order was issued against her with conditions regarding visitation with the children.
The Applicant’s argument
10The Applicant is of the opinion that her husband and her mother-in-law have joined forces in order to gain custody of her children J.R. (born April […], 2001), S.R. (born July […], 2005) and L.R. (born June […], 2007). The Applicant argued that in 2003, she was misdiagnosed with a Bipolar Disorder and that this is being used by her husband and her mother-in-law to undermine her credibility as a competent parent today. She alleges that her mother-in-law called the Society on October […], 2007, and reported that she had physically abused her older son J.R. As a result of this complaint, she was visited by R.W., a case manager with the Society. The abuse referred to was a mark on the older son’s stomach and a diaper rash on the younger son.
11The Applicant alleges that R.W. did not communicate his role to her and explain why he was visiting her home. He did not discuss with her, on this initial visit, anything about the rash or the bruise on her son. She recalls being asked questions about her parenting style but not about anything else. The Applicant claimed that R.W. was biased in the way he gathered the information. She stated that R.W. only used information provided by her mother-in-law and her husband and did not bother to interview the boarding students who were actually present in her home at the time of the alleged incidences. This, in her opinion, was evidence that R.W. was biased.
12The Applicant also claimed that R.W. asked her to sign a document. R.W. did not explain the content of the document, which she now believes was a Voluntary Service Agreement with the Society. The Applicant did not receive a copy of this document nor was the document filed with the Board as part of the Society’s documentary evidence. The Applicant claimed that from October […], 2007 until February […], 2008, there was no substantial communication between her and R.W., nor did she receive an adequate explanation from anyone at the Society or reasons for the involvement of the Society. This kind of treatment was unacceptable in her view. She wanted to know why was there no explanation given to her. She claimed that it was only in a February […], 2008 meeting that R.W. gave some answers to her questions. The Applicant said that although the Society advised that she needed to have supervised visits, no procedures were established to ensure that such visits occurred. During cross examination by the Society, the Applicant acknowledged that she had difficulty understanding legal issues. It was only at the February […] meeting that she learned from R.W. that he had evidence that she had abused her son. The Board notes that the Society did not present any evidence to explain the cause of the mark on the stomach of the Applicant’s older son. The Applicant insisted that she was discriminated against by the Society and labelled as having a Bipolar Disorder. She also suggested that cultural differences may be the cause of some of the misunderstanding between her and her husband’s family and between her and the Society’s workers. The Applicant believed that her gender and […] heritage contributed to the alleged discrimination she experienced at the hands of R.W. She said R.W. communicates with her in a respectful manner when other individuals are present and is disrespectful and rude when he is alone with her.
The Society’s argument
13The Society’s sole witness was R.W., case manager with the […] family. R.W. commented during his testimony that this was the first time he was attending a hearing. The Board notes that R.W. was uncomfortable at times as he gave his testimony. His inexperience in this role was evident when he failed to respond to a question from the Society’s counsel, causing the hearing to take a recess. R.W. stated that he first became involved with this family on October […], 2007 when he was contacted by a nurse from the general hospital regarding the Applicant’s mental health and injuries to her son. On that day, he interviewed M.S., the Applicant’s mother-in-law, who was concerned about the Applicant. R.W. also interviewed J.R. who reported that his mother, the Applicant, had attempted to wake him up by tapping him and he did not know how he received a mark on his stomach. R.W. stated that on October […], 2007, the Applicant displayed a lack of energy because of her preoccupation with catering to boarding students […]. However, she made positive statements in describing her children. The Applicant told R.W. that she had tried to wake up J.R. by tickling him and by kissing him on his stomach. R.W. also said that the Applicant told him that she felt that it was important to touch and have physical contact with her children. R.W. also spoke to D.R., the Applicant’s husband. R.W. reported that although the Applicant did not ask him why he was visiting from the Society, he did inform her that he was there because her son was injured and that it was his understanding that she had caused the injury. He said that it was not until the February […], 2008 meeting that he realised that the Applicant was unaware of the reason for his presence at her residence on October […], 2007.
ANALYSIS
14The Applicant alleges that the service she received from the Society was often carried out in a disrespectful and discriminatory manner. In particular, the Applicant was dissatisfied with her interactions with R.W., her family’s case manager. The Applicant was able to identify instances where this particular Society employee acted inappropriately towards her. Although the Society states in its summary reply that these allegations were raised at the February […], 2008 meeting, they were not addressed by the Society. The Society did not put forward any substantial evidence to counter the argument of the Applicant. Although the Society received a thank you card from the Applicant following the meeting, this act of courtesy should not have been taken to mean that all was well. The Board finds that the Applicant has not been fully heard by the Society in the matter of her treatment by R.W.
DECISION
15Pursuant to subparagraph (a) of subsection 68.1(7) of the Act which states:
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
16The Board orders that an Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) be convened to address the complaint of the Applicant regarding the treatment she received from the Society within 14 days of the date of this decision.
Gail Gonda
Presiding Member
Nycole Roy
Panel Member
Donald Butler
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on the 16th day of May, 2008.