L.O. v. The Children’s Aid Society of the County of Simcoe, 2008 CFSRB 56

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

L.O. v. The Children’s Aid Society of the County of Simcoe

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: June 5, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 56

Indexed as: L.O. v. The CAS of the County of Simcoe (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant, L.O., applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on August 17, 2007 pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) to review her complaints that the Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County (the “Society”) failed to listen to her concerns about the services she was receiving and failed to provide her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests.

2At the Pre-Hearing conference, seven issues were raised by the Applicant to be heard by the Board. One issue regarding the full disclosure of the Society’s file pertaining to the Applicant’s deceased son was resolved. The outstanding issues to be heard by the Board are:

1. The Applicant was accused of being a methamphetamine (“crystal meth”) addict and was required to provide a sample of her hair for drug testing. The Applicant stated that during the sixteen days that she was away from her children, ten of those days she was waiting for the results of the drug test which proved to be negative for crystal meth. The Applicant questioned the source of the information that she was a crystal meth addict and the reason why the Society acted on this information.

2. The Applicant complained that G.P., a worker at the Society, knew that her son had died from choking in the hospital, prior to her being informed of the cause of death.

3. The Applicant complained that while in foster care, her children:

a) Had to eat an unknown type of food which was described as “purple mush”;

b) All three children were threatened with being pushed into a creek by their foster father; and

c) Her son had scratch marks on his back from the foster parent’s dog.

4. The Applicant’s three children were taken away from her at the hospital and placed in foster care for sixteen days. The Applicant states that placing the children in foster care was unnecessary due to her large family circle. She further states that the children were wrongfully taken away in the first place as a result of the false claim of her using crystal meth.

5. L.R., a case worker with the Society, told M.J., the Applicant’s mother, that she could “take the kids now”. The Applicant viewed this as unprofessional conduct.

6. G.P., a Society worker, hung up on C.H., Director of a native centre in […], when C.H. was making enquiries regarding the case. The Applicant complained that this was unprofessional conduct on the part of a Society worker.

BACKGROUND

3The Applicant and J.W. are the parents of S., ten years old, D., eight years old and C., four years old. Their youngest son G. passed away on April […], 2006 from unknown causes.

4The Society became involved with the family when the […] Police contacted the Society’s after hours service on April […], 2006. The family was not able to return home as the police and the coroner had not yet completed their investigations regarding the unexpected death of G. and other issues concerning the home which were criminal in nature.

5The children were apprehended by the Society and later that same day returned to their parents as the Applicant’s aunt had presented a plan to house the family and provide support until they could establish their own home again.

6The Applicant’s aunt was unable to continue to provide shelter and support for the family and as a result, the children re-entered the Society’s care on April […], 2006. The Applicant and J.W. signed a Temporary Care Agreement with the Society on April […], 2006 for a period of one month, expiring on May […], 2006.

7On May […], 2006, the Society terminated the agreement and the children were returned to the care of their parents. The Society and parents agreed to a service plan which was signed by the parents; however, the parents subsequently refused services. The Society closed its file in August 2006.

ANALYSIS

8The relevant sections for the Board to consider in this case are:

Section 2(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act (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 services they are receiving.

Section 68.1(4) which reads:

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 interest.

Complaint #1: The Applicant was accused of being a crystal meth addict and was required to provide a sample of her hair for drug testing by the Society.

9The Applicant questioned the source of the information that she was a crystal meth addict and why the Society acted on this information.

10She testified that she was heart broken and “raging” after the unexpected death of her son G. on April […], 2006. The next day, her daughter C. also became seriously ill and had to be admitted to the hospital and almost died.

11The Applicant was seen by Dr. R., CCFP(EM) at the hospital on April […], 2006, who diagnosed her with acute situational crisis (Exhibit A2) and noted that she was obviously going through a grief reaction and recommended follow-up with Crisis Counselling and the CAS.

12During the consultation with Dr. R., the Applicant denied the use of illicit drugs.

13Counsel for the Society referred to Exhibit R5, a letter dated November […], 2007 addressed to the Applicant from R.C., Protection Supervisor, which had been written to clarify the reasons for the Society’s involvement with the family. The Applicant stated that she had not received that letter. The letter documents the involvement of the Society with the family from April […], 2006 to May […], 2006.

