C.M. & F.W. v. Hastings Children’s Aid Society, 2008 CFSRB 91

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

C.M. & F.W.

v.

Hastings Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: October 17, 2008

Citation: 2008 CFSRB 91

Indexed as: C.M. & F.W. v. Hastings CAS (CFSA s.68)

1The Applicant, C.M., filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on April 23, 2008, pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) regarding the actions of the Hastings Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”). The application was determined to be eligible on June 16, 2008 pursuant to subsections 68.1 (4) 4 and 68.1 (4) 5 of the Act. The hearing was held on September 23, 2008 in [ ], Ontario.

2Representing the Society was Mr. Cory B. Deyarmond, Legal Counsel. There were two witnesses for the Society, Ms. K.S., Branch Manager, and Ms. S.K., Family Service Worker.

3The Applicant was present as was Mr. F.W., her fiancé and father of the children, who was deemed by the Board to be a co-applicant.

INTRODUCTION:

4The Board must decide whether or not the Applicants were heard by the Society when decisions were made that affected their interests and when they had concerns about services and further, whether or not the Society provided them with reasons for decisions that affected their interests, pursuant to the relevant subsections, referenced above.

5C.M. and F.W. are the parents of H1. (three years old), S. (two years old), C. (one year old), and H2. (four months old). F.W. is the biological father of T. (seven years old), who also lived with C.M. and F.W.. The older four children were apprehended by the Society on June […], 2007. H2. was apprehended at birth from the hospital.

6In her submissions, dated May 23, June 5, and June 15, 2008, the issues stated by the Applicant are summarized as follows:

Their numerous complaints to the Society were ignored; no action was taken; no meetings were held; no discussions ensued; no letters were received; when they asked for help they received none.

They feel they were treated with discrimination, hostility, and verbally abused because of their age and social standing.

When the Applicant reported ill treatment received by the children in their foster homes, she was not believed and the Society did nothing.

The Applicants do not understand why their children have not been returned to them.

HEARING

7At the hearing, the Applicants submitted the following:

The Applicants have made a number of complaints and raised these with Society workers. There was a meeting with K.S., Branch Manager, who said she would deal with some of these complaints, but the Applicants don’t recall getting a response from Ms. K.S.. There have been no responses to their letters to the Society.

8Amongst the Applicants’ concerns were the following:

i. They were told that medical appointments for the children would not be made to coincide with visiting days.

ii. If the children are late for visits, they receive an explanation from the workers only about half the time.

iii. On August […], 2008, only H2. was at the access visit. They were told at the last minute that the other four children would not be present.

iv. They question why the children can’t be sent to visits with a driver if the foster parents are busy.

v. During most access visits with the children, S. is not there or is late. For example, on September […], 2008 S. was not present and they were told by the Society that they could provide no explanation. They wonder why they do not get to see S. if someone in her foster family is ill or if there is a funeral.

vi. On June […], 2008, the Society said that S. was ill; however, she was seen in the No Frills store shortly after the scheduled visit and appeared to be fine. On another occasion, when S. was leaving a visit, she was picked up and taken from the visit (which was over) while she was crying. The Applicant is concerned because S. has seizures and needs to be allowed to calm down.

vii. The children have become more violent since they have been in care. The Society asserts that the children are violent because of having been in the Applicants’ home. C., however, was removed from their home at age four months.

viii. On February […], 2008, C. came to an access visit with a black eye after a fall in the bathtub. The police were called and the situation was investigated. Further, he is always dirty and smells of animal.

ix. When H1. and T. visit, their breaths smell. On June […], 2008 their visit was cancelled but their foster mother was seen immediately afterwards in town. H1. talks about hitting and throws tantrums. T. talks about killing animals and hits people. The Applicant has complained to Society staff, including K.S., S.K., K.I., and B.L., but nothing gets done.

x. They question why T. and H1. were not present at the August […], 2008 visit. They were told that the foster parent was ill but it was the foster parent’s mother who was ill. In addition, T. said that his foster father said that he would put a bullet in F.W.’s nose. K.I.(?) said that T. was lying and that this never happened. Further, workers follow children to the bathroom during visits. At age six T. should have privacy.

9Additionally, the Applicants submitted that:

xi. Their access worker, B.L., told H2.’s foster parent what was said during their visit on June […], 2008.

xii. C.F., T.’s biological mother, received Court papers relating to all the children, not just T., allegedly from a Society worker

xiii. When the Applicant was pregnant with H2., the case worker, K.I. pushed her stomach during an access visit. She was in pain following this incident and went to the hospital that night and to the police as well. K.I. is no longer their access worker.

xiv. The day after H2.’s birth, S.K. called to say that H2. had been apprehended by the Society, that H2. was a healthy baby, and that the Society would find her a better home than theirs. She said that visits with H2. could begin the next day.

xv. Mr. F.W. was threatened by J.D., formerly a case worker, now a supervisor, who said that her husband was an O.P.P. officer.

xvi. The Society believes the children when they say something about the Applicants, but does not believe the children when they talk about their foster parents. For example, T. and H1. report that they are being hit by the foster parents.

xvii. They believe that the Society has discriminated against them because it was of the view that the Applicants were too young, were on assistance, had too many children, too close in age, and that they should not be having all these children.

