CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
G.D.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of the County of Prince Edward
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Indexed as: G.D. v. CAS of the County of Prince Edward (CFSA s.68)
1Ms. G.D. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on June 15, 2009 pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”) regarding complaints against the Children’s Aid Society of the County of Prince Edward (the “Society”). The application was determined to be eligible on June 22, 2009. The hearing was held on October 26 and 27, 2009.
2The Applicant represented herself. She called the following persons as witnesses: Ms. L.H.; Ms. D.M., friend; Mr. B.S., partner; Mr. T.D., father; Mrs. A.D., mother; and Ms. L.M., friend.
3Representing the Society were Mr. W.S., Executive Director; Mr. John Mastorakos, Legal Counsel; John Bonn, Legal Counsel; A.A., Child Protection Worker (Intake); J.R., Supervisor; A.W., Child Protection Worker; and S.C., Supervisor.
BACKGROUND
4The Applicant is the mother of B., born December […], 1997. She and B.’s father, K.P., are divorced. There is a Separation Agreement in place dated April […], 2006 which provides for joint custody of B., allowing alternate weeks with each parent. Mr. K.P. currently resides with Ms. T.M., who is Ms. G.D.’s cousin.
5On May […], 2009, the Society received a call from Ms. T.M. indicating that B. had telephoned her father from her mother’s home asking him to pick her up. It was alleged that B. was crying and upset.
6The Society investigated the matter and on the basis of the investigation, decided that Ms. G.D.’s access to her daughter would be temporarily suspended until the completion of the investigation. B.’s school was advised by letter dated May […], 2009.
7Since June, there have been three supervised access visits between B. and her mother because B. has indicated that she does not want to see her mother.
ISSUES
8The Applicant brought a complaint under sections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act because she felt that the Society had not listened to her concerns and had not provided her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests. She identified her concerns in this regard as follows:
i. The Society’s investigation into allegations against her was done by someone who knew her ex-husband and was in a conflict of interest,
ii. The basis for the Society involvement, the placement of B. with her father, and the lack of contact with the Applicant despite a Court Order that gives her custody,
iii. The Society’s assessment that she needed counseling,
iv. The Society’s lack of investigation into alleged parental alienation by the father,
v. Her request for counseling for her daughter, and
vi. The possible disclosure of information to the child’s school.
HEARING
9Before the hearing began, Wendell White, Board Member, indicated a potential conflict of interest in that he was familiar with the Society lawyer, who was called in to substitute at the last minute, as they live in the same community. After consideration, the Applicant advised that she wished to proceed with the hearing.
10During the proceedings, both the Applicant and the Society submitted numerous documents which had not been distributed beforehand to the other party or to the Panel. The Applicant was offered an adjournment and a rescheduling of the hearing in order that she could review the documents, but after consideration, she chose to proceed with the hearing.
11The Applicant submitted that the intake worker, A.A., who was responsible for the investigation of this case and the risk assessment, was in a conflict of interest position because she was familiar with B.’s father.
12She submitted that Ms. A.A. did not use complete information to conduct the risk assessment. She did not interview B. and her together; she did not interview family, teachers, and friends; and she relied on inaccurate health information.
13Letters on file from a number of medical doctors indicated that the Applicant did not have a mental health issue. This issue was identified in the Applicant’s risk assessment and thus the Applicant suggests that the assessment may be inaccurate.
14There were a number of previous reports attesting to the Applicant’s capacity to be the custodial parent and acknowledging that the marital separation had caused her significant situational stress.
15She questioned what legal authority allowed the Society to suspend access to her daughter in the face of a custody agreement and, despite asking the Executive Director in writing several times for this information, she had not received an answer.
16She submitted that the Society did not investigate the issue of parental alienation in her daughter’s case.
17She submitted that the Society disclosed information to her daughter’s school regarding her access to her daughter. A letter was sent by the Society to the school on May […], 2009 advising that B.’s access to her mother would be suspended until the completion of an investigation. B. would remain in the care of her father. The letter was not copied to her.
18There have been a number of access visits which have been cancelled, for example, one scheduled for the Applicant’s parents’ fiftieth wedding anniversary. She has only seen her daughter three times since May, 2009 and is very distressed by this situation.
19The Applicant’s friend, L.H. submitted that the Applicant formerly had excellent rapport with her daughter, but has no rapport with her now because the Society has supported the daughter’s wish not to see her mother. The relationship has gone downhill because of the father’s influence.
20There are concerns with the risk assessment which has resulted in a high risk evaluation for the Applicant. The information on which it was based is inaccurate and the allegations unsubstantiated.
21No response by the Society was provided to the Applicant for four months after B. was removed with regard to the reasons for B.’s removal.
22No information was received by the Applicant indicating that B. did not want to see her. The Applicant was never told that this would be a child protection matter. The Society did not review the family risk assessment with the Applicant.
23The Applicant’s friend, D.M. submitted that the Applicant believes that B. was removed because she had an argument with her mother and then wanted to go to her father’s house.
24The Applicant’s parents, Mr. and Mrs. A.D., indicated their concern with the apparent alienation of B. from her mother and the significant change in B.’s attitude to them, which is now hostile and fearful.
25W.S., Executive Director, submitted that he had spoken with the Applicant several times by telephone. In response to the Applicant’s submission that she had sent Mr. W.S. seven letters and had received no answer, Mr. W.S. indicated that he would have spoken to his staff about these matters.
26In response to the Applicant’s question, Mr. W.S. submitted that section 37 of the Act allowed the Society to intervene with regard to a child protection matter.