14The police did not allow the family to return to their residence on April […], 2006 as the home was being used to grow marijuana. Charges were laid against the Applicant and J.W.; however, the charges against the Applicant were later dropped.

15The Applicant testified that there were approximately thirty marijuana plants growing in the home for personal use.

16G.P., Child Protection Worker, testified that the Applicant was distraught at the death of her son and the illness of her daughter and that her family was concerned for her mental health which they perceived as fragile.

17The family was residing with the Applicant’s aunt, L. They were having difficulty coping as there was no structure, the house was a mess and they were having financial difficulties.

18G.P. stated that Aunt L. was also unable to cope with the Applicant’s behaviours and her smoking of marijuana. She made the allegation that the Applicant may be using crystal meth.

19G.P. testified that the Society was concerned for the children’s welfare and in order to determine the best option for their care, the Society requested that the Applicant and J.W. provide hair samples to be used for drug testing.

20They complied with the request. The drug testing proved positive for marijuana use by L.O.

21The Board must decide whether the Society failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for the accusation that she was a crystal meth addict.

22The Society’s letter of November […], 2007 states that the Applicant “denied any use of crystal meth” and it does not indicate the source of the allegation or on what basis the decision to test her hair for crystal meth was made.

23The evidence before the Board shows that the Society failed to inform the Applicant of the reasons for testing her for crystal meth.

Complaint #2: the Applicant complained that G.P., a worker at the Society, knew that her son had died from choking in the hospital, prior to the Applicant being informed.

24The Applicant testified that the Society knew before she did that her son had passed away from choking.

25The Society’s position was that this was not possible as the coroner’s report had not yet been completed.

26The Applicant stated that G.P. visited her home on May […], 2006 in order to complete a home inspection. During the inspection, she alleges that G.P. spoke about G.’s death and informed her that he had died from choking.

27The Applicant testified that the coroner’s report took ten months to be completed and was not available on May […], 2006.

28G.P. testified that she did not say G. died from choking as the toxicology reports usually take six to nine months and were not available from the coroner’s office in May.

29She stated that she had shared the ambulance report with the Applicant. The report indicated that no trauma or abnormalities were present and that vomitus was noted around and in the child’s mouth as well as his nose. The EMS suctioned about 20ccs of vomitus out during CPR. G.P. asserted that based on this information, she assumed that the child may have died from choking, but that she did not know or state this conclusively.

30The issue before the Board is whether the Society failed to provide the Applicant with reasons to explain why the Society worker, G.P., knew the cause of G.’s death before his mother did.

31From the evidence presented, the Society was not in a position to share the coroner’s findings with the Applicant as they were not yet available. No evidence was presented to substantiate the allegation that G.P. knew the cause of G.’s death before the Applicant did. The Board dismisses this complaint.

Complaint #3: The Applicant complained that during foster care her children:

a) Had to eat an unknown type of food which was described as “purple mush”;

b) All three children were threatened with being pushed into a creek by their foster father;

c) Her son had scratch marks on his back from the foster parent’s dog.

32The Applicant testified that her children had to eat “purple mush” and could not leave the table until they were finished. She further testified that the foster father threatened to throw all three children in a creek and that S. had allergies from the dogs in the home. The Applicant also objected to her children being in a home with two teenagers.

33G.P. testified that when Aunt L. could no longer provide a home for the Applicant and her family, the children re-entered the Society’s care through a Temporary Care Agreement, which was signed by both parents on April […], 2006. At that time, the Applicant had decided not to return to her home and family members had reported concern for her emotional wellbeing. Allegations were also made that she may have used street drugs at G.’s funeral.

34G.P. testified that the children were placed with a family of European decent and the “purple mush” was red cabbage, which the children were unfamiliar with and that they were not forced to eat it. G.P. had investigated this complaint and reported to the Applicant. G.P. further testified that no other concerns were raised by the Applicant.

35The issue before the Board is whether the Society failed to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard regarding her concerns about the care her children received in their foster home.

36The Society was made aware of only one concern raised by the Applicant in this complaint and an explanation was given to her.

37The Board finds that the Society provided an opportunity for the Applicant to be heard regarding the one concern that she raised and also provided an explanation. Therefore, the Board dismisses this complaint.

