N.R. v. Children’s Aid Society of the County of Prince Edward, 2008 CFSRB 74

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

N.R.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of the County of Prince Edward

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: August 1, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 74

Indexed as: N.R. v. CAS of the County of Prince Edward (CFSA s.61)

INTRODUCTION

1On April […], 2008, the Children’s Aid Society of the County of Prince Edward (the “Society”) received allegations that N.R. (the “Applicant”) failed to provide adequate supervision to two young children for whom Ms. N.R. provided daycare services in her home. As the result of these allegations, the Society removed her foster child, L., from her care on the same day and placed him in another foster home pending the outcome of its investigation.

2On June […], 2008, the Society informed Ms. N.R. that it was closing her foster home based on the results of its investigation. She was also informed that as a result of the closure, L. would be permanently removed from her care. Ms. N.R. asked the Board to review the Society’s decision to remove L..

3The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”), in accordance with section 61(8.6) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”), must decide what action is in the best interests of the child and either confirm the Society’s proposed removal or direct the Society not to carry out the proposed removal. In this case, the Society considered L. to be at risk at the time the allegations came forward and removed him in accordance with section 61(9) of the Act. The Board must therefore decide whether the removal, as opposed to a proposed removal, was in L.’s best interests and will either confirm or rescind the removal that has already taken place based on this determination.

4The Society did not express any concerns regarding the care or level of supervision that L. received while in Ms. N.R.’s care. Furthermore, the Board did not hear any evidence that the Society considered L.’s best interests or his wishes in making its decision to close Ms. N.R.’s home as a foster parent service and by doing so, removing L. from her care.

5Ms. N.R.s’ and L.’s evidence demonstrate that L.’s best interests have been served and will continue to be served by him remaining in Ms. N.R.’s home. The Board therefore believes that it is in L.’s best interests to be returned to her care. As such, the Board rescinds the Society’s decision to remove L. from Ms. N.R.’s care.

BACKGROUND

6N.R. is a single mother of two biological children aged 21 and 18 and until April 2008, was the foster mother of two other children, R. aged 18 and L. aged 15. R. left Ms. N.R.’s home when she turned 18 in April 2008. L. was placed in Ms. N.R.’s home in April 2005. On April […], 2008, R. made a complaint to the Society alleging that Ms. N.R. failed to provide adequate supervision to two young children for whom Ms. N.R. provided daycare services in her home. As the result of these allegations, the Society removed L. from her care on the same day and placed him in another foster home pending the outcome of its investigation.

7On June […], 2008, the Society informed Ms. N.R. that it was closing her foster home based on the results of its investigation into the allegations made in April. She was also informed that as a result of the closure, L. would be permanently removed from her care.

8The Board received Ms. N.R.’s application to review the Society’s decision to remove L. on June 20, 2008. Ms. N.R. and L. signed the application. L. included an attached statement outlining his concerns relating to the allegations and his removal from Ms. N.R.’s home.

ANALYSIS

9The Board held a hearing on July 14, 2008 pursuant to section 61(8) of the Act to review the decision of the Society to remove L. from Ms. N.R.’s care. W.S., Local Director of the Society, gave testimony first, in support of the Society’s decision. Mr. W.S. addressed each of the concerns submitted by L. in his statement. Mr. W.S. had numbered each of the concerns and submitted this list to the Board for review during his testimony. In summary, Mr. W.S. disputed the factual accuracy of many of the concerns listed by L. in his statement and indicated that L. had painted a bleaker picture of the events following his removal from Ms. N.R.’s home than, in his view, was the case. Mr. W.S. also underscored the Society’s strong commitment to L.’s well-being and his regret that the investigation process had taken such a long time thus delaying the Society’s decision regarding L.’s placement.

10Mr. W.S. reviewed the details related to the recent allegations against Ms. N.R. and past allegations and concerns regarding the care and supervision of other children in her care as outlined in the Society’s Summary Reply to the Board dated July 4, 2008. Mr. W.S. reported that the findings of the Society’s investigation into the April 2008 allegations were inconclusive. He reported however that there had been an incident in 2002 concerning an allegation against Ms. N.R. that she failed to adequately supervise her 15 year-old daughter. This allegation was not verified. There was another allegation in 2006 that Ms. N.R. had left unsupervised children in her vehicle for over twenty minutes. These were children for whom she provided daycare services. This allegation was verified at the time and Ms. N.R. was advised of the need to provide satisfactory supervision to children in her care. The three incidents taken together formed the basis of the Society’s decision to close Ms. N.R.’ home to foster parent service and to remove L. from her care. Mr. W.S. stated that Ms. N.R.’ level of care and supervision did not meet the standard expected of foster parents and that Ms. N.R. was made aware of these standards at the time of her training to become a foster parent in 2005.