10In summary, regarding visits, the Applicants would like more explanation regarding why visits are missed and why the children can’t be there. They would like to know why visits can’t be made up instead of cancelled, and would like visits not to be cancelled at the last minute. Overall, the Applicants’ complaints raise issues regarding their right to be heard in decisions that affect their interests and regarding concerns and with respect to the lack of reasons for decisions that affect their interests.

11On behalf of the Society, Ms. K.S., Branch Manager, submitted:

i. She has had continuous involvement with this family since 2004 and has had a consistent and fairly amicable relationship with the Applicants.

ii. The children have been in care approximately eighteen months. The Applicants see the older children twice per week; they see H2. three times per week.

iii. B. is remote; the foster parents live one hour away; medical specialists are far away. The Society tries not to schedule medical appointments on visiting days but sometime this is not possible.

iv. With regard to the use of volunteer drivers, the Society finds that this is difficult for the drivers as the children are often distraught with strangers. The children have a good relationship with their foster parents and are more comfortable being driven by their foster parents.

v. S. has the most significant medical challenges resulting from her premature birth. S. was not at visits for two weeks because her foster parents had a special event to attend. The Applicants had agreed earlier not to have S. placed in a strange home for that period.

vi. The Applicant has spoken to workers about T. being violent. An explanation was given; the Applicant disagreed with the explanation.

vii. With respect to H1. and T.’s breath and C.’s clothing, the Applicant spoke with the workers and an explanation was given.

viii. With regard to S., she has had no seizures since she has been in the care of the CAS. An explanation was given to the Applicants regarding their concern.

ix. She, Ms. K.S., is aware of the Applicants’ concern regarding the impact of caregivers on children and the number of moves from assessment to pre-adoptive homes. She has explained this matter to the Applicants.

x. With regard to the Applicant’s letter to the Society, she met with the Applicants, along with C.M1.. They discussed matters related to how T. was loaded into the van; why C. was being moved; the issue of Society administrative staff discussing their business; concerns regarding J.D. and S.K.. Although it was a productive meeting, she remembers Mr. F.W. being upset. It was a difficult time for the Applicants as the parenting capacity assessment by Dr. B. had just been received. They concluded that they would agree to disagree.

xi. The Society did not respond in writing to the Applicant’s letter because they wanted to meet on a personal level and thought they had been understood.

xii. With regard to the concerns about S.K., she has had the difficult job of explaining to the Applicants Society policy and the issue of Crown wardship with no access.

xiii. J.D. would know that her husband’s job as an O.P.P. officer would have no connection with her work with the Society.

xiv. C.M2. denies saying that the Society would, in future, have a foster family sign a paper allowing the children to see the Applicants.

xv. With regard to the incident involving K.I. allegedly pushing the Applicant, she previously had had a good relationship with the Applicants. K.I. was formerly a midwife and it was her natural inclination to touch the Applicant. She did not push her.

xvi. With regard to the concerns related to S., a meeting was arranged in March 2008; however, the Applicants were advised by their lawyer not to attend. Another meeting was arranged for July 2008 and was cancelled one hour earlier by the Applicants.

xvii. With regard to the complaint procedure, the Applicants were shown where the pamphlets outlining the complaint procedure were stored at the Society offices.

xviii. With regard to discrimination, she is not aware of any previous complaint regarding this matter.

xix. This is a very difficult case. It is difficult to explain a severe case of neglect; the Society has tried to have the Applicants understand. They previously had tried to use community partners, for example, the Health Unit, Infant Stimulation Program, but the Applicants have not made use of these services. Since the Applicants dismissed their lawyer, it is more difficult to explain the Society’s actions, including the assessment of Dr. B..

12In summary, the Society has spent a lot of time focusing on the Applicants’ concerns and many times have explained the same issue, i.e. why do we not have our children back and others do?

13She is satisfied that they were given explanations.

14In response to questions from the Board, Ms. K.S. further submitted that:

If a child makes an allegation, the child is interviewed and the matter is documented in the children services file. She is not sure if the Applicants were made aware of this protocol.

When K.I. was removed as the access worker, as a result of the aforementioned incident, that move was not explained to the Applicants because the police had told the Society not to explain. The Applicants were not told about the O.P.P.’s advice.

She didn’t know if the issues regarding H1. and C.’s developmental stages were explained to the Applicants.

With regard to the documents allegedly in possession of C.F., she didn’t know how Ms. C. F. received these documents. The Society did not follow up with regard to this matter.

With regard to the cancelled visit of September […], she is not sure why they were not informed. Her understanding is that they were informed.

15S.K., Family Service Worker, submitted that:

She has known the family since October 2006. She dealt with the apprehension of the children on June […], 2007. She explained why this was happening and met with them again afterward to explain.

With regard to H2., she explained to Ms. C.M. the concerns of the Society and didn’t say that H2. would be placed in a better home then theirs. The reasons for H2.’s apprehension were given during an access visit with the other children, following the original phone call advising of the apprehension.