27A.A., Intake Worker, submitted that when a referral is received by the Society, the standard protocol is to look at whether the referral is eligible for service. A safety assessment is done and the parent is interviewed. The child is interviewed either at school or at home. It is the practice to interview a child alone where there is a chance for emotional stress to increase. The purpose of a safety assessment is to assess the child’s imminent safety.
28Ms. A.A. submitted that in carrying out the risk assessment, she had read all the file material including the previous medical reports. She reviewed the historical file, including the family history, but her main focus was on the child.
29With regard to the alleged conflict of interest, she was removed from the case and the file was transferred to an ongoing worker. Ms. J.R., her Supervisor, stepped in to complete the intake process so that a new intake worker would not need to be introduced to the child. No consideration was given to halting or redoing the investigation.
30With regard to the letter sent to the school, the Society did not inform the Applicant about this letter. This is Society practice.
31J.R., Supervisor, submitted that access may be changed during a child protection investigation. The investigation may take between thirty and sixty days before the Society is obligated to take the matter before the Court. With regard to the issue of parent alienation, she felt that B. was not being coached.
32S.C., Supervisor, submitted that she has been heavily involved in this case, more so than most. She has interacted with the Applicant in more than twenty telephone calls over the past two months. She has talked with the Applicant about the issue of access, has tried to settle the issues in-house, and has initiated counseling for the Applicant and for B.. She has supervised visits of the Applicant and B.. She acknowledged that the Applicant had asked for B.’s report card several times.
33She submitted that the Society has not received guidance from the Provincial Government on the issue of parental alienation nor is there anything in the Act about the matter.
34In response to the question of what precipitated the involvement of the Society in this family, she submitted that a referral is evaluated for credence and level of risk. This evaluation takes place through an investigative process and looks at the element of emotional harm. With regard to a child not wanting to live with or visit a parent, the Society respects the child’s wishes, but works to resolve the issues usually through counseling and community services.
35Counsel for the Society summarized as follows:
i. The Society became involved because of child protection concerns; the referral was investigated as a child protection matter. The risk assessment was completed and indicated the risk of emotional harm to the child.
ii. There is no direction by the Province regarding the issue of parental alienation nor is there expertise in the Society on this matter. However, discussions with B. gave no evidence of parental alienation or undue influence.
iii. The Society addressed the Applicant’s concerns regarding a potential conflict of interest on the part of the intake worker. The investigation was not redone to avoid further discomfort to the child. It was a responsible decision not to reinvestigate.
iv. There have been many consultations with the Applicant, many meetings with her and her support persons. The Applicant has been heard throughout the process.
v. The Society is committed to working with the child and her mother and other members of the family.
vi. The matter ultimately will be decided by the Court. There is a scheduled Hearing in November 2009.
ANALYSIS
36The issue before the Board is whether the Society listened to the Applicant’s concerns as required by section 2(2)(a) of the Act and whether the Society provided her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests.
37The Board notes that the Applicant submitted, with regard to whether the Society listened to her concerns and provided her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests, that:
i. She did not understand the authority for the Society’s involvement in this matter as there was an existing separation agreement in place regarding custody and access for her daughter. She did not receive an explanation despite numerous requests to the Society.
ii. She disagreed with the Society’s risk assessment and felt that it was premised on inaccurate information. She did not receive an explanation which addressed this concern.
iii. The Society disregarded the issue of parental alienation in its investigation and analysis. She felt she had not been heard when she raised this concern on numerous occasions.
iv. The Society sent a letter to her daughter’s school regarding her suspended access to her daughter without informing her or copying her on the letter. This directly affected her interests as this situation could have led to potential embarrassment for her and her daughter.
v. She sent seven letters to the Executive Director regarding her concerns and received no direct response from him.
vi. She had to ask for her daughter’s report card on numerous occasions and was often unaware of the reasons for changes in scheduled access visits for her daughter.
38The Board finds that there were a number of meetings and consultations between the Applicant and the Society during the period in question. However, despite these conversations, it appears that the Applicant still did not have a clear understanding of the following:
i. The Applicant did not understand the reasons for the Society’s involvement in this case and its decision to suspend her access to her daughter and to provide access to the child’s father.
ii. The Applicant did not receive an explanation regarding her concerns about the Society’s risk assessment and its use of her health history.
iii. The Society did not provide her with reasons which addressed her concerns related to parental alienation.
iv. The Society did not explain its actions in sending a letter to the Applicant’s daughter’s school regarding her suspended access.
v. The Society did not explain why the Applicant’s letters to the Executive Director were not directly answered.
vi. The Society did not provide an explanation as to why there was a delay in providing the Applicant with her daughter’s report card.
DECISION
39The Board therefore orders the Society to provide a written explanation to the Applicant which explains its involvement in this case and addresses the following issues:
i. the reasons for the Society’s decision to suspend the Applicant’s access to B. and to provide interim access to her father,
ii. the reasons why the Applicant’s letters to the Society were not answered,
iii. the reasons why the Applicant’s concern regarding parental alienation were not addressed,
iv. the reasons why the Applicant did not receive a letter of explanation regarding the Society’s letter to B.’s school,
v. the reasons why the Applicant’s concerns were not addressed when she requested her daughter’s report card.
40This letter should be delivered within two weeks of the date of issuance of the Board’s Decision.
41Additionally, the Board recommends to the Society that where a potential conflict of interest arises, it address the matter as early as possible to avoid later concerns of bias.
42The Board acknowledges the willingness of the Society to continue to work with the child and Applicant and supports this ongoing effort.
Ruth Ann Schedlich Presiding Member
Celia Denov Panel Member
Wendell White Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 18th day of November, 2009.