CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
S.B.
v.
Family and Children’s Services Niagara
REASONS FOR DECISION ON COMPLIANCE
Indexed as: S.B. v. F&CS Niagara (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1On February 5, 2010, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) rendered its decision in the application of S.B. (the “Applicant”) regarding a complaint against the Family and Children’s Services Niagara (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). The panel remained seized of the file pending compliance by the Society with its order.
2This decision is with respect to whether or not the Society complied with the Board’s order of February 5, 2010.
BACKGROUND
3The background to this application is described in the Board’s decision of February 5, 2010. Briefly, the Society provided child protection services to the Applicant’s family from October to November, 2006 during a custody and access dispute between the parents and on an ongoing basis since January 2007, due to concerns that the children were exposed to parental conflict. At the time of the Board’s hearing into this matter, the Society was in the process of closing its file respecting its involvement.
4The Applicant complained to the Society about the services it offered during this time. The Society organized an Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”) on May […], 2009 to hear the complaint. The Society issued a letter to the Applicant on June […], 2009 as a result of the ICRP meeting.
5The Applicant’s original application to this Board was respecting the letter and conclusions of the ICRP. A Hearing was held on January 13, 2010.
6In its decision of February 5, 2010, this panel found that the Society did not comply with all the requirements of Ontario Regulation 494/06, section 9, and ordered that the Society provide a written summary of the May […], 2009 ICRP meeting to the Applicant with respect to the issues he raised at the meeting, including the following points:
steps taken by the ICRP panel as a result of the meeting (i.e. further investigations undertaken, interviews, reading the file, etc);
the results of the ICRP’s follow-up investigations into whether the Society’s investigations with respect to bruising on E.’s leg and the concern of inappropriate clothing, were thoroughly done;
the ICRP’s findings or conclusions on the areas that were “explored” at the ICRP, which the Applicant felt were previously not thoroughly investigated. Those areas include L.N.’s investigation of allegations against the Applicant (alcohol abuse, conflict with the mother), and whether Ms. L.N. refused to accept video-taped “evidence” of the children being subjected to abuse.
7The panel ordered that the Society provide its written summary within 10 days of the issuance of its decision. Any objection by the Applicant regarding compliance by the Society with the terms of the order was to be brought within 10 days, after receipt of the summary. The file would be closed if the Board did not hear from the Applicant on the compliance issue by February 26, 2010.
8The Society was subsequently given an extension on the time for compliance, and on March 4, 2010, pursuant to the Board’s order, the Society sent a letter to the Applicant, copied to the Board.
9The Applicant was given an extension of time for raising any objections he might have regarding the Society’s compliance with the Board’s order. On March 29, 2010, the Applicant sent a letter to the Board with concerns about the Society’s letter of March 4, 2010.
10On April 15, 2010, the Society responded to Mr. S.B.’s letter of March 29, 2010 and submitted that it fully complied with the Board’s order.
11At this stage in the proceedings, the only issue to be addressed is whether the Society complied with the Board’s order.
ANALYSIS
12In his letter of March 25, the Applicant does not describe how he feels the Society’s letter of March 4, 2010 fails to comply with the Board’s order. Rather, the Applicant expresses concern that the Board’s decision “did not address many significant issues brought forward” at the January 13th Hearing. His letter then makes specific reference to areas that were discussed at the Hearing. As noted above, the only issue to be considered at this stage in the Board’s proceedings is whether the Society complied with the Board’s order. The Board will not consider further submissions and comments regarding the subject matter of the complaint, with which it has already dealt.
13The second part of the March 25, 2010 letter refers to “each response given” and includes paragraphs numbered 1 to 5. A careful review of the Applicant’s points in this section, however, reveals that he continues to disagree with the way the Society dealt with his complaint, but does not allege the Society failed to comply with the Board’s order.
14The Society submits that it has fully complied with the order.
15The first point of the Board’s order was that the ICRP written summary should include the steps it took as a result of the meeting (i.e. further investigations, interviews, reading the file, etc). The March 4, 2010 letter signed by S.M., Service Director and ICRP panel member, includes a list of those steps at page 3, paragraph 1.
16The second point ordered was that the written summary should include the results of the ICRP’s follow-up investigations into whether the Society’s investigations were thoroughly done, specifically with respect to bruising on E.’s leg and the concern of inappropriate clothing. The March 4, 2010 letter clearly states the ICRP’s finding in this regard, at page 3 paragraph 2. The letter outlines that the ICRP members reviewed the file, interviewed Ms. A., and relied on the day care’s interpretation of events.
17The third point ordered was that the written summary should include the ICRP’s findings or conclusions on the areas that were “explored” at the ICRP, which the Applicant felt were previously not thoroughly investigated. Those areas include L.N.’s investigation of allegations against the Applicant (alcohol abuse, conflict with the mother), and whether Ms.L. N. refused to accept video-taped “evidence” of the children being subjected to abuse. The March 4, 2010 letter addresses those areas, briefly but adequately (page 3 paragraphs 3, 4 and 5).
DECISION
18The Board has carefully considered the Applicant’s letter of March 25, the Society’s letter of March 4, 2010 and its reply of April 15, 2010, and its own order of February 5, 2010. It finds that the Society has complied with the Board’s order, in that the March 4, 2010 letter includes a summary of the ICRP meeting, a description of steps taken by the ICRP panel as a result of the meeting, and the ICRP’s conclusions following its investigations.
19The Board appreciates that Mr. S.B. continues to have concerns with respect to the Society’s involvement with his family. However, the Society has complied with its obligations pursuant to the Board’s order, and the Board’s jurisdiction has come to an end.
20The Board’s file with respect to the application of S.B. under section 68 of the Child and Family Services Act is now closed.
Heather Gibbs
Presiding Member
John Gates
Board Member
Lorna King
Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario this 28th day of April, 2010.