CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
E.M.
v.
Halton Children’s Aid Society
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Indexed as: E.M. v. Halton CAS (CFSA s.68)
Related Decision: Reasons for Decision on Jurisdiction – E.M. v. Halton CAS (CFSA s.68), 2009 CFSRB 63
INTRODUCTION
1E.M. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on August 6, 2009 to complain about the Halton Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”).
2A pre-hearing was held on September 3, 2009 to clarify the Applicant’s complaints. The Society’s position was that the Board did not have the jurisdiction to hear these complaints since they were all issues before the Court. The Board conducted an oral hearing on October 26, 2009 to determine whether it has the jurisdiction to review the Applicants complaints. In a decision dated November 4, 2009, the Board determined that it has the jurisdiction to review the following three issues:
- The Society’s refusal to accept her claim that she did not consume alcohol while she was on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication.
- For the past two summers, the Society has refused her request to allow her daughter to go to a summer camp for arts, craft and drama. Instead, her daughter stayed at home to baby-sit other children in the foster home where she resides.
- The Society does not respect the cultural dietary needs of her daughter and as a result, her daughter is often constipated.
3On November 10, 2009, the Board conducted an oral hearing and heard the Applicant’s testimony on the three issues listed above. The Society did not cross-examine the Applicant due to their view that this matter is before the Court and that to cross examine her without the presence of her counsel and the protection of the rules of the Court may appear inappropriate to the trial judge. The Society submitted documentation on the three issues and did not call any witnesses.
BACKGROUND
4The Applicant is the mother of S.K., born November […], 1999. The Society has been involved with the family since April of 2004 because of concerns of the parents’ mental health and their ability to parent their daughter. More recently, the child was apprehended and a Temporary Care Agreement was signed on February […], 2008 after police reported to the Society concerns about the condition of the Applicant’s apartment and the child reported the use of physical discipline by the Applicant. On August […], 2008, the child was made a Ward of the Society for a period of seven months. The Society is currently seeking Crown Wardship with access in a Status Review Application before the Court.
ANALYSIS
5The issue before the Board is whether the Society heard the Applicant’s complaints and provided her with reasons for their decisions under subsections 68.1(4)(4) and 68.1(4)(5) of the Act which provide that:
s. 68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a).
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
s. 2(2) Service providers shall ensure,
(a) that children and their 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.
6The Board dismisses the 3rd complaint and upholds complaints 1 and 2 for the reasons as set out below.
Issue 1: The Society refuses to accept her claim that she did not consume alcohol while she was on anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medication.
7The Applicant alleged that in the summer of 2007, B.G., her Society worker, called her husband and misrepresented her personality to him. B.G. said she was drinking heavily. The Applicant did not call to complain to the Society because she did not know who to complain to. Nor did she complain in the form of a letter. She believed that in her file there are many allegations that she was drinking.
8The Society did not present any witnesses to testify on this issue. It submitted the Affidavit of D.M., Supervisor, which states that the Applicant has not previously raised this issue with the Society.
9The Board finds that under subsection 68.1(1) of the Act, the Applicant has the right to make the complaint directly to the Board. This subsection states that:
s. 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.
10Since the Society did not present any evidence on this issue, the Board finds that the Society has not given the Applicant reasons why B.G. believed she was drinking when she was taking medications. This issue impacts on the Society’s decision on the Applicant’s ability to parent her daughter and harms her interests. The Board orders the Society to provide her with written reasons.
Issue 2: For the past two summers, the Society has refused her request to allow the daughter to go to a summer camp for arts, craft and drama. Instead, her daughter stayed at home to baby-sit other children in the foster home where she resides.
11The Applicant complained that for the past two years, she has enrolled her daughter in summer camp, but the Society has not allowed her to go. Her daughter had to baby-sit children at the foster home rather than enjoying camp. In 2008, she spoke to B.G. and S.D.H. about enrolling her daughter in camp. In April of 2009, she registered her daughter in camp and expressed her wishes to S.D.H.. The Applicant said that S.D.H. told her that her daughter is in care and the Society will do what they want. The Applicant submitted a letter of complaint sometime in the summer of 2009 to the Executive Director complaining that S.D.H. purposely did not provide her daughter with transportation to summer camp. As a result, the Applicant had to cancel her daughter’s enrolment in camp. The Applicant stated that no reasons were given to her as to why her daughter could not attend camp. The Executive Director responded to her letter of complaint in a letter dated July […], 2009. The Applicant did not complain that the Society failed to proceed to an internal complaint review panel meeting.
12The Society did not present any testimony from witnesses. The Affidavit of D.M. states that: “During the time that the child has been in the Society’s care, the mother has raised several concerns and issues with the Society, which included the child’s dietary needs and camp opportunities. These concerns have been discussed with the mother through several meetings with the workers, supervisors and Directors. During these meetings the mother was provided with reasons for decisions that had been made by the Society.” In the July […], 2009 letter to the Applicant, N.M., Executive Director, stated that there have been “discussions about camp, including seeking the child’s wishes”. She also stated that “there is no evidence of any inappropriate behaviours or decisions”.
13Although D.M. in her Affidavit states that the Applicant’s concerns were discussed at several meetings and that reasons were given to her, she was not present at the hearing to give direct evidence as to the specific issues discussed and the reason why the Applicant’s daughter could not attend camp. The Applicant also did not have the opportunity to cross examine S.M. with respect to her affidavit. For the above reasons, the Board assigned little weight to the Affidavit.
14In the July […], 2009 letter from the Executive Director, there were no reasons given to the Applicant as to why her daughter could not attend camp. The Board finds that there is no direct evidence before it that the Society gave the Applicant reasons for why her daughter could not attend camp. The Board, thereby, orders that the Society provide the Applicant with written reasons as to why her daughter could not attend camp during the summers of 2008 and 2009.
Issue 3: The Society does not respect the cultural dietary needs of her daughter and as a result, her daughter is often constipated.
15The Applicant complained that while in the care of the Society, her daughter is not eating proper food. Her daughter informed her that she is eating rice every day. As a result of her diet she is constipated and the Applicant brought her a yogurt drink to enrich her diet and help with normal bowel movements. However, when she left, the foster mother threw out the drink. In the same letter of complaint to the Executive Director noted above, the Applicant complained that the foster mother threw out the yogurt drink. The Applicant submitted a letter dated June […], 2009 from J.P., Director of Residential Services. In this letter, J.P. stated that the yogurt drink was thrown out only after her daughter confirmed that she did not want it and that she was not fond of the drink. The Applicant also submitted a letter dated July […], 2009 from N.M., Executive Director, which stated the same reason as to why the yogurt drink was thrown out.
16The Society did not present oral testimony from witnesses and submitted the June […], 2009 letter of J.P., and the July […], 2009 letter of N.M. as evidence.
17The Board finds that the Applicant was heard on this issue and that the reason why the yogurt drink was thrown out was relayed to her via the letter of J.P. and the letter of N.M.. The Applicant was advised by the Society that the drink was thrown out because her daughter did not want it.
18The Board dismisses this issue.
CONCLUSION
19The Board orders the Society to provide written reasons to the Applicant within 14 days of the date of this decision as to why B.G. claimed she was drinking when she was taking medication and why her daughter could not attend summer camp. The Board dismisses issue 3.
Gail Gonda
Presiding Member
Heather Hunter
Panel Member
Mary Wong
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 23rd day of November, 2009.