CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
J.K. and Mr. K
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton
REASONS FOR DECISION
Indexed as: J.K. and Mr. K v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1J.K. (“the child Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on April 26, 2011 under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (the “Act”). She is complaining about the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (the “Society”). The child Applicant was assisted in her complaint by the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth (“Child Advocate”). She was represented at the hearing by counsel appointed by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.
2[Mr. former adoptive parents] on behalf of the child’s former adoptive parents, (“[former adoptive parents]”), filed a related application with the Child and Family Services Review Board on June 1, 2011 under s.68.1 of the Act. He also complains about the services received from the Society.
3The application of the child Applicant and of the [former adoptive parents] were eligible for review pursuant to s. 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Act.
4On June 10, 2011, on consent of all parties, the Board determined that both applications would be heard together. The child Applicant and [Mr. former adoptive parents] are referred to jointly as “the Applicants” or “both Applicants”.
5At the hearing, the following issues were discussed and apply to both complaints. The child Applicant and the [former adoptive parents] allege:
i) that the concerns of the child Applicant about her removal from her placement have not been heard and the Society has failed to provide her with reasons for decisions made in this regard;
ii) that the concerns of the child Applicant that the Society should have worked to avoid the placement breakdown have not been heard and she has not been provided with reasons for decisions made in this regard;
iii) That the concerns of both Applicants have not been heard regarding the fact that the Society reneged on its verbal agreement to place and support the child Applicant in her former foster home in May 2010;
iv) that both Applicants were not given reasons for the Society’s decision to renege on its verbal agreement to return the child Applicant to her former adoptive home, the [former adoptive parents], if the placement in her former foster home did not succeed, and that the concerns of both Applicants in this regard have not been heard.
6As the child Applicant is a member of the First Nations, notice of this hearing was provided to the child Applicant’s band ([band]).
7The hearing was held on July 20, 2011 in [City A] and August 4, 2011 in [City B]. Both Applicants testified, as did the former foster parents [ ]. The Society’s witnesses were T.F. (adoption worker) and K.S. (crown ward worker).
8The issue for the Board on the merits is whether or not the Society complied with its obligations under Sections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Act. The Board must determine if the Society gave both Applicants an opportunity to be heard when each raised their respective concerns about the services provided by the Society. The Board must also determine if the Society provided both Applicants with reasons for decisions that affected their respective interests.
9For the reasons that follow, the Board has determined that the Society failed to provide the child Applicant with the requisite opportunities to be heard regarding her removal and her requests to return to the [former foster parent] home. The Board has also determined that the Society failed to provide the child Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected her.
10For the reasons that follow, the Board has also determined that the Society failed to provide the [former adoptive parents] with the requisite opportunities to be heard regarding the Society’s failure to return the child Applicant to their home when it determined that the child’s kin placement with the [former foster parents] was unsuccessful and that the Society failed to provide the [former adoptive parents] with reasons for decisions that affected them.
Preliminary Ruling
11Prior to the commencement of the hearing, the Board heard objections to the presence of the child Applicant’s biological mother. She arrived with the band representative for [band]. By Order of Justice Mazza, granted January […], 2004, the child Applicant, [ ], was made a crown ward with no access to either of her biological parents. That Order remains current. The Board determined that the biological mother was not to participate or be present at the hearing.
12On August 4, 2011, the biological mother attended at the Board office seeking to file an affidavit and be added as a party to these proceedings. The Board met with and advised her of the previous determination that she was not to participate or be present at the hearing.
Background
13The child Applicant, [ ], was born on February […], 1999. In 2004, she was made a crown ward with no access to either of her biological parents. She is a member of [band]. In May 2006 [the child Applicant] was placed on adoption probation with [the former adoptive parents], where she remained on adoption probation until July 2010.
