K.S. and M.S. v. Peel CAS, 2008 CFSRB 5

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

K.S. and M.S.

v.

Peel Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION ON JURISDICTION AND MERITS

Date: February 6, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 5

Indexed as: K.S. and M.S. v. Peel CAS (CFSA s.68)

1The Applicants, K.S. and M.S., filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, (the “Board”), on October 28, 2007, pursuant to Section 68 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) regarding a decision of the Peel Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”). The application was determined to be eligible on November 7, 2007. The Hearing was held on January 10, 2008 in Brampton, Ontario. Representing the Society was Robin McDonald, Chief Counsel. There were two witnesses, B.W., Director of Children’s Services and N.H., Adoption Supervisor. The Applicants represented themselves.

INTRODUCTION

2The Applicants applied to the Peel Children’s Aid Society to adopt a child. In March, 2007, they participated in the Parent Resource for Information, Development and Education (“PRIDE”) program and were later informed by the Society that they would not be considered as potential adoptive parents, and that their file at the Society would be closed.

3In their complaint to the Board of October 28, 2007, the Applicants complained that:

i. The Society refused to proceed with their complaint;

ii. The Society failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirement under the Child and Family Services Act relating to the review of complaints;

iii. The Society failed to comply with Clause 2(2)(a) of the Act which states: “Service providers shall ensure that children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interest are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.”

iv. The Society failed to provide them with reasons for a decision and this affected their interests;

v. The Society inaccurately recorded something on their file or record and that this had not been resolved through the Society’s internal complaint review procedure.

MOTION

4A motion was made by the Society regarding the jurisdiction of the Board to hear this matter, requesting that the Board deem the Request for Review application of the Applicants, dated October 28, 2007, to be ineligible.

5In the alternative, the Society requested that the Request for Review of the application of the Applicants, dated October 28, 2007, be dismissed.

6The Society submitted that the claim by the Applicants that the Society failed to provide reasons for its decision is not valid because:

i. On September […], 2007, the reasons for the decision were given to the Applicants at a meeting attended by them and A.H. and S.G., Adoption Workers.

ii. On October […], 2007, a letter was sent to the Applicants by B.W., Director, Children’s Services, summarizing the decision of the Society.

iii. Additionally, on October […], 2007, B.W. spoke to M.S. by telephone and reviewed the reasons for the decision.

7The Society further submitted with regard to the timing of the complaint, that the Board received the Applicants’ application on October 31, 2007, and as of that date, reasons had been given. The Society maintained that it had discharged its responsibility.

8The Society, therefore, asked that the Board reconsider the eligibility of the application, as it did not meet the threshold required to be eligible, or, alternatively, that the application be dismissed, as the grounds no longer existed at the time of the application, and the application is moot.

9The Applicants submitted that:

i. They do not contest that the Society provided reasons; however, they do not understand the substance of those reasons.

ii. They are concerned regarding the nature of the reasons given. The three competencies alluded to in B.W.’s letter of October […], 2007 were never made clear to them; they were only hinted at. They never received anything in writing regarding the three competencies in which they were alleged to be deficient, so how could they refute this?

iii. The letter informed them that they were not willing to participate in the Structural Analysis Family Evaluation (“SAFE”) assessment, but this was not accurate, as they never progressed to the SAFE program. They had only indicated to the worker that they had issues regarding the SAFE program.

iv. They had asked the workers for concrete suggestions as to how to improve their situation, but their question was never answered.

DECISION REGARDING THE MOTION

10After due consideration, the Board found the following:

It is the duty of the Society to articulate to the Applicants its reasons in a manner that is understandable to the Applicants.

The reasons given by the Society to the Applicants were ineffective in providing them with understandable information.

The Society has not lived up to the standard expected under Sections 68.1(4)5. It has failed to carry out its responsibility to provide reasons that are articulate and well understood.

The Society is, therefore, requested to provide the Applicants with further and better reasons.

11The Board dismissed the jurisdictional argument and indicated to the parties that it would proceed to hear the complaint.

12The Society then proposed that it provide a new letter to the Applicants giving more sufficient reasons. The Applicants responded that it would be disturbing to them not to have the opportunity to air their concerns to the Board, and that they would see this as the Society aborting the process before it began.

