CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
C.M.
v.
CAS of Northumberland
REASONS FOR DECISION
WRITTEN REVIEW
Date: January 5, 2010
Citation: 2010 CFSRB 4
Indexed as: C.M. v. CAS of Northumberland (CFSA s.68)
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the "Board") received an application from C.M. (the "Applicant") on November [...], 2009 regarding a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Northumberland (the "Society") pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C11 (the "Act").
2The Board has determined that an oral hearing is not required in this case as the Board has sufficient information before it to make its decision based on the written material filed. The issue for the Board is whether it has jurisdiction to hear the application.
3On December 7, 2009, the Board determined that the Applicant's application was eligible to proceed to the next stage of the Board's process: the receipt of the Society's summary reply. The application was found eligible under section 68.1 (4) 4 which relates to the Applicant's right to be heard by the Society and section 68. 1(4) 5 which relates to Applicant's right to be given reasons for decisions that affect her interests.
4The complaints as set out by the Applicant can be summarized as follows:
The Society has refused to permit visits with her daughter, N., despite N.'s request for a visit in October 2009 and has not given reasons.
The Society has not kept her informed of all matters concerning her daughters.
The Society is refusing to make her daughters aware of their rights.
The Society is refusing phone access without reasons.
The Society has not ensured that her daughters received counselling.
The Society has withheld the Applicant's letters from her daughters.
The Society has breached federal laws in terms of their conduct to her and care of her daughters when in the court documents they have only accused her of having a messy house.
She has asked the court to move her daughters closer to her so that she can see them and they can get counselling.
5The Board received the Society's summary reply to the application on December 14, 2009. The Society also provided copies of two Court orders dated March [...], 2006, a Notice of Motion for leave to commence a status review filed by the Applicant dated February [...], 2009 and the supporting affidavit sworn December [...], 2008. They also provided a copy of the Society's affidavit in response to the motion, sworn May [...], 2009.
6The Society's position is that the subjects of the Applicant's complaints are issues that have been decided by or are before the courts. The Society relies on section 68. 1 (8) (a) of the Act which provides that:
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.
7Based on its review of the application, the Society's summary reply and the court documents, the Board has determined that it has no jurisdiction to hear the application. The reasons for these decisions follow.
BACKGROUND
8The Applicant is the mother of two girls, N. who is now 16 and D. who is currently 14 years of age. The children were apprehended in November of 2004. On consent, the children were made crown wards on March [...], 2006. The court orders for each child provide:
Access to the child by her mother, M.C.A.K.; frequency, location, supervision and additional access at the discretion of the Society, with input from the girls and any other relevant service provider.
9Since the court order, difficulties have arisen with access. The mother moved to northern Ontario when she re-married. The children live in foster homes and have special learning needs. The Applicant feels that the Society is responsible for withholding access and information. The Applicant alleges that her children are not receiving counselling which they require.
10The Applicant brought a motion, originally returnable on May [...], 2009, for leave to commence a status review application regarding her daughters. The motion asks for leave on the basis set out in the supporting affidavit. In the supporting affidavit, sworn December [...], 2008, the Applicant asks for:
..leave to commence a Status Review proceeding on the issues of the children's placement, my access and perhaps a change in jurisdiction to allow for consistency in visitation, a fresh perspective from a new worker and any other relief available to me to help my daughters.
11The Affidavit details the difficulties with access, the Applicant's concern that her children are not obtaining counselling, her concern that her children are not apprised of their rights and her concerns about communications with her worker. The Affidavit also addresses the issue of withheld gifts, letters and information. In its Affidavit in response, the Society addresses the issues of access, contact with the Applicant and counselling.
ANALYSIS
12The Board has no jurisdiction to hear complaints if they involve matters that are before the Court or have been decided by the Court.
13With respect to complaint numbered 7, the reasons for taking the children into care including the allegations against the Applicant about her having a messy house, as contained in court documents, were the subject of the child protection proceedings and form the basis for the consent order. This complaint has been decided by the court. A court must satisfy itself that a child is in need of protection and that the Applicant has notice of the proceeding and reasons for the orders sought, prior to entertaining even an order on consent.
14The Applicant's remaining complaints are all linked to the issues of access or contact with the Applicant (including letter, gift and information sharing) or relate to counselling. These are all matters that the Applicant has specifically raised and asked the Court to address in her motion for leave to commence a status review. The subject of the issues raised by the Applicant with the Court, while worded slightly differently, mirror the subject matter of the complaint filed with the Board by the Applicant. The Applicant has chosen the Court and made a request in that forum and as such, the Board cannot hear these complaints.
CONCLUSION
15The Board has no jurisdiction to hear this application.
Sheena Scott
Board Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 5th day of January, 2010.