J.M. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2010 CFSRB 31

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

J.M. v. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

REASONS FOR DECISION ON MERITS

Date: July 7, 2010

Citation: 2010 CFSRB 31

Indexed as: J.M. v. Catholic CAS of Toronto (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1On February 3, 2010, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from J.M1. (the “Applicant”) regarding a complaint against the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of the Toronto (the “Society”) pursuant to sections 68.1(4) 4 and 68.1(4) 5 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11 (the “Act”).

2The application was determined to be eligible on February 10, 2010 pursuant to subsections 68.1(4) 4 and 68.1(4) 5 of the Act. The Society delivered a summary reply to the Board on February 16, 2010, in which it took the position that the Board cannot hear the merits of this application because the facts asserted and issues raised are currently before the Court.

3The Board held a hearing to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to proceed with the merits on May 20, 2010. The Board, for the reasons that follow, found that it could hear the merits of the application. The hearing on the merits of the application was held on May 20, 2010 and June 3, 2010 in Toronto, Ontario.

4For the reasons that follow, the Board upholds certain of the Applicant’s complaints and dismisses others, as set out below.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicant, a registered nurse, is the mother of five children, L.F., born May […], 1988, T.G1., born June […], 1993, T.L.G., born November […], 1995, T.G2., born September […], 1997, and J.M2., born June […], 2009.

6The Society had some previous involvement with this family, which ended in 2005. The Society’s most recent involvement with the Applicant began in February 2009, while she was pregnant with her son, J.M2.. The Society became involved after the Society was contacted by a social worker at [Hospital] – [ ] who was concerned about the Applicant’s ambivalence and level of anxiety and distress about her pregnancy.

7The Society remained involved with this family and apprehended J.M2. shortly after birth. A child protection application was brought by the Society and J.M2. was placed in the temporary care of his father on June […], 2009. The child is now placed in the care of the Applicant on a temporary basis, with access to the father.

8The issues in this application include those listed in the pre-hearing report dated March 10, 2010, except number 1 which was clarified at the hearing on jurisdiction. The Society consented to an amendment with respect to this issue.

9The issues for the Board’s consideration follow:

10Whether the Society failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard as required by s.2 (2) (a) of the Act and failed to provide her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests relating to the Society’s involvement with her and her son from February 2009 to February 2010. Specifically that the Society had not:

1. Heard her when she requested support prior to the apprehension of her child.

2. Heard her concerns regarding the health and safety of her son in the care of his father; these concerns include the number of people picking up her son and dropping him off and babysitting him while in his father’s care; skin rashes on her son’s body, prolonged constipation and not being properly dressed.

3. Heard her concerns regarding the biased treatment she received and the Society’s failure to take her strengths into account and the efforts she has made to comply with the Society’s demands.

4. Heard her concerns about her family services worker, S.N..

5. Heard her concerns regarding the need for information about her son while he was in his father’s care, such as immunization reports and the formula his father was giving him and ongoing information about him.

11The Society in its Summary Reply took the position that all of the issues were or will be before the court and as such were not within the purview of the Board.

JURISDICTION

12Under subsections 68.1(4) 4 and 68.1(4) 5 of the Act the Board can review the following matters:

68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a)

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

Section 2(2)(a) of the Act sets out the following requirements which the Society has to comply with:

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.

The Board’s ability to review issues raised in an Application is limited by section 68.1(8)(a) of the Act which reads:

68.1(8) The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,

(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court;

13At the jurisdiction hearing, the Society conceded that Issues 1, 3, 4 and 5 and two aspects of Issue 2: concerns about the baby’s prolonged constipation and how the baby was dressed during the winter were not before the Court and as such were properly before the Board. The Applicant also conceded that the court has addressed the issue with respect to the drop-off and pickup of her son, including the number of people who were responsible for this, which is set out in Issue 2.

14Therefore, the Board only had to determine whether the Board had the authority to review the merits of the following aspect of Issue 2.

Whether, during the period from February 2009 to June 2010, the Society failed to hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the health and safety of her son in the care of his father; namely skin rashes on her son’s body and the removal of the baby’s clothing at the coffee shop.

15The Society relied on the information contained in affidavits which have been filed with the Court in the child protection proceeding which is currently before the Court to support its position that the Board does not have jurisdiction to hear this complaint. The Society stated that the issue of the rash on the Applicant’s son’s skin was raised in paragraph 5 of the affidavit of S.N., sworn July […], 2009. The Society further noted that the Applicant also brought this to the attention of the Court in paragraphs 6 and 7 of her affidavit sworn July […], 2009. The Society also pointed to paragraphs 19 and 20 of the affidavit of S.N., sworn December […], 2009, wherein the issue of the removal of the child’s clothing was raised. Nowhere in the court documents provided is the response of the worker to these concerns addressed.

