CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
M.H.
v.
Jewish Family and Child Service
REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS
Date: February 10, 2009
Citation: 2009 CFSRB 9
Indexed as: M.H. v. Jewish Family and Child Service (CFSA s.68)
Related Decisions: Reasons for Decision on Jurisdiction - M.H. v. Jewish Family and Child Service (CFSA s.68), 2008 CFSRB 101
INTRODUCTION
1This is the decision of the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on the application of M.H. (the “Applicant”) pursuant to section 68.1 (4) 1, 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (“CFSA”).
2The Applicant brought several complaints against Jewish Family and Child Service (the “Society” or “JFCS”) to the Board in his application received on August 6, 2008. On November 7, 2008, the Board heard arguments regarding its jurisdiction to hear the application. On December 18, 2008, the Board issued its decision that it had jurisdiction to deal with the following complaints (as numbered in that decision):
1(c). May […], 2008 complaint regarding B.M. and the complaint procedure (a written complaint to JFCS in the past relating to service sought or received by him that the Applicant said had not been addressed by the Respondent as required by s. 68 and Ontario Regulation 494/06 ) (“Complaint Regarding B.M. and the complaint procedure”).
That on December […], 2007, the Respondent (JFCS) scheduled a lawyer’s conference (a meeting with Dr. C.) without inviting the Applicant or his representative to be present and a number of decisions were made at that meeting involving important matters affecting the interests of the Applicant and the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be represented and heard at this meeting (“Meeting with Dr. C.”).
That the case worker lied to the Applicant about why the children were not picked up by their case worker for an access visit to take place at the office of the Society and the complaint by the Applicant is that his concerns in this regard (that the case worker lied) have not been heard by the Society (“Concern that worker lied”).
BACKGROUND
3The Applicant and his ex-wife had two children, A1., born October […], 1996 and A2., born May […], 1998. The Applicant was also a father figure to his ex-wife’s two children, E. and O., over the course of the marriage. The Applicant and his ex-wife have been involved in protracted court proceedings for approximately ten years, following the end of the marriage. The Applicant was the access parent throughout. In January of 2008, the Society commenced child protection proceedings, seeking that the children A1. and A2. be placed in the mother’s care under a supervision order because of the extreme parental conflict and its impact on the children.
4On May […], 2008, the Applicant raised some concerns with the Society about worker B.M.’s failure to follow the complaint procedure. The Society declined to meet with him because it said the matter was before the Court. In its ruling on jurisdiction, the Board found that the conduct of the worker in relation to this allegation was not before the Court. The May [...], 2008 email raises two other complaints. The Board decided that it could not deal with those complaints.
5The Society also had the Applicant and his ex-wife engage a parenting coordinator, Dr. C.. The Applicant was not invited to a meeting with Dr. C. and he had concerns that he was not heard at this meeting which may have influenced the decision to move forward with child protection proceedings. According to the Respondent, “following the discussion with Dr. C., it was clear that there was no other way to protect the children and the Protection Application was commenced.”
6Finally, the Applicant raised a concern that the worker had lied to him in March of 2008 regarding why the children were not picked up for an access visit. The Society admitted that the worker made a mistake in terms of the timing of the pick up. The Society also admitted that the Applicant was provided with two reasons for the failed pick up on the day in question, March […], 2008, namely: traffic and the mistake. The Applicant’s concern relates to his belief that the worker lied to him and that the Society did not address his concern.
DECISION
7The Parties have reached an agreement that the Society will convene an Internal Complaints Review Panel (“ICRP”) to address the complaints over which this Board took jurisdiction. For the sake of clarity, the only complaint in the May […], 2008 email from the Applicant to the Society that is within the Board’s jurisdiction is the Complaint regarding B.M. and the complaint procedure (numbered as 1 in that email and 1(c) by this Board).
8ON CONSENT, pursuant to section 68.1 (7) (a) of the CFSA, the Board orders the Society to proceed immediately with the following three complaints made by the Applicant, in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;
May […], 2008 complaint regarding B.M. and the complaint procedure.
Complaint that on December […], 2007, the Respondent (JFCS) scheduled a lawyer’s conference (meeting with Dr. C.) without inviting the applicant or his representative to be present and a number of decisions were made at that meeting involving important matters affecting the interests of the Applicant and the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be represented and heard at this meeting.
Complaint that the case worker lied to the Applicant about why the children were not picked up by their case worker for an access visit to take place at the office of the Society and the complaint by the Applicant is that his concerns in this regard (that the worker lied) have not been heard by the Society.
Heather Gibbs
Presiding Member
Aida Graff
Panel Member
Sheena Scott
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 10^th^ day February, 2009.