CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
I.H. & T.H
v.
Hastings Children’s Aid Society
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Indexed as: I.H. & T.H. v. Hastings CAS (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1On June 11, 2008, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from I.H. (“I.H.”) regarding a complaint against the Hastings Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The Board made the decision to join I.H.’s complaint with a complaint made by her daughter T.H. (“T.H.”). The Board received T.H.’s application on June 17, 2008 regarding a complaint against the same Society.
2At a pre-hearing conducted on August 5, 2008, the Applicants identified their complaints as follows:
T.H. believes that her son M., who currently is in a detention centre in K., should be placed in another group home other than D.H. located in N., preferably in the Belleville. area;
That the Society has not responded in an appropriate way to the Applicants’ concerns as parent and grandparent related to sexual issues involving M.;
That the Society is not taking the time to listen to their complaints related to how M. is being treated, including being assaulted by another youth;
That the worker for the Society, J.M., contradicts herself when providing information to the family about M.;
That the Society did nothing and provided little information related to how A.M. (group home worker) was treating M. poorly;
That J.M. knew about the Wish Foundation trip that the B. family was taking, which included M. but did not include his mother, T.H., and her other children. No timely explanation was provided to T.H. as to why her family was not consulted or considered for this trip with her son.
3The Board dismisses complaints 1 through 5 for the reasons given in this decision. With respect to complaint #6, the Board orders the Society to provide written reasons to explain its actions regarding the application to the Wish Foundation.
BACKGROUND
4T.H. is the mother of M. and I.H. is his grandmother. M. is 17 years old and is a Crown Ward of the Society as are his two siblings. For the last three years, M. has resided at a group home and most recently has become involved in the youth justice system as the result of charges against him involving making fifteen (15) 911 calls. M. has a developmental disability; a number of serious physical health conditions and is in the process of being assessed for mental health conditions as well. Both Applicants are concerned about the care he received at the group home before he was admitted to the detention centre. They are concerned as well for M.’s safety should he be returned to the group home after his release from the detention centre.
ANALYSIS
5A hearing on the merits of the Applicants’ applications was held on August 27, 2008. The Applicants provided joint testimony and the Society’s only witness was J.M., a Child Protection Worker, who has worked with M. and T.H. for more than eight years. The Applicants were unrepresented and the Society was represented by counsel, Dan Wilshire.
6The 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 reads as follows:
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 services they are receiving.
and section 68.1(4) which reads:
The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 68(1) as required under subsection 68(2),
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.
7The Board must determine whether or not the Society complied with these three sections of the Act. If the Society is found to have complied with these sections of the Act, then the Board will dismiss the complaints.
Complaint #1: T.H. believes that her son, M., who currently is in a detention centre in K., should be placed in another group home upon his release preferably in the Belleville area.
8The Applicants described a number of concerns they had regarding incidents that occurred in the group home that M. resided at before he was admitted into the detention centre. These incidents involved a group home worker A.M. who is alleged to have pushed M. to the ground and another youth in the home who is alleged to have hit M. with a two by four foot piece of wood. The Applicants also testified that M. really wants to be closer to home and that if he was, then his bad behaviour would diminish. The Applicants described M. as having panic attacks on a daily basis and calling 911 because of his fear and anxiety. J.M. testified for the Society that she has had discussions with T.H. about M.’s placement and their concerns about his safety. The incidents described were investigated and were not substantiated by other staff present at the time.
9Despite this, the Society arranged to move A.M. to another location in order to provide staffing for M. that was better able to serve his needs. Ms. J.M. also iterated that it would not be in M.’s best interest to seek a different group home for a number of reasons. The group home has worked with M. for an extensive period of time and is committed to him. They are able to meet his complex needs and are in the process of planning an adult placement for him in cooperation with the local planning committee responsible for placing adults with developmental disabilities. The Society and group home have explored services in the Belleville area and currently there are no programs that could meet M.’s special needs. Ms. J.M. also testified that T.H. is invited to M.’s Plan of Care meetings, that she attends and has been continuously made aware of planning for M.. She has also been provided with Ms. J.M.’s telephone number so that she can reach her to discuss any concerns. T.H. agreed that she regularly attended Plan of Care meetings and spoke with Ms. J.M. on a consistent basis. Ms. J.M. testified that the wishes of the family are taken into account in planning however, there are no suitable residential services for M. in the Belleville area.