16The Applicant argued that the issues were not before the Court during the period which she complained about, and as such the Board should hear this complaint.

17The Board, for the reasons which follow, found that it has jurisdiction to review this complaint. The Board’s mandate under the Act is to address an applicant’s rights and interests when the Society delivers services or makes decisions. The Court, not the Board, has the statutory mandate to make substantive child protection, custody and access decisions.

18Pursuant to sections 68 and 68.1of the Act, the Board must ensure that the Society is meeting its statutory obligations with respect to the services it provides. Under sub-paragraphs 4 and 5 of section 68.1(4) of the Act, the Board has to ensure that the Society listened to parents and provided them with reasons for decisions which affect their lives and those of their children, as required. This involves an examination of the process used and the level of communication.

19Some of the facts that appear in Court Applications and applications before the Board are similar. Information that is contained in an Affidavit that is filed with the Court is not necessarily an issue that will or must be determined by the Court. Some of the process, service- based issues that fall within the Board’s mandate may in some circumstances, be decided by the Court. The Board has previously determined that only where the Court has been specifically asked to address the issue or has made a determination of the issue does the Board lose jurisdiction. The Act contemplates that a service complaint and substantive child welfare proceedings could proceed simultaneously in separate forums.

20In this situation the Applicant is alleging that the Society did not listen to her or provide her with reasons for decisions taken when she raised concerns about the safety of her son while in his father’s care, specifically skin rashes on her son’s body and the removal of the baby’s clothing at the coffee shop. The issue, which is currently before the Court, is whether this child is in need of protection and if so, what type of order is necessary to protect the child in the future.

21While the same facts may be relevant to both determinations, the question for the decision-makers (the issue) is different. The Court is not making a determination about the service provided by the Society when the Applicant raised her concerns. Under subsections 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 the Board has oversight over Society service delivery involving communications with parents. The Applicant has the right under the Act to raise her concerns with the Society, to expect that the Society will listen, investigate her concerns accordingly, advise her of the outcome of the investigation and provide her with the reasons for any decisions taken. The Board’s mandate is to determine if these rights were respected.

22The Board found that while facts relating to the subject matter of this complaint were referenced in affidavits which are filed in Court, the subject matter of this complaint is not an issue that has been decided by or is before the Court. Therefore, sub-paragraph (8)(a) of section 68.1 of the Act does not bar the Board from hearing this complaint and the Board can proceed to hear the merits of this complaint.

23The Board proceeded to hear the merits of the application.

MERITS

24The Board now has to determine whether the Society failed to give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard as required by s.2(2)(a) of the Act and failed to provide her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests relating to the Society’s involvement with her and her son from February 2009 to February 2010 with respect to the following:

1. The Society had not heard her when she requested support prior to the apprehension of her child.

25The Applicant testified that she became ambivalent about her pregnancy after she and the baby’s father separated when she was approximately four months pregnant. After speaking with a worker at [Hospital], she believed that she could receive the support she needed from the Society. The Society workers met with her and she advised that she was receiving counseling from her Employee Assistance Program (EAP). The Applicant stated that she also had a worker from Reconnect Mental Health and received telephone counseling during her pregnancy.

26S.N., a Society family services worker, gave evidence that after meeting with the Applicant the Society contacted [Crisis Response Team] to connect the Applicant with a crisis worker. [Crisis Response Team] indicated that they could not accept the referral because they believed that the Applicant needed psychiatric intervention, which they could not offer. Further the Society contacted [Hospital] site in an attempt to arrange for the Applicant to meet with a psychiatrist. The Applicant made arrangements to meet with a psychiatrist there, but did not keep the appointment although S.N. had attended at the Applicant’s home to take her there.

27The Applicant, prior to J.M2.’s birth, had changing plans and told the Society that she wanted to terminate the pregnancy, then wanted to have the baby adopted and finally that she wanted to keep her baby but wanted a friend, Ms. C.C., to care for the child for approximately two months until she felt better. The Applicant attested that the Society told her that they would look at the placement of her child with her friend Ms. C.C. but first they would have to interview Ms. C.C. to assess the plan. It was only closer to her delivery that the Society informed her that they had to first look at any plan by the father to care for the child before looking at Ms. C.C.. At the child’s birth the Society was no longer considering Ms. C.C.’s plan.