14On May […], 2010, the [former adoptive parents] attended a meeting at the Society with the [former foster parents] and the child Applicant was present. They proposed to the Society that [the child Applicant] could benefit from a long-term kinship placement with the [former foster parents] where she had lived for 5 years in foster care immediately prior to her adoption placement with them. The [former adoptive parents] had maintained a visiting relationship between [the child Applicant] and the [former foster parents] following her adoption placement with them because, from [the child Applicant’s] perspective, the [former foster parents] were “the closest thing to a family (she) ever had”. This was [the child Applicant’s] express wish at the May 2010 meeting at the Society. Dr. S.R. had been working with [the child Applicant] and the [former adoptive parents] for an extended period. She had identified [the child Applicant’s] attachment issues and supported this proposal.
15The [former adoptive parents] made the proposal because they were concerned whether the child Applicant remaining in their home was the best long-term plan for her. They stated clearly at the May […] meeting that, if the placement with the [former foster parents] did not work out, they wanted [the child Applicant] returned to them so they could finalize her adoption. They did not want her “back in the system”.
16The [former adoptive parents] understood that their proposal had been accepted by the Society. The Society did not express to them any reservations or concerns about the proposal, either at the meeting or subsequently.
17The Society adoption worker, [ ], facilitated a pre-planned vacation placement for the child Applicant with the [former foster parents] starting July […], 2010. She contracted with [ ] Children’s Aid Society to complete “place of safety” approval and for a kinship home study to be completed.
18In August 2010, [the adoption worker] directed the [former foster parents] to set up a goodbye visit for [the child Applicant] with the [former adoptive parents]. [The child Applicant] and the [former foster parents] spent the weekend visiting at the [former adoptive parents’] home in [City C] and packed [the child Applicant’s] belongings into a U-Haul truck. Both Applicants and the [former foster parents] assumed that [the child Applicant’s] long-term kin placement with the [former foster parents] was proceeding as planned.
19Mr. [former foster parent] testified that the placement was going well and that he and his wife had cooperated with [ ] CAS. He described being designated twice by [ ] CAS as a “place of safety” for the child Applicant, [ ]. They were asked and agreed to participate in the required PRIDE training although they believed, having been specialized foster parents for ten years, that they would not have to do the full training. [The adoption worker] confirmed that they were told there were options for completion but the Society did not follow through. There were visits by the Society and [ ] CAS between August and December, 2010. On December […], the [former foster parents] signed various documents/consents with [the adoption worker]. She approved them for a third time as a “place of safety” for [the child Applicant].
20On December […], 2010 the child Applicant [ ] was removed from the [former foster parents’] home following a complaint. [ ] CAS investigated the complaint. On January […], 2011 [ ] CAS advised the [former foster parents] (and the Respondent Society) that they had not verified risk of likely harm to this child, that no further protection concerns were identified during the course of their investigation, and that their file would be closed.
21Mr. [former foster parent] testified that no one has explained to him why the child Applicant was removed from their home on December […] or why she has not been returned to their care. They were told only that they are not registered foster parents.
22The child Applicant’s evidence regarding her removal from the [former foster parents’] home was that no one has ever explained to her why she was removed on December […] or why she has not been allowed to return to live there. She attended a meeting in February, 2011 at the Society, but said she was “asked to leave”. This fact was confirmed by her Child Advocate (J.P.).
23The [former adoptive parents] both testified that no one has provided them with an explanation or reason for [the child Applicant’s] removal apart from telling them that the [former foster parents] were not a “registered” foster home. The [former adoptive parents] would not have let [the child Applicant’s] placement with the [former foster parents] proceed in the first place had they been aware of the Society’s reservations and the registration issues. Further, no one has ever explained to them why the child Applicant was not returned to their care after December […], 2010 so they could finalize her adoption.
24The child Applicant remains in a foster home in [City A], where she was placed on December […], 2010.
ANALYSIS
25The Board considered the following legislative provisions in the Act in reaching its decision on the merits of the Application:
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);
- Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
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.
26The Board must determine if both Applicants were heard by the Society and whether they received explanations relating to the concerns they raised with the Society. As indicated above, the Board has found in favour of the child Applicant and the [former adoptive parents], for the reasons that follow.
Issue # 1 That the concerns of the child Applicant about her removal from her placement have not been heard and the Society has failed to provide her with reasons for decisions made in this regard.
