CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
N.I. v. Windsor-Essex Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society
REASONS FOR DECISION
WRITTEN REVIEW
Date: October 13, 2009
Citation: 2009 CFSRB 56
Indexed as: N.I. v. Windsor-Essex Huron-Perth CAS (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1N.I. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on August 19, 2009 pursuant to subsection 68.1(4) of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) against the Windsor-Essex Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”).
2In the application to the Board, the Applicant raises concerns that the Society was not impartial with respect to her request for kin placement and that this led to a suggestion of supervised access with her grandchild. Further, she alleges that the Society failed to consider her request for kin placement and did not respond to her concerns about the child’s placement with the other grandparents. The Society’s position is that this application is the same as the application found to be ineligible for review by the Board in February of 2008 because the Applicant was not a person who sought or received services as defined by the Act and further, that there are no new circumstances in the current application.
3The Board determined on August 21, 2009 that the application was eligible for review under section 68.1 (4) subsection 5. This means that on its face, the application could move to the next stage of the Board’s process which is the submission of a summary reply from the Society.
4The Society filed a summary reply on August 28, 2009, in which it set out its position that the application has already been dealt with by the Board.
5The Board finds that there is sufficient material before it to conduct a written review of the application pursuant to subsection 68.1(5) of the Act.
6The issue before the Board is whether the subject of the current application has been dealt with by the Board.
7For the reasons that follow, the Board dismisses this application.
8The relevant sections of the Act are as follows:
68.1 (1) If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may,
(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 68 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section.
68.1 (4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section
- Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
BACKGROUND
9The Applicant is the maternal grandmother of H., born March […], 2007.
10During the time that H. was in care, the Society assessed the kin plan put forward by his mother that he be placed with the other grandparents (the Applicant’s former spouse Mr. B. and his wife) as appropriate. The Society closed its file on March […], 2009 as the child was living with the other grandparents who were going to seek custody.
11The Applicant’s first application was filed on February 4, 2008 and found ineligible by the Board on February 11, 2008 on the basis that as a grandparent, the Applicant was not a person who sought or received services under the Act. That application addresses unfair treatment by the worker in terms of information about the Applicant, placing the child with the other grandparents and the failure to consider the Applicant for kin placement. In the February 2008 application, the Applicant also raises concerns about the care of H. in the other grandparents’ care. In that application, she notes that she found out that the grandfather (Mr. B.) has custody of H..
12In her current application, the Applicant is concerned because she believes she was unfairly treated by the Society when it assessed kin placement options because of information about her. She was concerned about the care the child would receive with the other grandparents and wanted to apply for a kin placement. She was not considered as a kin placement and alleges that she was not given reasons for this and the related decisions.
13In the context of the current application, the Board has obtained a copy of a temporary court order dated June […], 2009 as between the custodial parents (the other grandparents) and the Applicant, which gives the Applicant access to H.. It appears that the other grandparents (the Bs) did obtain custody and that the Applicant has been engaged in litigation with them for access to H..
ANALYSIS
14The subject of the current application is a matter that has already been decided by the Board.
15The Applicant’s current application involves the same Society and addresses the same issues as her February, 2008 application. Her concerns relate to the fairness of her treatment by the Society when considering kin placement, including the treatment of information about her, the failure to consider her for kin placement and the care of the child in the kin placement with her former spouse and his wife. Because the Board has already disposed of the subject of this complaint, finding it ineligible for review, the Board will not re-visit its decision in this regard. There has been no indication of any change in circumstance or new information involving the Society and the Applicant. The Society has not been involved since March of 2009. The only new information relates to a private access dispute as between the Applicant and the other grandparents which is being litigated and has been dealt with by the Court on an interim basis in September of 2009. The Society is not involved and is not a party to the access application by the Applicant.
16The same subject matter involving the same parties has already been dealt with on a final basis by the Board in February of 2008. There is no new information that is relevant to the issues as between those parties.
CONCLUSION
17Since the subject matter of the complaint has already been decided by the Board, the application is dismissed.
Sheena Scott
Presiding Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 13th day of October, 2009.