28S.N.’s evidence was that the Society contacted Ms. C.C. and was looking at her plan but that the Society also had a legal obligation to consider first any plan put forth by the father. This was confirmed by C.S., who testified that during a meeting with the Applicant on May […], 2009, the Applicant was advised that the Society would consider both the kinship plan and the plan of the father before placement. Therefore the Society was looking at both plans concurrently. The Society contacted Ms. C.C. and was considering the kin placement with her. S.N. testified that approximately one month before J.M2.’s birth the Society advised the Applicant about the plan, and requirement, to consider a placement with the father. At the time of J.M2.’s birth the Society had not completed investigating the father’s plan therefore the child was apprehended. However, by the time the matter was before the Court the Society was supporting a temporary placement with the father.

29It appears that the Applicant was distressed by the breakup of her relationship with J.M2.’s father during pregnancy. She believed that the Society would provide her with some support during what was obviously a difficult time for her. As her delivery date drew near, she expected that the Society would not apprehend her son but would support her by placing the child with Ms. C.C. for a brief period of time under a kinship care arrangement.

30The evidence before the Board suggests that the Society did listen to the Applicant’s request for community supports. The Society provided and ensured that the community supports were in place for the Applicant prior to her delivery. The worker met with the Applicant, contacted the hospital and [Crisis Response Team] to provide additional supports, kept in touch with the supports the Applicant already had in place and even made plans to attend the psychiatrist’s office with the Applicant. Further, the Society listened to the Applicant when she requested that her baby be placed with Ms. C.C. under a kinship arrangement. The Society contacted Ms. C.C. and looked at the possibility of placing the child with her. In the end, the child was not placed with Ms. C.C. because the father had put forward a plan, which the Society was obligated to consider, and eventually they supported his plan.

31The plan supported by the Society may not have been what the Applicant wanted, but there is no evidence before the Board to suggest that the Society did not hear her when she requested support prior to the delivery of her son. As such the Board finds that the Society has met its obligations as set out in section 2(2)(a) of the Act.

2. The Society had not heard her concerns regarding the health and safety of her son in the care of his father; these concerns include skin rashes on her son’s body, prolonged constipation and not being properly dressed – the removal of his clothing at the coffee shop and not wearing an appropriate jacket in the winter.

a. Skin rash

32The Applicant stated that she had noticed skin rashes over various parts of J.M2.’s body, which she reported on many occasions to the Society, and felt her concerns were ignored. Her concerns with the rash, that started on his face and eventually extended to his neck and groin area, were that J.M2. was allergic to the detergent which the father was using and that the child was not taken to a doctor for treatment. The Applicant became more concerned when she received a note from the doctor which said that his skin was “abnormal”.

33S.N.’s evidence is that she took a health specialist with her when the Applicant raised her concern about the heat rash on J.M2.’s torso. She stated that any information she received about this from either the father, or the health specialist or physicians was conveyed to the Applicant.

34C.G., a Registered Nurse, who is employed as a Health Specialist with the Society, and is responsible for seeing infants less than six-months in age in their home and provides support, education and referrals, first became involved with the family when J.M2. was in the care of his father. She saw J.M2. on five occasions and did notice that initially there was a pin-point rash on J.M2.’s torso, which she took to be a heat rash. At the time she felt that the father was doing everything to deal with this rash. After meeting with the Applicant who raised concerns about the detergent, Ms. G.H. spoke to the babysitter who advised that she was washing all of J.M2.’s clothing by hand using Ivory. She stated that she also saw some redness around J.M2.’s rectum, which looked like the start of a heat rash, which was resolved by the time the she saw him on July […], 2010. Ms. G.H. further stated that although she was not aware that the physician had indicated that J.M2.’s skin was abnormal, she stated that the physician did not make any additional comments about the skin, therefore it would not have been brought to her attention.

35The Board finds that the Society did listen to the Applicant and took her concerns about the rash on her son’s body seriously. Initially the Society felt that the father was treating the rash appropriately, but as the Applicant’s concerns increased, the Society requested that the father take J.M2. to a physician. The father did take J.M2. to see a doctor, but it is unfortunate that it took some time before this was conveyed to the Applicant. An earlier response may have helped to alleviate the Applicant’s concern. Further, having a diagnosis of “skin abnormal” by a physician and seeing no further action by the Society did not ease the Applicant’s worry. The Society should have followed up with the physician to determine what his diagnosis meant and if any further treatment would be required. Further, this information would then have to be communicated to both the father and the Applicant. In failing to complete these final steps, the Society did not meet its obligation as required by section 2(2)(a) of the Act.

b. Constipation

36The Applicant further testified that she was concerned that her son was constipated and that the father was not doing anything to alleviate this problem and she felt the Society ignored her concern. She first observed this problem on July […], 2009 and received a doctor’s note dated July […], 2009, from the Society in August, 2009.