27The Society held a meeting of their Placement and Planning Review Committee (PPRC) on February […], 2011 to address the child Applicant’s concerns. The meeting included [the child Applicant], her Child Advocate ([ ]) and Society staff. The Society submitted that the child Applicant thereby had the opportunity to be heard and represented, and further, that it had provided her with reasons for their decisions that affected her interests. Following that meeting the Society sent a letter to [the Child Advocate] (February […], 2011) with their reasons for refusing to return [the child Applicant] to the [former foster parents] home. The letter stated that consideration would be given to whether or not the [former foster parents] may participate in a visiting relationship with the child if [the former foster parents] are open to working with the Society.
28In the letter of February […], 2011 and in evidence at the hearing, the Society’s reasons were essentially: i) that [the former foster parents] were not cooperative with efforts to complete the kinship home study; ii) that the [former foster parents] were unwilling to sign the necessary consent forms to assess factors relating to Mrs. [former foster parent’s] emotional and psychological stability, their marital functioning and their capacity to work cooperatively with the Society to facilitate [the child Applicant’s] long-term care; and, iii) limited insight exhibited by [the former foster parents] into concerns regarding their openness to participating in the home study process required as potential caregivers for [the child Applicant].
29The Society acknowledged there were no immediate issues regarding the child Applicant’s safety being at risk. However the Society stated that it had significant concerns about the [the former foster parents’] ability to provide her with a stable, long-term placement.
30The Crown ward worker (K.S.) testified that the reason the child Applicant was removed from the [former foster parents] home was that they would not cooperate or follow through with the home study requirements by [ ] CAS (telephone calls were not returned and the [former foster parents] refused to participate in certain sections of the mandatory “safe assessment forms”). This witness had no personal information and knew of no specific incidents of non-compliance or other problems. She had recently assumed responsibility for the child Applicant from the adoption worker, [ ]. Relying on reports from [ ] CAS, [the Crown ward worker] testified that the [former foster parents] took a long time to initiate police checks, refused to complete Ministry required Questionnaires, failed to complete the PRIDE training which was part of the home study requirement, and refused to consent to release medical information.
31[The Crown ward worker] removed the child Applicant from her placement with the [former foster parents] on December […], 2010. She admittedly has not provided the child or the [former foster parents] with the reason for [the child Applicant’s] removal or with the reason why [the child Applicant] has not been permitted to return to their care.
32[The Crown ward worker] was not aware of any concerns about the [former foster parents] prior to December […], 2010 and had no evidence of problems in the child’s placement. The child’s removal from their home was the direct result of a telephone complaint to the Society from one of the [former foster parents’] former employers, T.O., on December […], 2011 reporting allegations made to him by someone else. B.B., an adoption supervisor at the Society, contacted [ ] CAS who investigated the complaint. [ ] CAS sent a letter to the [former foster parents] on January […], 2011 confirming that the complaint had been investigated and the allegations were not verified.
33[The Crown ward worker] acknowledged that the “place of safety” designation was extended on December […], 2011 and the Society was intending to complete the kinship home study on the [former foster parents]. Between December […] and December […], 2011, there were no incidents or reports except the unsubstantiated telephone allegations on December […]. There were no written complaints and no written references from the [former foster parents’] former employers. Prior to the complaint there was no apparent reason or risk which would have supported the child Applicant’s removal from her placement with the [former foster parents].
34[The Crown ward worker] testified that she did not know who made the decision on December […], 2010that the child Applicant was to be permanently removed from her placement with the [former foster parents] and placed in a [City A] CAS home. It was not this witness or her direct supervisor. She believed it was another supervisor in Children’s Services, E.D., and/or B.B..
35[The Crown ward worker] acknowledged that, on December […], 2010, the Society extended the “place of safety” designation and was ready to proceed with the [former foster parents] home study. Then the allegation came up on December […] and she removed the child on December […]. The home study was never completed.
36[The Crown ward worker] confirmed that the child Applicant has told her clearly and repeatedly that she wishes to return to the care of the [former foster parents].
37[The] adoption worker with the Society, testified that she became both Applicants’ adoption worker in 2006 and remained their worker until December, 2010.