10In reviewing the testimony of the parties, the Board determines that the Society has complied with sections 68.1(4) and 68.1(5) of the Act. T.H. has had continuous opportunity to be heard by the Society regarding her concerns about her son and the Society has provided her with their reasons for returning him to the group home upon his release from the detention centre. For these reasons, the Board dismisses this complaint.
Complaint #2: That the Society has not responded in an appropriate way to the Applicants’ concerns related to sexual issues involving M..
11The Applicants testified that another child, N., described an alleged incident of sexual abuse involving himself and M.. The incident took place in the home of friends of the family, R. and L., a couple who was caring for both children. T.H. told Ms. J.M. about the incident in which R. had allegedly sexually abused both boys. T.H. indicated that N. was supposed to have had counselling as a result of the incident. Ms. J.M. reported that M. was interviewed and it was determined that he was present in another room at the time the incident occurred and that no sexual contact between M. and R. had taken place.
12The Board determined that the Society has complied with sections 68.1(4) and 68.1(5) of the Act with respect to this complaint. No services were provided to M. since the Society concluded, as a result of its investigation, that R. had not abused M.. Therefore, the Board dismisses this complaint.
Complaint #3: That the Society is not taking the time to listen to their complaints related to how M. is being treated, including being assaulted by another youth.
Complaint #4: That the worker for the Society, J.M., contradicts herself when providing information to the family about M..
13The Applicants’ gave testimony on these two complaints together. The Applicants testified that Ms. J.M. gave different answers to questions and contradicted herself. Specific examples were that she explained away A.M.’s behaviour. They gave evidence about M. wearing dirty, second-hand clothes and not being provided with proper winter apparel to a point where they had to fight to ensure that he had a pair of winter boots that Ms. J.M. bought for him herself. When giving testimony regarding these two complaints, the Applicants also complained that M.’s symptoms were not taken seriously by the Society before he was ultimately diagnosed with brain cancer. The Applicants’ did not provide any other information regarding these two complaints. Ms. J.M. in her testimony indicated that she discussed any concerns that T.H. brought to her attention and answered her questions in a way which she felt satisfied her at the time. In addition, T.H.’s community support worker would discuss T.H.’s concerns to ensure that they were understood. Written notes were made of these discussions and given to T.H. to review so that issues could be followed up if there was a need. Both T.H. and her support worker were encouraged to contact Ms. J.M. to put forward any concerns or questions that they might have. Ms. J.M. testified that she did not provide T.H. with information about the Society’s complaint procedures because she was satisfied that the Applicant’s concerns and questions had been dealt with. She also indicated that brochures that outline the Society’s complaint review procedures are available in the Society’s lobby. T.H. did not make a formal, written complaint to the Society about any concerns that she had at any time.
14The Board determined that the Society has complied with sections 68.1(4) and 68.1(5) of the Act with respect to this complaint. The Board did not hear any evidence from the Applicants to substantiate these complaints. The Society’s evidence suggests that it gave T.H. the opportunity to be heard when she raised concerns or questions and that it did not have any knowledge before the complaint to the Board that T.H. was dissatisfied with its responses. The Board recommends that the Society provide T.H. with a copy of its complaint review procedure brochure so that she is aware of the process to follow in the event of future concerns. The Board dismisses these two complaints.
Complaint #5: That the Society did nothing and provided little information related to how A.M. (group home worker) was treating M. poorly.
