M.G., C.C. and D.C.

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex

Date: February 11, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 7

Indexed as: M.G., C.C. and D.C. v. CAS of London and Middlesex (CFSA s.68)

Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Merits – M.G., C.C. and D.C. v. CAS of London and Middlesex (CFSA s.68), 2008 CFSRB 33

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. C.11 (the “Act”) with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on October 17, 2007 against the 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.

FACTS

2The application concerned the Society’s involvement with five children: S.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.

3The application was clarified at the Pre-Hearing Conference on November 26, 2007 and the complaints were recorded in the Pre-Hearing Endorsement Sheet. The Society advised that it would challenge the jurisdiction of the Board to hear the application because the subject matter of the complaints is before the Court.

4It 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.

5It was further agreed the Board would first hear the Society’s motion regarding jurisdiction of the Board. If the Board determined that it had jurisdiction, the hearing of the complaint would proceed immediately after the Board’s ruling.

6A hearing scheduled on December 12, 2007 was adjourned and rescheduled when the respondents did not attend.

MOTION

7On 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 Section 68.1(8) of the Act.

SOCIETY’S RESPONSE

8The Society outlined their reasons that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear these matters based on the ten (10) complaints or issues as listed on the Pre-Hearing Endorsement Sheet.

M.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 involvement.

9The Society took the position the reasons for this complaint are in the hands of the Court.

The Society threatened that they would drag the Court case out unless she signs a Voluntary Care Agreement.

10The Society’s position is that Applicants can take the issue to the Court since only a Judge can determine whether the Society has used inappropriate tactics in obtaining 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.

11The Society’s position is the question of the children coming home is before the Court and the question of her being a good parent is part of that question before the Court. If she feels harassed, the Applicant can put evidence before the Court.

The Society 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.

12The Society was not clear what the Applicant meant about the involvement being personal and did not comment on this complaint; however, the Society did take the position that the proof can be presented to the Court and the Court will decide what facts are proven or not proven.

C.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.

13The Society presented that a plan of care is included when it goes before the Court and it outlines exactly what the Society plans to do with the children and what needs to be done by parents. It is the Court that determines if this plan is adequate or needs revision to satisfy the Court.

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 to her history.

14The Society’s position is the legislation gives the Society every right to look at family history. The Court can decide if the Society has gone too far in obtaining family history and whether it is relevant to the case.

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.

15The Society submitted it would not make this assessment. The matter would be based on medical evidence and medical expert testimony before the Court to determine the outcome of whether Applicant is capable of looking after her grandchildren.

D.C.’s Complaints

The Society threatened to remove the children from their care if they (C.C. and D.C.) did not sign up for the Kinship program.

16The Society was not prepared to go into the details of the Kinship program. However, the kinship arrangement is directly tied into the Court action and thus a question before the Court. The complainants had stated in their own words that the Kinship funds were a “god send”.

The Society has concerns but the Applicants do not know what the concerns are. They do not get answers from the Society.

17The Society viewed complaint #10 as a theme throughout all the complaints by the Applicants. When a Society goes before the Court with an application, it can be very detailed and very lengthy. The Court determines whether there is enough information to answer the question on whether parenting is lacking, and the answers are detailed in the Court documents before the Court. The Applicants received a copy of this Court application. A worker can review the reasons with parents, but cannot provide legal advice or interpret the documents. This would be a conflict. The Society needs to represent its interest in the Court. The parents would need to obtain their own legal advice.

18The Society suggested the Board does not have the power to give the Applicants any more answers or direct the Society to redo or adjust the application before the Court.

19The Society did accept that one area where there may be a legitimate complaint is the question of how the worker, P.D., who was an employee of the Society, when going into the home, may have made some promises which turned out not to be accurate. There is some information suggesting that he may not have acted entirely appropriately. The Society is prepared to provide a letter of apology, but does not feel there is anything else it can do on this issue.

20The Society summed up its position that, if the Applicants’ bottom line to their complaints is to have the Society out of their lives, only the Court can decide that.

APPLICANTS’ RESPONSE

M.G.’s Submissions

21M.G. stated the nature of her application to the Board and that her complaints were not made to get her children returned by the Society. She has known from the beginning of her application as explained by the Board that it was not the Board’s role.

22M.G. submitted that the relationships with her children are very important. She complained that 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 their way. At no time, while before the Court, was she provided a chance to discuss these threats or the inappropriate behaviour of P.D. The inappropriate behaviour of the assigned Society workers did not end with P.D., but has continued with others.

23M.G. feels the Board should hear the complaints because it is not about her children returning, but how she was personally mistreated by the Society. M.G. felt she had met the “check list” of expectations that was in the Court application, but other expectations were placed upon her.