38In May 2010 [the adoption worker] engaged [ ] CAS to complete the kin placement home study. By September […], 2010, the home study request had still not been processed by [ ] CAS. There were documented difficulties and ongoing frustration between the two Societies such that, in early November of 2010, the Society internally decided that they would manage financial issues with the [former foster parents] who had been caring for the child Applicant since July […] without compensation. On December […], 2010 the Society cancelled the inter-agency agreement with [ ] CAS with the express intention of completing the home study internally.
39[The adoption worker] confirmed that the [former foster parents] were led to believe they had three options to complete the required PRIDE training: DVD and self-study at home; 1 full day meeting with agency staff on a day off or 10 evening meetings at CAS office; or one-to-one information sharing and complete the Questionnaires with the home study worker. On October […] the Society determined that the [ ] CAS [ ] Team Resource Worker was to review the PRIDE alternatives with the [former foster parents]. It was never made clear to the [former foster parents] which option was acceptable and no-one followed through with them.
40[The adoption worker] saw the child Applicant at the [former foster parents’] home three times between July […] and December […], 2010. Each time she observed that the child appeared relaxed and comfortable. The private adoption worker (B.S.) also saw the child Applicant in the home and her observations were similar. There were no discussions with the child about other placement options or the possibility that she might be moved.
41[The adoption worker] acknowledged that the [former foster parents] completed and signed all consents to release information presented by her. They cooperated with the household requirements and information for three “place of safety” designations and they provided all information in a timely fashion. The [former foster parents] completed the firearms agreement and the oath of confidentiality with no difficulty. All reference requests were completed and authorized by the [former foster parents]. Police checks were completed and were clear.
42The [former foster parents’] failure to fully complete the Ministry questionnaires was due to Mrs. [former foster parent’s] concern about the intrusiveness of some of the questions (e.g. past sexual history), but [the adoption worker] took no steps to address her concerns.
43[The adoption worker] acknowledged that, by her December […] home visit, the [former foster parents] were in full compliance and the worker had no concerns when the Society decided to take over the kinship assessment.
44On December […], 2010 the Society decided to remove the child Applicant from the [former foster parents’] home. Neither [the Crown ward worker] nor [the adoption worker] were part of that decision. [The adoption worker] believes that her supervisor, B.B., received the telephone complaint and that an acting supervisor for the Society, E.D., gave the instruction to [ ] CAS on December […] to remove the child [Applicant]. E.D. wrote in his case note dated December […] “We want her ([the child Applicant]) out of there”. [The adoption worker] was on vacation at the time. She had no role in the [ ] CAS investigation into the complaint and could not speak to the process of decision making at the time. [The adoption worker] attended a meeting on February […], 2011 to look at permanent planning for the child Applicant but she did not ask and did not know the results of the [ ] CAS investigation.
45[The Crown ward worker] testified that on December […] she placed the child Applicant in the foster home in [City A] so she would be closer to her brother, who is in a foster home in [City D], and to her worker. She acknowledged that the child Applicant’s relationship with this sibling has been quite troubled and they have not seen each other in some time.
46Neither of the Society witnesses ([the Crown ward worker]/[the adoption worker]) has met with or explained to the child Applicant the reason for her removal or why she has not been permitted to return to the [former foster parents’] care. There were no meetings about this issue with her prior to or after her removal by any Society representative. She was asked to leave the February […], 2011 meeting. The reasons given in the letter of February […], 2011 to her Child Advocate (see paragraph 28) were not borne out by the Society’s evidence at the hearing. This is concerning. However, it is not the Board’s role to assess the validity of the reasons for the removal of the child Applicant from the [former foster parents’] home as explained in the February […], 2011 letter, but rather to assess whether the child Applicant was given meaningful reasons, such that she could understand what happened and why. Reasons given two months after the fact in a letter are not reflective of the child [Applicant] having been heard or given meaningful reasons. At the time the decision on removal was made, the child [Applicant] was not consulted and thus was not heard. No one explained to her what was happening or why. The child Applicant was left in an informational vacuum at the relevant time. At a subsequent meeting, she was asked to leave, thus limiting her opportunity to be heard. The Board concludes that the Society failed to meet its service obligations to the child under the Act.