11Mr. W.S. testified that L. was not interviewed before he was removed but that he was during the time the investigation was taking place. Mr. W.S. did not provide any testimony regarding the details of the interview with L. nor did he make specific reference to any concerns that the Society may have had regarding the care that L. was receiving before the investigation took place.

12Ms. N.R. testified that the allegations by R. in April 2008 were made a half-hour after R. had been questioned by the police about a missing camera in Ms. N.R.’s home. In Ms. N.R.’s view, these allegations were made as an act of revenge over the police being called. Ms. N.R. explained the details of the incidents leading to the Society’s closure of her foster home, which involved two separate situations where she had asked R. to be responsible for a sleeping child while she stepped out briefly. R. had babysat the children in the past and it was not uncommon for her to be asked to mind them for short periods to support Ms. N.R.. Ms. N.R. also did not deny the earlier allegations and provided an explanation for them as well. She also pointed out that one of them had not been verified but it was being used against her in the current situation.

13Ms. N.R. testified that L. had been in her care for over three years and they got along tremendously. He was making progress in her care, was part of a full family and was missed by everyone. She pointed out that he has never gotten into trouble while in her care but since his removal, he was picked up in a stolen vehicle on the highway, which makes her question the level of supervision he is currently receiving. She also testified that due to her efforts, L. was assessed and diagnosed as having sensory integration dysfunction and as a result began treatment which has been interrupted as a result of his removal.

14The Board added L. as a party to the hearing in accordance with section 61(8.5) and section 107 of the Act. L. testified that he wants to live with Ms. N.R. and that the Society never expressed any concerns regarding the level of supervision he was receiving while in her care or concerns about any other matters while in her care. L. stated that Ms. N.R. supervised him and always looked out for him and he always let her know his whereabouts.

15The Board, in accordance with section 61(8.6) of the Act, must decide what action is in the best interests of the child and either confirm the decision of the Society to remove the child or direct the Society not to carry out the proposed removal. In this case, as explained by Mr. W.S., the Society considered L. to be at risk at the time the allegations came forward and removed him in accordance with section 61(9) of the Act. As such, the Board must either confirm or rescind the removal that has already taken place.

16Section 37(3) of the Act specifies the best interests of a child to encompass the following considerations:

1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs and the appropriate care or treatment to meet these needs.

2. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.

3. The child’s cultural background.

4. The religious faith, if any, in which the child is raised.

5. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of the family.

6. The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community.

7. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.

8. The merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent.

9. The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.

10. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.

11. The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent.

12. The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

13. Any other relevant circumstance.

17The Board is required to consider those factors that are relevant when making its decision on the review. Similarly, the Society has an obligation to consider them when making decisions regarding children in its care. Furthermore, section 61(5) (b) of the Act requires that the Society consider the wishes of both the child and the foster parent, with whom a child has lived continuously for two years, in major decisions concerning the child. The Board did not hear any evidence from the Society that it considered L.’s best interests, his wishes or the wishes of Ms. N.R. in making the decision to close Ms. N.R.’s home as a foster parent service for L. and in effect removing him from her home.

18The Board recognizes the obligation that the Society has to investigate allegations of a failure to provide an adequate level of supervision for children. However, in this case, the allegations involved very young children who were receiving day care services for which the findings were inconclusive. The Society may decide that Ms. N.R. will not be considered as a foster family service in the future for children other than L. because she has not met its standards. However, the Society did not express any concerns regarding the care or level of supervision that L. received while in Ms. N.R.’s care and L. verified this by his own testimony.

19Ms. N.R. has adequately provided for L.’s needs for over three years. L. has established a close bond with her and her family, a family that he considers to be his own. Both L. and Ms. N.R. testified to the negative impact the change in his placement has had and L. clearly stated his wish to live with Ms. N.R.. Ms. N.R.’s and L.’s evidence attest to the fact that L.’s best interests have been served by placement in Ms. N.R.’s home. It is important to note that the Society’s concerns regarding Ms. N.R.’s supervision of young children do not apply to L. who is fifteen years old. The Board believes that L.’s best interests will continue to be served by placement in Ms. N.R.’s home. For these reasons, the Board overturns the Society’s removal of L. from Ms. N.R.’s care.

CONCLUSION

20The Board finds that it is in L.’s best interests to remain in the care of Ms. N.R.. As such, the Board overturns Society’s removal of L. from Ms. N.R’s home.

Gail Gonda

Presiding Member

Lorna King

Panel Member

Sheena Scott

Panel Member