24M.G. stated that on issue #1, the Society intake worker had reported there were no protection issues or reasons for involvement based on the investigation of the complaint made by the school, however, she threatened to take her to Court if she did not get her son help. She was trying to obtain help for her son. At that time, after “butting heads” with the worker, she agreed to a six month voluntary order, which she never received until after she turned custody over to her parents in November 2007.

25On issue #2, in August the Society lawyer and T.U., her Society worker at the time, approached her with a three (3) month order, which she understood at the end of which, her children would be returned home.

26M.G. agreed to some degree all her issues 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are before the Court but not the issues against the workers involved and how they used their authority to mistreat her. She thinks the Society would like the Board application removed so they do not have to speak to her issues.

C.C.’s Submissions

27C.C.’s position is she is not only looking for reasons from the Court. She presented documents from settlement conferences and meetings with the Society (Exhibit A1). She is looking for answers from her workers on day-to-day questions, not the questions before the Court. C.C. does not feel she is getting answers to direct questions presented to her Society workers. Her efforts to get counselling for herself and her grandchildren, which she discussed over a year ago, cannot be arranged because she has not obtained consent from the Society. C.C. did agree the Kinship program was a “godsend” and the funding was helpful.

28In a meeting with the Society, a reference was made to a ‘standard of parenting’ and C.C. requested these “standards” be sent to her in writing. This request was made over eight (8) months ago and these standards have not been exchanged. Efforts to get answers about goals and planning for her children have not been successful. When she spoke to her caseworker, she was redirected to her “kinship” worker, who is not in a position to answer all her questions to the extent of her caseworker. C.C. views her grandchildren living with her as intelligent, and they are asking her questions. She cannot answer their questions if she is not provided information by her Society workers.

29She did note her concerns about P.D. and his supervisor coming to her home and demanding entry without providing any Court orders or proper identification. She denied them entry because she did not want “strangers” coming into her home while her grandchildren were present. C.C. did not feel there has been any real mediation and any recent meetings were because she requested them. She did not feel the monthly meetings to discuss goals and the planning for children would have happened without her instigation.

30C.C. had reported that she has been diagnosed with Discord Lupus. This disease is not contagious nor does it limit her ability to care for her grandchildren. She feels her health condition has created some prejudice in the treatment from her Society workers.

31She did not feel these issues would be before the Court.

D.C.’s Submissions

32D.C. addressed issue #9 that the Society had threatened to remove the children if they (grandparents) did not join the Kinship program. D.C. did not believe the “threat” about the participating in the Kinship program was before the Court.

33He believes his complaints are about the actions and the behaviour of the Society workers towards him and this is not before the Court.

34D.C. had requested that M.D., a Society Supervisor, provide the reasons for the building inspections and he did not feel he received an adequate response.

ANALYSIS

Issues

35The Board must first determine whether the Applicants sought or received a service from the Society within the meaning of Section 68.1(1) of the Act. If the Applicants have received a service from the Society, the Board must then determine whether their complaints are before the Court pursuant to Section 68.1(8) of the Act. The relevant statutory provisions are reproduced below.

68.1 (1) If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may,

(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 68 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section.

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.

68.1(5) Upon receipt of a complaint under this section, the Board shall conduct a review of the matter.

36The Board finds that the Applicants did receive services from the Society. M.G. as a parent, received a child welfare service and D.C. and C.C., received a service as participants in the Kinship program offered by the Society. A Kinship Care Program works with extended family to provide both temporary and permanent options for children who cannot live with their parents.

37At the heart of all of the issues raised by the Applicants is the question of whether they were heard by the Society when decisions were made that affected their interests or when they had concerns about the services they were receiving. The Applicants do not feel that they were heard or provided with answers to their questions about the care of the children, how to meet the Society’s expectations as caregivers and the reasons that led up to the Society’s decision to bring a Crown Wardship application before the Court.

38While the Board agrees that the issue of the care and custody of the children is before the Court, the way in which the Society treated the Applicants is not. Simply because information or documents contained in an application to the Court touch on similar issues before the Board, does not mean that the particular issue is before the Court. The Court will not determine whether the Society heard the Applicants about their concerns or whether it gave the Applicants reasons for its decision to bring a Crown Wardship application. The Court’s jurisdiction relates to the care and custody of the children and while the Board agrees that it has no jurisdiction over these matters, it does have the authority to consider complaints related to allegations from individuals who receive services where they allege they were not heard or treated appropriately by a Society.

DECISION

39The Board denies the motion of the Society and it will proceed to hear the merits of all ten (10) complaints.

David Griffiths

Presiding Member

Gail Gonda

Panel Member

Walter Rogers