Issue #2 That the concerns of the child Applicant that the Society should have worked to avoid the placement breakdown have not been heard and she has not been provided with reasons for decisions made in this regard.
47When compared with the evidence of both Applicants and the [former foster parents], the Society’s evidence is inconsistent. It is clear on the evidence that the child Applicant had no idea her placement with the [former foster parents] was in jeopardy until after she was removed. She was questioned by [ ] CAS and the Society about the allegations as part of their investigation, but otherwise there were no attempts by the Society to address these issues with her. The child Applicant testified about her repeated requests to return to the [former foster parents]. To the date of the hearing she still did not understand why she had not been returned to their home.
48There was an acknowledged problem between the Society and [ ] CAS, and unquestionably there were breakdowns in communication. The Society has not provided the child Applicant with a satisfactory explanation for her removal or their failure to return her to the [former foster parents’] home after the investigation. The complaint which precipitated her removal from her placement was investigated and not validated. There were no written reports submitted in evidence regarding the complaint. The child Applicant was questioned following her removal and she did not verify the complaint. The [former foster parents’] family doctor provided a letter confirming that Mrs. [former foster parent] was in good health and capable of caring for the child Applicant.
49There is no evidence that the child Applicant’s concerns that the Society should have worked to avoid the foster care breakdown have been heard. For example, there was no evidence of any meetings or discussions with the child proximate to the removal at which she was given options or asked for her view. Further, the Board finds that the child Applicant has not been provided with reasons for the Society’s decisions about her placement. Again, there was no forum put in place to provide the child Applicant with information leading up to or following her removal. The Society witnesses were either uninformed or appeared to avoid responding to questions about the real reason for the child’s removal which suggests that the Society was looking for an opportunity to remove the child Applicant from her placement and had no intention of ever returning her. Their reasons remain unexplained. One reasonable inference is that the child’s placement in [City A] is more convenient for the worker even though it is directly contrary to the child Applicant’s wishes. The inconsistency in the Society’s evidence supports the Board’s findings about the Society’s failure to hear the child Applicant or provide her with reasons. The Society itself had no clear, consistent rationalized path or plan. This was reflected in the complete breakdown of communication with the child who had no say in her placement and no idea why she could not return to the [former foster parents]. The Society failed to meet its obligations under section 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 of the Act to the child Applicant regarding issue number two (2).
Issue # 3 That the concerns of both Applicants have not been heard regarding the fact that the Society reneged on its verbal agreement to place and support the child Applicant in her former foster home in May 2010;
50This issue for the child Applicant has been dealt with under issues 1 and 2.
Regarding the [former adoptive parents’] complaints on this issue, Mr. [former adoptive parent] testified that they thought they had a verbal agreement on the plan proposed. Mr. [former adoptive parent] testified that he asked why the child Applicant was moved from the [former foster parents] and the only explanation he got was that they were not a registered foster home. This answer did not satisfy him and raised questions about why this important information had not been shared with them from the start. For him, the reasons for the removal were not clear. He then lost confidence in the Society’s answers. Mr. [former adoptive parent] testified that he disagreed with the position of the society that the [former foster parents] were not complying with what was asked from them.
51Ms. [former adoptive parent], Mr. [former adoptive parent’s] wife testified that they did not hear back from the society on how the placement was progressing. They were not told that the [former foster parents] were not registered and that they would have to go through a new registration process. The [former adoptive parents] assumed the [former foster parents] were a foster home. Ms. [former adoptive parent] testified that the society did not discuss or offer other options on how to address the issue of having the [former foster parents’] home registered. They would have liked to be informed in advance of the impact of this administrative requirement on the chance of success of the plan.
52The Board concludes from the evidence that the [former adoptive parents] were not involved in the transition to place the child Applicant permanently with the [former foster parents]. They were not informed of the situation. They had been the prospective adoptive family of the child Applicant for 4 years and they had come forward to the society to find a solution in her best interest. No evidence was offered to establish that the society had ended the placement for adoption of the child Applicant with them. They were entitled to be heard and to be provided with reasons for the society’s decision about the progress of the child Applicant’s placement with the [former foster parents]. The society failed to meet its obligations to the [former adoptive parents] under the Act.
