J.C & A.M. v. Children’s Aid Society of the County of Bruce, 2009 CFSRB 40

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

J.C & A.M.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of the County of Bruce

REASONS FOR DECISION ON COMPLIANCE

Date: August 7, 2009

Citation: 2009 CFSRB 40

Indexed as: J.C & A.M. v. CAS of the County of Bruce (CFSA s.68)

Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Jurisdiction & Merits - .C & A.M. v. CAS (CFSA s.68) 2009 CFSRB 23

INTRODUCTION

1On April 7, 2009, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) heard the application of J.C. and A.M. (referred to collectively as the “Applicants”) regarding a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of the County of Bruce (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The Applicants complained to the Board that they were not given reasons for the Society’s involvement after the Society became aware that A.M. was pregnant with their child H., born June […], 2008, and why the Society remained involved with their family at the time of and after H.’s birth.

2By decision dated May 19, 2009, the Board upheld the Applicants’ complaint and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons as to why it became involved in their lives prior to H.’s birth, at the time of H.’s birth, and after H.’s birth up to the date of the application to the Board on December 4, 2008.

3By letter dated June […], 2009, the Society provided written reasons for its involvement with the Applicants and their daughter. The Applicants have requested that the Board review the Society’s response to determine whether it complies with the Board’s order. The Applicants submit that the Society is not in compliance with the Board’s order. The Society, by letter dated July 22, 2009, advised the Board that it has no submissions on the issue of compliance and invited the Board to determine the issue in its absence, and to advise of any further rulings.

4The Board finds that the Society’s written explanation is not in compliance with the Board’s order. The reasons for the Board’s decision follow.

ANALYSIS

5The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its involvement with the Applicants prior to H.’s birth. In its written response dated June 3, 2009, the Society provided the following reasons:

• On March […], 2008, the Society received an anonymous referral that A.M. was pregnant and the caller believed she was unable to parent;
• The Society had previous involvement with A.M. and her family;
• A.M.’s family history and the referral alleging she was pregnant prompted the Society to investigate;
• A.M. had no pre-natal care and did not want to tell her parents that she was expecting. J.’s parents did not know that he was the father of the baby.

6These reasons do not provide the Applicants with a sufficient explanation for the Society’s involvement. In particular, the reasons do not explain to the Applicants what concerns were raised regarding A.M.’s ability to parent, how these concerns were investigated and what conclusions were reached by the Society. For example, the Applicants have not been informed of the basis for the caller’s belief that A.M. was unable to parent and the specifics of her family history that relate to her ability or inability to parent. The Applicants are entitled to this information.

7In its decision dated May 19, 2009, the Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its involvement at the time of H.’s birth. In its written response, the Society provided the following reasons:

• On June […], 2008, the Society received a referral from the hospital social worker at the [Centre] that H. had been born that day and that the nurse assigned to work with A.M. found her difficult to work with and was concerned about how much A.M. understood about caring for her baby

8These reasons do not provide the detail the Board ordered in its decision. They do not explain to the Applicants how A.M. was difficult to work with, how this impacted her ability to parent and what concerns were raised regarding A.M.’s capacity to understand what was required to care for her baby. Furthermore, the reasons do not indicate how these concerns were investigated and what conclusions were reached by the Society.

9Finally, in its decision, the Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its continued involvement with the Applicants and H.. The Society, in its written response, advised:

• It continued to work with the Applicants because it had concerns about their ability to parent, and about conflict between A.M. and J., A.M. and her parents, and A.M. and J. with his parents. The Society was concerned H. could have been hurt from the conflict between the adults.

10These reasons do not satisfy the Board’s order. They do not explain what the Society’s concerns were regarding the Applicants’ ability to parent, its concerns about conflict and how these concerns were investigated and assessed.

11The purpose of the Board’s remedial order was to ensure that the Applicants were given a clear understanding of the concerns that were raised regarding their ability to parent H., how these concerns were objectively assessed by the Society, and the conclusions reached by the Society which resulted in its continued involvement in their lives. Instead, the Society advised the Applicants of general concerns around family history, conflict and capacity to parent. This does not give the Applicants sufficient information upon which to understand the Society’s actions.

12The Board finds that the Society has failed to comply with its May 19, 2009 order. Accordingly, the Board orders the Society to answer the following questions for each stage of the Society’s involvement - prior to H.’s birth, at the time of H.’s birth and after H.’s birth up to the date of the Applicants’ application to the Board on December 4, 2008:

• What specific concerns were raised and how did they impact the Applicants’ (separately or together) ability to parent H.;
• How were these concerns assessed/investigated by the Society;
• What conclusions were reached by the Society as a result of its assessment/investigation and why?

13These reasons are to be provided by the Society with 14 days of the date of this decision.

Jennifer Scott Presiding Member

Gail Gonda Board Member

Denyse Diaz Board Member