37Ms. G.H. confirmed that the Applicant’s brought this concern to her attention on July […], 2010, when the Applicant reported that J.M2. did not have a bowel movement during an access visit. When Ms. G.H. contacted the father he had indicated that the child had a bowel movement after a visit with the doctor, and that J.M2. had bowel movements regularly. This information was conveyed to the Applicant. The Applicant raised this issue again with Ms. G.H., who explained normal infant bowel patterns to the Applicant and provided her with written material on this topic.

38The Board finds that in this instance the Society heard the Applicant’s concern as required by section 2(2)(a) of the Act. The Society obtained information from the father, ensured that J.M2. was seen by a physician and provided this information to the Applicant. The Society also educated the Applicant on normal infant bowel patterns.

c. Removal of clothing

39The Applicant stated that in October 2009 during a drop-off/pick-up at a Tim Horton’s she observed that the babysitter had taken off all of J.M2.’s clothing. The Applicant contacted the Society to express her concern that this was not appropriate for a young infant. She stated that S.N. advised her that this was probably being done because the father wanted to change him out of the clothing provided by the Applicant and also wanted to check for any skin rashes to ensure that he was not later blamed for them.

40S.N. testified that the Society discussed this concern with the father the day after the Applicant raised it and he said that he would not do it again. Ms. S.N. stated that she contacted the Applicant to advise her of this.

41The Board accepts the testimony of Ms. S.N. and finds that the Society did hear the Applicant’s concern as required by section 2(2)(a) of the Act.

d. Inappropriate jacket for weather

42It was the Applicant’s evidence that in February 2010, J.M2. returned from a visit with his father wearing a golf shirt, jeans and a non-insulated spring jacket. She called the Society to report her concern about J.M2.’s inappropriate dress for the winter. S.N.’s spoke with the father and S.N. advised the Applicant that the father indicated that the Applicant had sent J.M2. in that jacket.

43S.N. recalls that she contacted the father after the Applicant brought this concern to her attention on February […], 2010. The father responded that the Applicant had sent the child without a winter jacket and she advised the Applicant of the father’s response. She recalled that the Applicant became angry and accused her of taking the father’s side. This conversation was terminated by Ms. S.N. when several requests that the Applicant contain her emotions were ignored. Ms. S.N. stated that her intent was not to point fingers at the Applicant but simply to report what the father had stated.

44The Board finds that the Society met its obligation to ensure that the Applicant was heard as required by the Act. The Society reported her concerns to the father and communicated his response to the Applicant. The Applicant may have been upset by the father’s response, and may have felt that she was being blamed, however, the Society was acting as a conduit of information between parties who were prohibited from speaking to each other.

3. The Society had not heard her concerns regarding the biased treatment she received and the Society’s failure to take her strengths into account and the efforts she has made to comply with the Society’s demands.

45Ms. J.M1. testified that she believed that the Society was biased and was being more supportive of the child’s father than her. She gave as an example the fact that on the day that J.M2. was born she asked S.N. if she could breastfeed. She was told that she could not. Mr. O.S., also confirmed this in his testimony. Ms. J.M1. was told that she would have to get a note from her doctor indicating that it was okay for her to breastfeed. She stated that she obtained a note from her doctor, which confirmed that she could breast feed, and took it to the Society’s office during a supervised visit at the Society’s office. She commenced breast feeding and was then told by S.N. and C.S. that she would have to stop because they needed to first speak to the doctor and the child’s father. The Applicant testified that she even pumped and stored the breast milk but this option was also rejected by the Society.

46Ms. G.H.’s evidence was that she was consulted about the Applicant breast-feeding J.M2. and they discussed the logistics of providing the breast milk and ensuring that it was safe. Ms. G.H. was aware that a doctor had stated that the Applicant could breastfeed. On August […], 2009 she spoke to the Applicant about pumping to re-establish and maintain her breast milk. However, because J.M2. was in his father’s care and he was not open to the Applicant providing breast milk, Ms. G.H. felt that iron fortified formula would be the next best thing.