Issue #4 That both Applicants were not given reasons for the Society’s decision to renege on its verbal agreement to return the child Applicant to her former adoptive home, the [former adoptive parents], if the placement in her former foster home did not succeed, and that the concerns of both Applicants in this regard have not been heard.
53The Board has identified issue four from the evidence and submissions at the hearing.
54The [former adoptive parents] were the child Applicant’s adoptive parents from 2006 until 2010. T.F. was their adoption worker from the Society.
55[The adoption worker’s] evidence regarding the meeting on May […], 2010 at the Society office was that the [former adoptive parents] wanted to discuss whether it was the best long term plan for [the child Applicant] to remain in their home. They proposed that the child Applicant be placed with the [former foster parents] in a kinship placement. The worker testified that she agreed to discuss it with her supervisor as they had to determine whether it was a viable option, whether the [former foster parents] were willing, and whether [ ] CAS would provide the necessary training.
56[The adoption worker] acknowledged that, during that meeting, the [former adoptive parents] clarified twice that they wanted the child Applicant to be returned to their care if the placement with the [former foster parents] did not succeed and they would finalize the adoption. [The adoption worker] testified that she did not stop to assess whether [the child Applicant’s] return to the [former adoptive parents’] home would be appropriate. She told the [former adoptive parents] that the Society was gathering information and she needed to discuss it with her supervisor.
57[The adoption worker] met with her supervisor on May […]. The witness acknowledged in her evidence that, in fact, they had already made the decision that the child Applicant would not be returning to the [former adoptive parents’] home. [The adoption worker] wrote in her case notes of May […] meeting with her supervisor - “We won’t tell the [former adoptive parents] now but we won’t return [the child Applicant].” Her stated reason for not telling them was that the Society “did not want anyone not working hard on the placement at the [former foster parents] and they (the [former adoptive parents]) might have said ‘We want her to stay here and not move at all’.” The [former adoptive parents] testified that it would have been exactly their concern had they been given this information in the first place.
58[The adoption worker] acknowledged that she never told the [former adoptive parents] of the Society’s decision not to return [the child Applicant] to their care, nor did she advise them of the Society’s pessimistic view of the placement plan with the [former foster parents].
59[The adoption worker] has had no contact with the [former adoptive parents] since before [the child Applicant’s] removal from the [former foster parents] home on December […], 2010. She has never given them any explanation or reason for the Society’s decision not to return the child to their care.
60On December […], 2010 [the adoption worker] wrote to the [former adoptive parents] in response to their letter expressing a continued desire to be part of the child Applicant’s life. Her letter states that they are important people to the child and advises them that carriage of the child’s file was being transferred to crown ward worker, K.S.. She states “I have let [the Crown ward worker] know about your long standing role in the children’s lives and of your stated desire to continue to play a role in their lives.” She recommends that they contact [the Crown ward worker] to discuss and develop a plan as to the frequency and timing of their contacts, telephone calls etc. with the child.
61[The Crown ward worker] has had no contact with the [former adoptive parents] and has provided them with no explanation for the Society’s failure to return the child to the [former foster parents].
62Ms. T.F. did not otherwise communicate with the [former adoptive parents]. At no time did she advise them that they no longer had any status in the child Applicant’s life. At no time did she advise them that the Society would not return the child to their care. The [former adoptive parents] were never made aware of the decisions taken by the Society not to return the child Applicant to their care. In fact, this decision was deliberately withheld from them. Similarly, they were never provided with reasons for the decision not to return the child Applicant to their care. Implicit in the Society’s obligation to give reasons for decisions that affect one’s interests is the obligation to advise an affected party about the decisions in question. The Applicants were kept in the dark about the decision and the explanation for it. The Society clearly did not meet its obligations to the [former adoptive parents] under section 68.1(4) 5 of the Act. The [former adoptive parents] had expressed a clear desire to have the child [Applicant] returned to them should the placement with the [former foster parents] break down. Their concerns in this regard were not heard because the Society, although it invited contact with respect to their ongoing role, had made a peremptory decision without further consulting them and had not followed up with worker contact. Therefore, the Society did not hear the Applicants’ concerns as required by section 68.1(4) 4 of the Act.
