K.R. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society, 2012 CFSRB 17

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

K.R.

v.

DURHAM CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: May 16, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 17

Indexed as: K.R. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society

(CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1On January 19, 2012, the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from K.R. (the “Applicant”) regarding a complaint against the Durham Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to sections 68.1(4) 4 and 68.1(4) 5 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”).

2The application was determined to be eligible on January 25, 2012 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 January 30, 2012, in which it took the position that the Board cannot hear the merits of this application because 1) the Applicant’s complaint does not provide any indication that there are issues about which he has not been given an opportunity to be heard, or any allegation that the Society has failed to provide him with reasons for a decision; 2) there is currently a Child Protection Application before the Court to be heard in May, 2012. The Society sought dismissal of the application.

3The Board held a hearing to determine whether it had the jurisdiction to proceed with the merits on April 3, 2012. 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 April 3 and 4, 2012 in Oshawa, 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 is the father of [two boys, “the boys”]. [The boys] have three half-siblings on their mother’s side; [ ]. All five children are currently in the care of the Society. [The boys] are placed together in a foster home. An Application by the Society for Crown Wardship with access, for [the boys], is currently before the Court.

6[The children] were apprehended by the Society in January, 2010 because their mother was concerned about her inability to manage the boys’ behaviour. She was concerned about the safety of the boys, her other children and family members, and herself, following their visit with the Applicant at Christmas time, 2010.

7Prior to their apprehension, the children were placed in their mother’s care with access to the Applicant under a Supervision Order. The Applicant, who lives in [city], Ontario, had access to [the children], who visited him for several weeks during the summer and at other times. Following the children’s apprehension, the Applicant, under a Court Order dated March [ ], 2011, was granted supervised access at the Society’s discretion.

8The issues in this application include those listed in a Pre-hearing report dated March 6, 2012. The issues for the Board’s consideration follow.

• 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 him with reasons for decisions that affected his interests relating to the Society’s involvement with his sons.

• Specifically, that the Society had not heard his service concerns or heard him when decisions were made and has not provided him with reasons for decisions that affected his interest related to access and the placement and care of his children regarding the following:

1The qualifications and responsibilities of Society workers who are not registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers,

2The Society ignored his right as a joint-custodial parent to be informed and considered in least intrusive measures of care options for his children, as opposed to foster care,

3The Society left him out of decisions related to medical care and treatment related to his children,

4The Society is not allowing reasonable access for himself and his extended family members and generally not communicating about this and other issues related to his parenting style and the needs of his children,

5The Society has prohibited his children from having access to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer and the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth,

6The Society is not listening to the children’s concerns related to personal property, their expressed wishes related to their father and their input related to their individual Plans of Care.

9The Society in its Summary Reply took the position that the Board cannot hear the merits of this application because there is currently a Child Protection Application before the Court. The Society sought dismissal of the complaint.

PRELIMINARY MATTERS

Non-legal representation

10At the start of the hearing the Applicant’s support person, [ ], sought permission of the Board to act as the Applicant’s non-legal representative. Previous documents filed by the applicant indicated that [representative] would attend at the hearing as his support person. [The representative] indicated that although he was not a licensed attorney, he understood the law. Further he was aware of the Board’s processes because he had appeared before the Board with respect to an application that he had filed.

11The Society opposed this request. The Society argued [the representative] was not a licensed lawyer or paralegal so he would be prohibited from engaging in the practice of law in Ontario. Further as [the representative] was listed as one of the Applicant’s witnesses, the Society argued that it would be a conflict because an individual could not be a witness and a representative in the same proceeding. The Society also argued that it would cause undue delay if [the representative] acted as a representative for the applicant. The Society stated that it was concerned that [the representative’s] role was to be a part of [a group] and that the details from this proceeding would be disclosed or published on social media.

12The Board routinely allows representatives for parties. The issue is whether the Board will allow a person who is neither a licensed lawyer nor paralegal to act as a representative for a party appearing before it.

13The Law Society of Upper Canada generally prohibits representation by non-licensed individuals. However, By Law 4, s.30(1)5 permits non-legal representation by an individual:

i. whose profession or occupation is not and does not include the provision of legal services or the practice of law,

ii. who provides the legal services only for and on behalf of a friend, or a neighbour,

iii. who provides the legal services in respect of not more than three matters per year, and

iv. who does not expect and does not receive compensation, including fee, gain, or reward, direct or indirect, for the provision of the legal services.

14[The representative], when questioned under oath by the Board, stated that he was doing this as a friend of the applicant and as a volunteer of [the group], that he had never acted as a non-legal representative in any other proceeding, and that he was not being compensated in any way for so acting.

15The Board, relied on the LSUC’s by-law, and permitted [the representative] to act as a non-legal representative before it. The Board explained to the parties that the Board’s hearings are private and not open to the public. The Board also ordered that parties and their representatives must not use, share or disclose information provided or used in this application with anyone including the media or through the internet.

Recording of Proceedings

16The Applicant sought permission to tape record the proceedings for the sole purpose of supplementing his own personal notes. To support his request he relied on section 136 (2) of the Court of Justice Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C.43, s. 1 1996, c. 25, s. 1 (22) which reads:

136(2) Nothing in subsection (1),

(a) Prohibits a person from unobtrusively making handwritten notes or sketches at a court or;

(b) Prohibits a lawyer, a party acting in person or a journalist from unobtrusively making a recording at a court hearing, in the manner that has been approved by the judge, for the purpose of supplementing or replacing handwritten notes.