Complaint #4 The Applicant’s three children were taken away from her at the hospital and placed in foster care for sixteen days. The Applicant states that placing the children in foster care was unnecessary due to her large family circle. She asserts that the children were wrongfully taken away in the first place, as a result of the false claim that she was using crystal meth.

38The Applicant stated that she has five aunts and four uncles and they all would have provided a home for the children. She stated that her partner J.W. was working and she was not a crystal meth addict, so there was no reason to apprehend the children and place them in care on April […], 2006.

39G.P. testified that after G.’s funeral the Applicant was allegedly using marijuana and C. was well enough to be discharged from the hospital.

40J.W. requested help from the Society as Aunt L.’s home was no longer available for the family and the Applicant did not want the family to return to their home.

41G.P. stated that she explained the Temporary Care Agreement, which was signed by both parents on April […], 2006 and advised that it could be terminated by the parents. Neither parent took the opportunity to terminate the agreement while it was in force.

42The only member of the Applicant’s family to propose a plan of care for the family was Aunt L. who later withdrew her offer.

43M.J., the Applicant’s mother, J.W.’s mother and Aunt P. did not propose plans to care for the family. No other family member came forward with a plan to support the family or the children during this period.

44The children were returned home to their parents on May […], 2006, approximately two weeks after their apprehension. The Society believed that it was safe for them to return once the results of the drug testing was received and G.P. had the opportunity to visit the family home to ensure that it was fit for the return of the children.

45The issue before the Board is whether the Society failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for placing her children in foster care.

46From the evidence presented, the family did not have concrete plans to house the children and as a result the children’s father requested the Society’s help to care for them on a temporary basis. Both parents entered into a voluntary Temporary Care Agreement with the Society. The agreement was explained to the Applicant and her partner and they had the option, which they did not exercise, to terminate the agreement. The Society’s letter of November […], 2007 addresses this complaint in chronological order from April […], 2006 to May […], 2006.

47The Board finds that the Society provided the Applicant with reasons for the temporary care of her children and dismisses this complaint.

Complaint # 5: L.R., a case worker with the Society, stated to M.J., the Applicant’s mother, that she could “take the kids now” and the Applicant viewed this as unprofessional conduct.

48The Applicant stated that a Society worker, L.R., told her mother, M.J., on the night of G.’s death that the Society could “take the kids now” and that was unprofessional conduct.

49M.J. was expected to join the hearing however she did not do so.

50The Applicant stated that she was questioned by the police on that night separate from J.W. until 2:00 a.m. Her daughter, C., was ill and she did not see the other children until 6:00 p.m.

51G.P. testified that she was with L.R. all of the time and she did not hear this statement.

52G.P. also testified that she had viewed the police tapes and the statement was not recorded there. The Society’s letter of November […], 2007 states that, “there is no information on file to support a belief that this statement was made”.

53The issue before the Board is whether the Society failed to provide L.O. with the opportunity to be heard regarding the alleged unprofessional conduct of L.R. The Society’s letter of November […], 2007 addresses this complaint and from the evidence presented, the Board finds no evidence to substantiate the allegation that L.R. made the comment and therefore dismisses this complaint.

Complaint #6: G.P., a Society worker hung up on C.H., the Director of a native centre in […] when C.H. was making enquiries regarding the case. Applicant complains that this was unprofessional conduct.

54The Applicant stated that she contacted C.H. at a native centre, to seek assistance as she was Native but without status. C.H. could not provide much help as she had no control over the Society, however, when C.H. called G.P. to discuss the case G.P. hung up the phone on her.

55G.P. testified that she provided the information for the Applicant to contact C.H. She further stated that C.H. did speak to her on the telephone and that she did not hang up the phone on C.H.

56G.P. testified that she did not hang up the phone on C.H. and the Board heard no evidence to substantiate the allegation that she did. Therefore, the Board dismisses this complaint.

CONCLUSION

57The Board heard the Applicant’s six complaints. With regard to complaint #1, the Board orders the Society to provide written reasons for the testing of the Applicant’s hair for crystal meth. The Board dismisses complaints 2 through 6.

Gail Gonda

Presiding Member

Lorna King

Panel Member

Mary Wong

Panel Member