47Ms. J.M1. also testified that the worker kept requiring that she get a psychiatric assessment although none of her health care providers believed that it was necessary. Neither Dr. V., a psychiatrist who saw her twice, nor Dr. C. nor her counselor from her EAP believed that it was necessary for her to have a psychiatric assessment. The Society acknowledged that it was the parental conflict, which kept them involved, and not this consideration.

48The Applicant also believed that the Society was always supportive of the father because in January, 2010 after J.M2. was hospitalized for a four-day period, which included the weekend he was scheduled to spend with his father, S.N. seemed most concerned about making up the father’s missed weekend. The Applicant testified that she felt that the Society did not believe that the baby was really sick and needed to be hospitalized because S.N. kept repeating that J.M2. looked well and did not have a rash. The Applicant acknowledged that S.N. never expressed any concerns about her parenting.

49However, the Society discussed all of the above issues and concerns with the Applicant and recognized the steps the Applicant took by engaging in counseling and taking courses. On a balance of probability the Board finds the Society did hear these concerns as required by section 2 (2)(a). Further, the Society provided the Applicant with reasons for its decision to not permit her to breast-feed.

4. The Society had not heard her concerns about her family services worker, S.N..

50The Applicant’s evidence is that on many occasions she raised concerns about S.N. with the Society and that nothing was done about it. She said she met with C.S., S.N.’s supervisor, in June 2009. At that time she asked for a new worker and after some discussion with him, decided to think about it and let him know if she still wanted a change. She did not advise him of this again, however C.S. testified that he was aware that the Applicant subsequently raised this issue with another supervisor, while he was on vacation. However, he did not contact the Applicant to follow up on this information. The Applicant states that it was only after she filed this application to the Board that the Society met with her and agreed to have another worker be responsible for her file.

51The Board is concerned that C.S., as S.N.’s supervisor, did not follow-up with the Applicant’s later request for a change in worker. Further, Mr. C.S., who has many files in his caseload, stated that he had no independent recollection of his interactions with the Applicant. This is surprising, given that the Applicant was calling the Society’s office almost daily and one would expect that this file would not only be discussed regularly with the worker, S.N., but that it would be easy to recall. The Board found Mr. C.S.’s casual attitude and apparent indifference while giving his testimony to be concerning.

52It therefore comes as no surprise that the Applicant was left feeling that she was not heard when she raised her concerns to the Society about the worker S.N.. The Board is not suggesting that a worker should be changed just because a parent requests it. The Society has an obligation when parents raise concerns to listen to them, which requires looking into the situation, speaking with the worker and the parent, and communicating its findings to parents, otherwise parents are left feeling that their concerns were ignored. It took a complaint to this Board before the Society took some steps to alleviate the Applicant’s concerns. Appropriate earlier communication with the Applicant may have alleviated her concern that the Society was not listening to her.

53The Board finds that in this instance the Society did not comply with the requirements of section 2(2)(a) of the Act, and failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for either its inaction or its decision not to change workers, as required.

5. The Society had not heard her concerns regarding the need for information about her son while he was in his father’s care, such as immunization reports and the formula his father was giving him and ongoing information about him.

a. Communication log

54The Applicant testified that during the period when her son was in the care of his father she wanted to be kept informed of his daily routine and schedules, so that when he was with her she could ensure that they were consistent. There was a restraining order in place which prohibited the father and the Applicant from contacting each other. Therefore she could not obtain this information directly from him. The Applicant therefore requested that the Society obtain this information. A communication log was introduced, but by July the book was not being sent to the Applicant. She said that she raised this concern with S.N., who told her that the father had stated that he was too busy to complete the book. The problem continued and the Applicant believes that the Society ignored her concerns about this, although she raised it with them continuously.

55S.N. testified that although she responded to the Applicant’s messages on a timely basis and tried to keep the Applicant informed about her son’s schedules and routines, she agreed with the Applicant when she suggested that a communication log be used. The father was very resistant to completing the communication log although she discussed this with him on many occasions. She cautioned him that she would have to bring this issue to the Court’s attention if he did not comply with the Society’s request. When the father continued to ignore her requests, the Society took the matter to Court where the judge made an order requiring the father to complete the log.

