J.W. v. Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, 2009 CFSRB 10

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

J.W.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: February 17, 2009

Citation: 2009 CFSRB 10

Indexed as: J.W. v. CAS of the Niagara Region (CFSA s.68)

1This is the application of J.W. (the “Applicant”) filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) against the Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region (the “Society”) pursuant to subsection 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”).

2The Applicant alleges that the Society’s Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”):

1. failed to comply with clause 2 (2)(a) of the Act; and

2. failed to provide her with reasons for a decision that affects her interests.

3The Applicant also alleges there were inaccuracies in her file.

4The Society maintains that the Applicant was given many opportunities to be heard, that written reasons were sent to her after the meeting of the ICRP and that the Board cannot hear her complaint about inaccuracies in the file.

5These are the reasons of the Board for issues 1 and 2. The Board can only review issue 3, which relates to inaccuracies in the file, upon completion of the Society’s complaint review procedure. Since the Applicant has not filed a written complaint regarding inaccuracies in the file to the Society and has not gone through the ICRP, the Board cannot review this issue.

BACKGROUND

6The Applicant was a foster parent with the Society from 1999 until July 2008. The Society provided child protection services in 2007 and 2008 with respect to P.W., an adult child of the Applicant. In June of 2007, a thirteen year old foster child disclosed to her worker that she had sexual intercourse with P.W. on a few occasions while living in the W. home. The Child Advocacy Centre of the Society investigated and found that P.W. admitted to having sex with the foster child. The Applicant insisted that he was innocent. The Applicant agreed to have P.W. move out of the home and to supervise him at all times when he was visiting the home. On June [...], 2008, the Society responded to a report from a therapist at [H] regarding another thirteen year old child. When she was sleeping over at the W. home, she “almost” had sex with P.W.. The child recanted her allegations, but the Society believed that the Applicant had influenced the child. As a result, risk of sexual harm was not verified. However, the Society verified ongoing protection concerns and recommended closure of the home.

7The Applicant filed a letter of complaint dated July [...], 2008 disagreeing with the results of the investigation and the closure of the home. The Society assembled a panel for the ICRP consisting of J.M., Family and Child Services Niagara Board Member; S.M., Service Director; and C.S., Executive Director. The meeting of the ICRP was rescheduled several times with the consent of the Applicant and took place on September [...], 2008. The results of the meeting were given in a letter from C.S. dated September [...], 2008.

RELEVANT LEGISLATION

8The Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O.1990, c. C.11:

s.68(1) A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society in accordance with the regulations.

(2) Where a society receives a complaint under subsection (1), it shall deal with the complaint in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation, subject to subsection 68.1(2).

68(5) If a complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the complaint review procedure:

1. An alleged inaccuracy in the society’s files or records regarding the complainant.

2. A matter described in subsection 68.1(4).

3. Any other prescribed matter.

68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a).

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

ANALYSIS

Issue 1: The Society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a).

9The Applicant, her husband, S., and their daughter, M.W., attended the meeting for the ICRP. She states that C.S., the Executive Director, did most of the talking. M.W., read a letter describing what it felt like to live in the W. home. The Applicant spoke and told the panel that P.W. did not do what the investigators claim and that the Society was fabricating stories. She felt that she was getting her point across to the panel. After the meeting, the panel reviewed her file. The Applicant testified that during the ICRP meeting, she did not know that she could have access to her file. As a result, she felt that the process was not fair and that she was at a disadvantage since she could not refute what was in the file. She did not get a copy of her file until October 2008, which was after the ICRP. She felt that the file contained information that was false. She had no idea that her file looked so bad. She felt that she did not have the opportunity to be heard since she did not know the material in the file and could not speak to it.

10The Applicant testified that in a meeting with Society workers, H.H. and G.H., prior to the ICRP, she felt badgered and agreed to everything that they said. She claims that she did not have the opportunity to express her concerns and that it was the wrong way to collect information.

11M.W., a former foster child who was adopted by the Applicant, attended the meeting for the ICRP and testified that in her view, she thought the meeting went well. They asked questions of the panel, but did not feel the questions were answered well. S.C., another daughter of the Applicant, waited outside the meeting room. When everyone came out, she was under the impression that the meeting went well. The panel came down to meet them. There was no tension and the panel seemed to be very caring.