With regard to the allegation that H1. and T. were being spanked by the foster parents, the children and foster parents were interviewed. She is not sure if she explained the process to the Applicants.

The Applicants have made a number of allegations regarding the children. The Society has investigated these allegations and the results were discussed with the Applicants.

She can not recall an instance where the Applicants asked for an explanation and she did not provide one.

16Counsel for the Society submitted, in summary, that:

The Society has met its requirements under the Act.

17The Society has tried to meet with the parents and has heard the parents’ response and has tried to take some form of action. Each time an issue has been raised there has been a response through interviews and telephone calls. However, the parents have not been satisfied by the explanations of the Society. In some cases the parents have disagreed.

18With regard to H2., the Society documents prepared for Court show why H2. was apprehended. There has been an explanation provided and Ms. C.M. has acknowledged this.

19With regard to Ms. C. F., the Society is unable to answer this point as Ms. C. F. is not present at the hearing.

20The Applicants have asked for a more complete explanation. Ms. K.S. and Ms. S.K. will take these comments into consideration.

ANALYSIS

21The issue before the Board is whether:

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.”

22The Children’s Aid Society failed to provide the Applicants with reasons for a decision and this has affected their interests.

23The Board has heard concerns by the Applicants that although some reasons were given by the Society for its decisions related to the children, not all decisions were explained nor did they fully understand the reasons for those decisions. The Board has also heard concerns that the Applicants were either not listened to regarding certain decisions or regarding specific concerns, addressed below.

24The Board is of the opinion that reasons should be provided to families in a form which is most meaningful and well understood. Further, opportunities to be heard and responses to concerns, should address all concerns raised, regardless of the Society’s view of the matter raised.

25After hearing the submissions of the Applicants and the Society, the Board, acknowledges that a number of the Applicants’ concerns were addressed during meetings by Society staff with the Applicants. These included an explanation for the children’s apprehension and the reasons why the children have not been returned to the Applicants. Some of the explanations were not agreed to by the Applicants. However, none of these reasons were documented in writing, nor were the Applicants’ letters to the Society answered.

26With regard to a number of specific concerns raised by the Applicants, it would appear that reasons either have not been provided or were not sufficiently well understood. These include the following issues:

27Reasons for changes in the scheduling of access visits to the children were not sufficiently clear to the Applicants.

28The Applicants were not advised of the protocol whereby a complaint made by a child or a parent is investigated by the Society. The fact that a child or foster parent is interviewed by the Society and the matter documented in the children’s service file was not explained to the Applicants.

29The changes in the children’s behavior, based upon the developmental stages in their lives, was not explained to the Applicants. Such an explanation might have made the children’s behavior more understandable to the Applicants.

30The matter of documents allegedly being inappropriately delivered to Ms. C. F. was never investigated by the Society. Thus this concern was not explored and no response was given. Further, the Society ignored the Applicants’ complaint of discrimination which was clearly set out in their correspondence to the Society. There was no attempt made at the meeting to find out what the Applicants’ concerns were and no response was given.

31Additionally, the Board has concerns related to the following explanations by the Society to the Applicants:

The Board questions the practice of informing parents of the apprehension of a child by telephone, as was done in the case of H2.. It notes as well that the follow-up information regarding H2.’s apprehension was conveyed to the Applicants during an access visit with the other children.

The physical touching or pushing of a client by a Society worker is unacceptable. This fact was not acknowledged to the Applicant by the Society and should have been. The consequences of such an action by a worker should have been explained to the Applicants. At the hearing the explanation to the Board by the Society representative focused more on the concerns and reaction of the worker than the Applicant.

32Based on a review of submissions by both parties, the Board believes that the Applicants have ongoing concerns relating to actions the Society has taken and the care that their children are receiving as well as questions related to protocols and policies that the Society relies upon in responding to complaints. Section 2(2)(a) of the Act guarantees them the right to be heard regarding these matters and other similar matters. The Applicants were not heard regarding all of their concerns, as outlined above. The Act also guarantees the Applicants the provision of reasons for decisions that affect their interests. The Society did not provide explanations for all decisions, as outlined above. The Society acknowledged its willingness to provide more explanations based on what it heard during these proceedings which places the Society in a better position to provide information, explanations and reasons in a form that will be meaningful and well understood by the Applicants.

CONCLUSION:

33Section 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.

34The Board, therefore, orders the Society, pursuant to section 68.1 (7) b and d of the Act, to meet with the Applicants to address any existing concerns or questions they might have relating to actions the Society has taken, the services received by the parents and the care that their children are receiving, as well as questions related to protocols and policies that the Society relies upon in responding to complaints and to follow up this meeting with written reasons and responses to all complaints for their decisions within thirty days after the issuance of this decision.

DECISION

35Pursuant to section 68.1(7) of the Act, the Board orders the Society to meet with the Applicants to address any existing concerns or questions they might have and to follow up this meeting with written reasons for their decisions and responses to all complaints within thirty days after the issuance of this decision.

Sheena Scott

Presiding Member

Celia Denov

Panel Member

Gail Gonda

Panel Member