56The Board finds that the Society did listen to the Applicant when she raised concerns about the communication log. The Society did raise the concern with the father and set out expectations in this regard. Further the Society cautioned the father and then took this concern to the Court when he did not comply. It is totally understandable that a mother, whose young infant is not in her care, would be anxious to receive ongoing information about her child. The time period (from June 2009, when the concern was first raised, to August […], 2009, when it was dealt with by the Court), would seem excessive for a mother whose son was apprehended at birth. However, the Society did hear and make attempts to resolve this concern when the Applicant raised it.

b. Immunization reports

57The Applicant gave evidence that after her son was returned to her care, she requested that the Society obtain and provide her with J.M2.’s immunization records. She testified that she received a record that did not have J.M2.’s name on it. Therefore she requested that the Society obtain the appropriate record. The Applicant did not receive anything for sometime and she finally got a letter from the doctor confirming which shots J.M2. had been given. She also asked for the information which the Society obtained from the hospital regarding his birth, but did not receive this until November 2009.

58S.N.’s evidence was that when the Applicant requested this information from the Society, she contacted the father who provided the birth certificate and record of live birth within a week of the request. She also asked the father to provide the proper immunization card with J.M2.’s name on it. The father provided a copy of a letter from the physician to the Society, which was then given to the Applicant.

59The Board finds that the Society did hear the Applicant’s concern and acted in a timely fashion. The Society does not have any control over when the father would provide the information requested. The Society met its obligations when it requested the information and forwarded what it had in its possession to the Applicant.

c. Formula

60The Applicant also raised a concern about the formula which the father was giving to J.M2.. Her concern was that the iron fortified formula which J.M2. was fed was causing him to be constipated. The Applicant was using formula that was not iron fortified and she recalled that S.N. came to her home and told her that she should use iron fortified formula.

61However, Ms. G.H. felt that it was best for J.M2. to have this formula because iron was important for J.M2.’s development. The Board reviewed a physician’s note that stated that iron in the formula causes constipation. The Applicant believed that her concern was supported by the physician and therefore should be followed. However, the Board is not here to decide if the Society’s decision was correct. In this instance the Society clearly heard the Applicant’s concern as required by section 2(2)(a) of the Act, and consulted the health specialist on the issue before making a decision. The reasons for arriving at that decision was also explained to the Applicant.

CONCLUSION

62The Board finds that the Society did meet its obligations as required by section 2(2)(a) of the Act for some of the allegations raised by the Applicant. Specifically the Society met its obligations to hear the Applicant in the following instances:

Issue 1 - her request for support prior to the apprehension of J.M2.;

Issue 2 b - J.M2. being constipated while in his father’s care;

Issue 2 c - the removal of J.M2.’s clothing in a coffee shop;

Issue 2d - J.M2. dressed inappropriately for winter;

Issue 3 - recognizing and acknowledging the Applicant’s efforts to have J.M2. returned to her care;

Issue 5a - obtaining a communication log;

Issue 5b - obtaining J.M2. immunization record; and

Issue 5c - the use of iron fortified formula.

63The Board finds that the Society did not hear the Applicant as required by section 2(2)(a) of the Act in the following instances:

Issue 2 a - the skin rash over J.M2.’s body while in his father’s care; and

Issue 4 - the request for a change in worker.

64In those situations where the Board finds the Society did not meet the 2(2)(a) obligations, the primary failure was in communications. The Society was responsive to the Applicant’s concerns but sometimes failed to advise the Applicant as to what was done about her concerns. Without this information the Applicant was left feeling that her concerns were being ignored by the Society, which only served to increase her frustration with the Society. Communication, as stated before, is the key component of hearing a parent’s concern, and in some instances in this case there was a failure to communicate.

65The Board finds that the Society gave the Applicant reasons for decisions which affected her interests in the following instance:

Issue 3 - not permitting her to breast-feed;

Issue 5 c - the use of iron-fortified formula.

66The Board finds that the Society failed to provide the Applicant with reasons in the following instance:

Issue 4 - the decision to not change workers.

67The remedies available under the Act are the following:

s.68.1(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.

68At this time none of the available remedies can address the situations where the Society failed to comply with section 2(2)(a) of the Act. The Applicant has heard over the course of the hearing the steps taken by the Society when she raised her concerns. As such the Applicant is now aware of the reasons for decisions made by the Society. It is unfortunate that this may not have been communicated in a timely fashion by the Society to reassure a mother who did not have her newborn baby in her care. The Board would recommend that the Society review how its staff communicates with parents when they have concerns.

69Of note, the Board found S.N. to be forthright in giving her testimony and found her evidence to be credible. She was respectful to the Applicant and had a clear recollection of most of her interactions with her. Her testimony was of great assistance to the Board in arriving at this decision.

Denyse Diaz Presiding Member

Alina Lazor Board Member

Lorna King Board Member