12The Society argued that the right of a foster parent to review her file is in the Foster Parent Handbook. During the Society’s annual review with foster parents, the foster parents would have confirmed that they had the manual. There are also representatives from the Foster Parents’ Association who can support foster parents faced with allegations. In the case of the Applicant, representatives from this association were present at one of the meetings with the Applicant and Society workers. It was V.M., the President of the Foster Parents Association, who told the Applicant that she had the right to see her file.

13The Society maintains that during the course of the child protection investigations, the Applicant knew the concerns of the Society which were contained in her file. The Society provided the case notes of Society workers to show the contacts with the Applicant and the subject of the conversations. The case note of G.H. of February [...], 2008 show that she visited the W. home unannounced due to a report that the home was unkept and that P.W. had contact with a female ward contrary to the restrictions placed on him. The home was found to be in satisfactory condition. P.W. had exchanged cellular phone numbers with a female ward. G.H. reviewed with the Applicant the conditions that must be observed if P.W. is in the W. home and the Applicant indicated that she understood the expectations. A letter dated March [...], 2008, outlining the expectations for P.W., was sent to the Applicant. One of these expectations stated that “should there be another concern with P.W. being unsupervised with our wards—the W. foster home will be closed by the Agency”. On March [...], 2008, G.H. met with the Applicant and P.W. to discuss their concerns regarding these expectations. G.H. explained to them the gravity of the Society’s concerns. G.H. noted that the Applicant was extremely receptive. On June [...], 2008, the Society responded to another report from a thirteen year old girl who “almost” had sex with P.W. while she was sleeping over at the W. home. Following this most recent investigation, a verification conference was held on July [...], 2008 by the investigation team. A meeting was then held with the family on July [...], 2008 to explain the outcome of the investigation. The Society argued that in the events leading up to the complaint, the Applicant knew the concerns of the Society and the results of the investigation which were contained in her file.

14The Applicant expressed disagreement with the results of the investigation and the closure of her home. She wanted a complete review of the investigation.

15Following receipt of her letter of complaint, the Executive Director assembled a panel for the ICRP and a meeting was held on September [...], 2008. The letter of September [...], 2008 upheld the results of the Society’s investigation and the decision to close the home.

16The Board finds that the Applicant was heard by the Society. During the meeting of the ICRP, the Applicant was given the opportunity to express her concerns. She testified that she felt she was getting her point across. Her daughter, M.W., had the opportunity to read her letter which expressed her views of the W. home. Both M.W. and S.C. felt that the meeting went well. Even though the Applicant did not have her file at the time of the review, she knew the results of the investigation and the reasons for the decision from the meeting of July [...], 2008. She also knew the concerns of the Society from the meetings with Society workers which are noted above. The Society was very clear what their concerns and expectations were. The Board finds that the Applicant was not prevented from being heard because she did not have her file. If the Applicant remains concerned about inaccuracies in the file, she can file a written complaint with the Society and have this issue heard by the ICRP, with a subsequent review by this Board.

Issue 2: The Society has failed to provide her with reasons for a decision that affects her interests.

17The Applicant clearly disagreed with the decision of the Society in the child protection investigation and the decision to close her foster home. She attached to the application to the Board, the letter of September [...], 2008 from C.S., the Executive Director, stating the results of the ICRP and the reasons for the Society’s decisions. She noted some points that she disagreed with in this letter. However, she did not present any evidence that the Society did not provide her with reasons for decisions which affect her interests. The issue is whether the Applicant received reasons, not whether the Applicant agreed with the reasons.

18The Society argued that the reasons for their decisions were given to the Applicant in the meeting of July [...], 2008. The Society members who conducted the investigation were there to speak to the Applicant. Following the ICRP, the Society provided the Applicant with written reasons for the Applicant’s concerns.

19The Board finds that the Society has provided written reasons to the Applicant as documented by the letter of C.S. summarizing the results of the ICRP meeting.

CONCLUSION

20The Board dismisses the application of J.W..

Richard Linley

Presiding Member

David Griffiths

Panel Member

Mary Wong

Panel Member