15The Applicants testified that they had complained about the worker A.M. who was alleged to have mistreated M. in the group home. They indicated that Ms. J.M. had indicated that the worker would be assigned to another location and then found out that he was still working in M.’s group home. Ms. J.M. testified that there were two incidents involving allegations against A.M. One involved an allegation that he choked M. and the other was an incident during which he was alleged to have tackled M., causing him to fall to the ground. Both of these incidents had been described by M. to Applicant T. Ms. J.M. reported that both incidents were investigated. In the first incident, observers who were present at the time did not provide any information to substantiate that it had occurred. In the second incident, M. had told staff that he was going to run away, ran out of the group home at which point A.M. ran after him and grabbed him by the shoulder to prevent him from running away. A witness present at the time said that M. did not fall to the ground. Ms. J.M. testified that she reported the outcome of the review of these incidents to Applicant T. In addition, she indicated that after a review of A.M.’s skills, it was determined that he would be a better fit in another group home and that his skill set was not a good fit with the behaviour management approach needed by M.. She acknowledged that there had been some confusion regarding the exact timing of when A.M. would leave M.’s group home due to staff scheduling that accounted for a slight delay in the timing of his move. However, during the two shifts that A.M. remained in M.’s group home, he was directed not to have any contact with M..
16The Board determined that the Society has complied with sections 68.1(4) and 68.1(5) of the Act with respect to this complaint. The Society’s evidence suggests that it gave T.H. the opportunity to be heard when she complained about A.M.’s behaviour as reported to her by M., investigated the incidents that were alleged to have occurred and took steps to address M.’s need for a primary worker who had the skill set to better meet his needs. The Society also provided an explanation for the delay in the move of A.M. due to staff scheduling. Therefore, the Board dismisses this complaint.
Complaint #6: That J.M. knew about the Wish Foundation trip that the B. family was taking, which included M. but did not include his mother, T.H., and her other children. No timely explanation was provided to T.H. as to why her family was not consulted or considered for this trip with her son.
17The Applicants testified that M. went on a trip to Disney World in Florida funded by the Wish Foundation, with a couple J.B. and M.E.B., who were providing foster care for M. for a period of approximately seven months. They felt that M. should have gone on the trip with T.H. and his two biological brothers who were also in care at the time. Ms. J.M. testified that this came about as the result of a referral made by a social worker at the Hospital for Sick Children during the period when M. was being treated for brain cancer. Ms. J.M. had been contacted as M.’s legal guardian to complete a standard application required by the Wish Foundation that considers such applications for approval. J.B. and M.E.B. had been foster parents to M. at that time. This placement had been arranged in an attempt to see if M. could live in a family placement instead of a group home. J.B. had been his primary worker at his group home and came forward, along with his wife, M.E.B., prepared to take M.. The placement was ultimately unsuccessful for a variety of reasons but primarily because M.’s complex and special needs could not be met in a home setting. At the time, however, Ms. J.M. completed the application and identified J.B. and M.E.B. as M.’s legal guardians with whom M. resided. M. went on the trip and Ms. J.M. testified that he enjoyed it tremendously.
18The Board concludes that the Society did not consider having T.H. and her other sons accompany M. on the trip because at the time that the application for the Wish Foundation was completed, M. was residing in the home of J.B. and M.E.B. who were his legal guardians. As such, they were responsible for his care and custody and therefore responsible for taking him on such a trip. However, the Society did not provide the Applicants with a detailed explanation at the time regarding the application process required by the Wish Foundation in accordance with section 68.1(4)(5) of the Act. Therefore, pursuant to section 68.1(7)(d) of the Act, the Board orders the Society to provide written reasons for the actions it took regarding the application to the Wish Foundation including a copy of the application form required by the Foundation. The Board orders that the Society comply with this order within 14 days of the date of this decision.
CONCLUSION
19The Board dismisses complaints 1 through 5 for the reasons given. With respect to complaint 6, the Board orders the Society to provide written reasons for its actions regarding the application to the Wish Foundation and to comply with this order within 14 days of the date of this decision.
______________________________ Ruth Ann Schedlich
Presiding Member
Gail Gonda
Panel Member
Lorna King
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 16th day of September, 2008.