CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
T.I.
v.
The Children’s Aid Society of Brant
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Indexed as: T.I. v. The CAS of Brant (CFSA s.68)
Related Decisions: Reasons for Decisions on Jurisdiction – T.I. v. The CAS of Brant (CFSA s.68), 2008 CFSRB 85
[1]
Background
By its decision dated August 28, 2008, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) ruled that it was open to the Applicant to argue that she had not had an opportunity to be heard by the Society with respect to two complaints, namely, that she had not been informed as to what she and her partner, W.W. needed to do to respond to the Society’s Plan of Care as a couple and that the Society had not responded to the Applicant's request that her sister and her husband be given an opportunity to be heard with respect to their interest in parenting the children. The Board ruled that these complaints could be heard pursuant to section 68.1(4)4. Section 68.1(4)4 refers to section 2(2) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the ‘Act’) which provides in part that 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.
2These matters were heard by the Board on November 6, 2008. At the hearing, the Board received evidence from the Applicant, T.I., and the Society's witness, S.S., Supervisor of the children's worker involved with the T.I. family. The Board received the following exhibits, all of which are copies of originals:
Voluntary Service Agreement between the Applicant and the Society;
A letter from the Society to the Applicant dated October […], 2008 from K.C., Family Services Worker, and D.M., Child Protection Manager;
The Society's Plan of Care, Form 33B, dated April […], 2007;
Workers case notes, from July […], 2007 to August […], 2008;
Witness Statement from Constable D. respecting domestic investigation February […], 2008;
Letter dated June […], 2008 to the Applicant from K.C., Family Services Worker, and D.M., Child Protection Manager.
3At the commencement of the hearing, the Applicant advised that she was no longer interested in presenting a Kinship Plan of Care from her sister, T., and would not be giving evidence concerning that complaint. The Board considered this part of the Application to be withdrawn.
[4]
Analysis
The Applicant stated that as of the date of this hearing, she remains uncertain about what she and her partner, have to do in order to present a Plan of Care for the children as a joint parenting proposal. The Applicant looks for specific direction from the Society in this respect. The Applicant points out that the Society's October […], 2008 letter (Exhibit 2) best illustrates her difficulty in understanding the Society's position respecting a joint parenting plan. This letter appears to list all the expectations of the Society for Ms. T.I. and is essentially ported from the Society's documents, the Voluntary Service Agreement and the Plan of Care, filed with the Ontario Court of Justice in the protection proceedings. It includes the statement "Ms. T.I. will not have direct or indirect contact with Mr. W.W.". In the same letter, the Society suggests that the Applicant and her partner can be "referred yet again to the Family Counselling Centre for Couples Counselling". Ms. T.I. is understandably confused by these contradictory statements. The Board therefore finds that the Applicant has, on the balance of probabilities, shown at least with respect to this communication, that the Society has not heard the concerns of the Applicant as to how a joint parenting plan can be addressed and developed.
5In considering the terms of its order however, the Board hastens to add that it does not find significant fault with the Society’s actions despite this finding. The Society’s primary duty is to present to the Court a Plan of Care that is in the best interests of the children. The Society's position on that Plan of Care has been clear from the outset. That position is that only Crown Wardship of the T.I. children can provide the stability, protection and future opportunity for their healthy growth. The Society has consistently presented this plan to the Court, a plan that is going forward to the Crown Wardship trial now scheduled for February, 2009. The Society’s statutory obligation to provide parents an opportunity to be heard does not necessarily mean that it is bound to explore other plans for the care of children that the Society does not recognize as achievable or appropriate. Although the answer to the question before the Board as to whether the Society has responded to requests made by the Applicant as to what she and her partner need to do to present as a Plan of Care as a couple is “no”, that answer is nevertheless consistent with the Society’s stated position to the Court respecting its Plan of Care for children. The parties are essentially engaged in an adversarial struggle respecting what is in the best interests of the children who are at the heart of the process. To the date of this hearing, the Applicant has not filed with the Court a joint Plan of Care respecting her wish to have the children returned to her and her partner. The Applicant has to take some responsibility herself or through counsel, to advocate her position and Plan of Care. While the Applicant accurately states that the Society’s letter of October […], 2008 sends a “mixed message” on the issue of joint parenting, the Society on the other hand is rightfully confused by the ambivalence of the Applicant’s approach. Ms. T.I. wants to present a joint parenting plan, but also states that she is prepared to go it alone as the sole parent. The Applicant is not living with her partner; they are not now presenting as a couple. There has been a recent domestic incident between them that required a police response.
6The Applicant did confirm in her evidence that the Society responded to her previous request for a joint parenting plan and did set up and refer her and her partner to couples counselling at the Family Service Centre. This was facilitated by a consent change in the bail terms of the Applicant’s partner, W.W., to permit contact. Some twelve sessions were completed before the maternity leave of their counsellor required a change of counsellor. Unfortunately the new counsellor was less effective and the Applicant and her partner ceased counselling at the Centre. Their file there now appears to be closed. The Applicant does have insight into what is needed for a joint parenting plan. On her own initiative, the Applicant has recently arranged for couples counselling at [ ] Hospital, which is scheduled to commence following Mr. W.W.’s completion of individual counselling which he has arranged at the same hospital. The Society’s expectation of the Applicant and her partner is that they live together in a stable, healthy relationship. This is the basic message to the Applicant at this time on the issue of a joint parenting plan.
7The Society states that it is open to the suggestion that the Applicant and her partner present a joint parenting plan and that the Applicant and her partner are not prohibited from contacting one another for any counselling for this purpose or toward building a better relationship. The Board’s Order is intended to unequivocally facilitate this statement. The Board’s order is intended to encourage and promote full and effective communication between the parties in general and on this issue.
[8]
Order
The Board, therefore, orders pursuant to Section 68.1(7) (6) of the Act:
i) That the Society responds in writing to the Applicant’s complaint on the issue of a joint parenting plan within 30 days of the date of this Decision by outlining the Society’s expectations as to the following:
a) Any steps or services, including any specific referrals that may be undertaken by the Applicant and her partner as a couple, with respect to counselling for relationship issues and domestic violence, anger management and substance abuse, in addition to the counselling already arranged at [ ] Hospital.
b) Any steps or services, including any specific referrals that may be taken by the Applicant and her partner as a couple, on joint parenting issues, respecting care of children, discipline and communication with children and common sense parenting.
c) Any other reasonable expectations in the judgment and experience of the Society that promotes a healthy, stable relationship for the couple as a foundation for joint parenting.
ii) That the Society provide the Applicant with timely notice of Concurrent Permanency Planning (CPP) meetings and minutes of same if the Applicant is unable to attend.
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 4^th^ day of December, 2008.
Richard Linley
Presiding Member
Sheena Scott
Panel Member
Fizul Sima
Panel Member