Conclusion
63In the Board’s view, the Society failed in their responsibility to communicate with the child Applicant and the [former adoptive parents] to hear their concerns, and to provide them with complete explanations for those decisions, as required by the Act.
64The Society’s key failure was their lack of honesty in their dealings with the child Applicant and the [former adoptive parents] to their great detriment, specifically:
i) The Society did not disclose, at any time, their reservations about the Applicants’ proposed plan for [the child Applicant’s] long-term placement with the [former foster parents];
ii) Despite having made the decision in May 2010, the Society knowingly ignored the [former adoptive parents’] request for [the child Applicant’s] return to their care if the [former foster parents] placement was unsuccessful and they failed to tell the [former adoptive parents] that they would never be considered as a future placement for [the child Applicant] because they perceived that the [former adoptive parents] would not have let the [former foster parents] placement proceed if they had known that fact;
iii) The Society failed to advise the [former adoptive parents] that the [former foster parents] were not a “registered’ foster home”. Had the [former adoptive parents] known of the lengthy approval process and the possibility that the [former foster parents] may not have been approved, there is a strong possibility that another placement for the child Applicant could have been avoided and her adoption would have been finalized;
iv) The Society had an obligation to state that the [former adoptive parents’] adoption placement had broken down if that were the case, and they failed to do so.
65The importance of the Society’s obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 is to help ensure informed and consultative decision making as well as accountability to those affected like the child Applicant and the [former adoptive parents]. Had the Society consulted with the child Applicant and the [former adoptive parents], alternatives, solutions and child-focussed outcomes could have been canvassed and the outcome of the child Applicant’s placement may have been a different one, more consonant with her views and wishes. The question of risk, which was ultimately removed from the equation, does not negate the Society’s obligations.
66After hearing the evidence presented by the parties the Board recommends that the Society undertake a serious reconsideration of their long-term plan for the child Applicant including a proper assessment of the two most important families in her life as long term placement options for her. In order to comply with its obligations under the Act, this must be done with participation from the child Applicant and the [former adoptive parents]. Therefore, it is further recommended that all parties to this application be brought together in order to properly inform a decision in the child’s best interests.
67During final submissions the Society acknowledged that the [former adoptive parents] should have been sent a letter advising them officially that their status as adoptive parents had changed, and they should have been notified when the child Applicant’s placement with the [former foster parents] “broke down”. There was otherwise no acknowledgement by the Society of the need to further explain or provide reasons.
DECISION
68For the reasons stated above the Board finds that the Society failed to comply with its obligations under clause 2(2) of the Act with respect to the child Applicant’s concerns and did not provide her with reasons for decisions it made affecting her interests.
69Accordingly, under s.68.1(7)(d) of the Act, the Board orders the Society to provide the child Applicant with a meaningful written explanation within 14 days of the date of the Board’s decision, in a form that the child can understand and appreciate, for her removal from the [former foster parents’] home and why she was not returned to their care after the investigation was completed and the allegations against the [former foster parents] were determined to be unsubstantiated. Further, the Society is to give the child Applicant written reasons for their decision not to return her to the [former adoptive parents] as originally requested by them if the [former foster parents] were determined to be unsuitable as a long-term placement for her. The Applicant [former adoptive parents] and the Child Advocate should be copied on the Society’s correspondence to the child Applicant.
70For the reasons stated above, this Board finds that the Society failed to comply with its obligations under clause 2(2) of the Act with respect to the Applicant [former adoptive parents] family’s concerns and did not provide them with reasons for decisions it made affecting their interests.
71Accordingly, under s.68.1(7)(d) of the Act, the Board orders the Society to provide the Applicant [former adoptive parents] with a meaningful written explanation within 14 days of the date of the Board’s decision, for [the child Applicant’s] removal from the [former foster parents’] home and why they were not considered as the child’s long-term placement once the Society had determined that the [former foster parents] home was not suitable for the child.
Suzanne Gilbert
Presiding Member
Michele O’Connor
Panel Member
John F. Spekkens
Panel Member
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 4th day of October, 2011