13The Board responded by indicating that it recognized the Society’s offer, but that it would be unfair to the Applicants not to hear the matter, and that it would proceed to a Hearing.

HEARING

14The Applicants submitted the following:

i. They referred to their letter of October […], 2007, to the Minister of Children and Youth Services, outlining their concerns.

ii. They indicated that they are being denied the right to adopt for reasons that seem spurious. The PRIDE program had good and bad points; they understood this to be a work in progress. However, at various points in the program they were told that certain issues were CAS policy and that if they were not willing to abide by them they would be eliminated from the process. They thought these issues were relatively minor and when asked what they could do to remediate their situation, they were told “nothing”, “you can appeal”.

iii. The issues, as the Applicants understood them, related to their concerns regarding:

a. the use of the word “PRIDE”, and the use of the term “oppression”;

b. the need to respond to questions related to their early sexual history;

c. communication with birth parents;

d. security related to the Society’s use of computers, particularly involving sensitive personal information.

15The Society submitted that:

1. The obligation and diligence of the Society is to the children in care of the Society rather than to a prospective adoptive family.

2. The PRIDE program and the SAFE program are designated by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. The names of the programs are designated by the Ministry. All potential adoptive parents must fulfill all aspects of the PRIDE and SAFE programs, in their entirety.

16The Society addressed the issues identified by the Applicants and explained the goals of the adoption process. They commented on the intrusiveness of the process, the requirement of the prospective adoptive parents to understand fully their own background, and the need to match a child to a parent that will meet the needs of the child.

17The Society explained its policy of dealing with a child’s own history, respecting the child’s ethno-cultural history and its family background, and providing contact with the birth family, where appropriate. The Society pointed out that it is not obligated to accept services offered by a prospective adoptive parent.

18The Society reiterated the steps it had taken to explain these issues to the Applicants on three occasions; that is, at the meeting of September […], 2007 with A.H. and S.G.; in B.W.’s letter of October […]; and during B.W.’s telephone conversation with M.S. on October […]. The Society noted the response by the Applicants was that the reasons were not sufficient and were not acceptable to them. The Society noted also that the issues were identified to the Applicants and they were given an opportunity to clarify their position in a further meeting with N.H.

19In summary, the Applicants were provided with reasons on several occasions but disagreed with the decision of the Society.

ANALYSIS

20The issue before the Board is whether:

1. The Children’s Aid Society failed to comply with Clause 2(2)(a) of the Act which states: “Service providers shall ensure that children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interest are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.”

2. The Children’s Aid Society failed to provide the Applicants with reasons for a decision and this has affected their interests.

21Section 68.1(7) provides that after reviewing a 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;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant with a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.

22Based on Section 68.1(7), the Board is not in a position to direct that the Applicants not comply with the screening process for adoption as mandated by the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, or assess the reasonableness of the Applicants’ concerns with respect to the release of personal information and the security of their disclosure to the Society.

23The Board heard concerns on the part of the Applicants that although reasons were given by the Society for the decision it made, they did not fully understand those reasons.

24The Board heard from the Society that it had a number of concerns related to the Applicants’ response to the PRIDE process and the anticipated SAFE process. The final decision of the Society was that it was not in the best interests of the children for whom the Society is responsible for the Applicants to become adoptive parents.

25The question of whether the Applicants received sufficient reasons for this decision was duly considered by the Board.

26The Board recognizes that attempts were made by the Society to give reasons to the Applicants for its decision. The Board recognizes too, that the written reasons provided by the Society failed to afford the Applicants sufficient information so that they could fully understand the decision.

27The Board upholds the Applicants’ complaint. The Board, therefore, orders the Society to provide written reasons to the Applicants which address, in language understandable to them, why the Society made the decision to refuse their adoption application.

DECISION

28Pursuant to Section 68.1(7) of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board orders the Society to provide written reasons to the Applicants related to its decision regarding their application to adopt. These written reasons must be provided within three months of the date of the issuance of this decision, with written confirmation to the Board on that same date. The Board will remain seized of this matter until this Order has been complied with.

Richard Linley Presiding Member

Celia Denov Panel Member

Donald Butler Panel Member