17The Society opposed this request on the basis that the parties were advised by the Board that a court reporter would have to be retained by the party seeking to tape the proceedings. As the Society was not seeking to have the proceedings recorded, then the Applicant would need to hire a court reporter.

18The Board agreed with the Society’s position. The applicant, on March 19, 2012 had previously made the request to the Board to tape record the proceeding. On March 20, 2012, Suzanne Gilbert, Associate Chair of the Board, by way of letter, advised that the Board’s policy is to prohibit parties from recording hearings unless the parties hire a professional court reporter at their own costs to do so. The applicant, although wishing to tape the proceedings planned to do so using his own equipment and did not hire a court reporter as advised. The manner in which the applicant wanted to record the proceeding is not approved by the Board, only the use of a court reporter is. Therefore, the applicant’s request was denied.

JURISDICTION

19The Society challenged the Board’s jurisdiction to review the application on the grounds that the matter is before the Court. The Society argued that there is a concurrent court application which deals with the issues in the application and that the Board should not conduct a review if the matter is before the Court. The Society pointed to the fact that an Exit Pre-Trial of the Society’s protection application is scheduled for May [ ], 2012 and that barring a settlement on that date the matter would be proceeding to Trial. The Society’s stated concern was that there would be a duplication of the proceedings as the issues for determination before the Board and the issues for determination before the Court are the same, that is, the best interests of the applicant’s children.

20The Society further advised that if the Board found that it had jurisdiction to proceed, that instead of going through an extensive hearing it was prepared to consent to any order that could be made under section 68.1(7) of the Act. Specifically, the Society would give the applicant the opportunity to have the Society’s Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) hear his six complaints. In the alternative, it would provide written reasons for decisions it made after the applicant meets with the Society to go through his complaints.

21The applicant took the position that the issues before the Court and the Board are different. The Applicant argued that the Board has the authority to deal with services requested of or rendered by the Society. The issues as identified in the pre-hearing report are related to these service concerns and are not before the Court.

22The Board did not accept the Society’s argument and determined that it had jurisdiction to hear the merits of the Applicant’s complaints.

23Under 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;

24The Court of Appeal in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. D.D. 2011 ONCA 441 has given some guidance with respect to what it means to be before the Court. In paragraph 42 of its decision the Court stated:

42The court and the CFSRB are concerned with different issues. The court, of course, is engaged in a determination of the best interests of D.D.’s children in terms of where they should live in the long term. The CFSRB, in this instance, is concerned with whether the CAS is carrying out its statutory mandate in terms of its dealings with D.D. in the short term, while matters are pending before the court.

25In the ongoing child welfare proceeding, the Court has to make a determination of what action is in the best interests of the applicant’s children, that is, should they be returned the care of either of their parents or should they become Crown Wards. The Board has to determine whether the Society met its statutory obligations under section 2(2) (a) of the Act and also provided the Applicant with reasons for decisions which affected his interests related to the six complaints.

26However, if the court had made a determination about a service related concern the Board would have no role. The Court of Appeal at paragraph 11 also found that the Board in D.D. v Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2009 CFSRB 46 had accurately described its role in situations where a service related issue was dealt with by the Court when it said at paragraph 35,

There may be instances in which a Court has decided an issue that might involve Society process if the Court has made a finding in this regard, it has decided the matter and that decision is binding. There would be no point in the Board examining an issue that has been finally determined, even if it was a matter more typically dealt with by the Board.

27There was no evidence before the Board to indicate that the Court had made a determination on any of the service related concerns raised by the applicant. Therefore the Board found that since the court did not make a decision with respect to any of the applicant’s complaints before the Board, the Board has jurisdiction to review the merits.

28For these reasons the Board found that it had jurisdiction to proceed to hear the merits of the application.

29The Board was scheduled to hear the application and the Society had objected to its jurisdiction. This was not a mediation (settlement facilitation), which is part of the Board’s pre-hearing process. The Board did not accept the Society’s suggestion that it consent to any order that could be made under section 68.1(7). The applicant, if he wanted, could have decided to make his complaint to the Society under section 68 of the Act and may have had the opportunity to access the ICRP. The applicant chose to bring his complaint directly to the Board. Further, to order the Society to provide written reasons for decisions that affected the applicant’s interests without first considering if the Society complied with its obligations under s. 2(2) a and hearing specifically what decisions the Society made which affected his interests would produce an unfair result and deprive the applicant of his opportunity to a fair airing of his complaints.

30The Board proceeded to hear the merits of the application.

MERITS

31The 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 him with reasons for decisions that affected his interests relating to the Society’s involvement with him and his sons with respect to the identified issues.

32To be heard means that a person has a chance to tell his side of the story in a respectful context where the Society listens openly. The right to be heard exists for parents and children to permit them meaningful participation in the process to ensure that their perspective will be considered and taken into consideration when determining next steps. It is to give them an opportunity to have some degree of influence on decisions that affect their interest. This can only be achieved through genuine communication.

33The right to reasons is the right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. The right to reasons exists so that Applicants are informed about the decisions made by the Society that impact on their lives. Often these decisions lead to impacts that are serious and always involve the best interests of children. Being informed serves two purposes: it permits the Applicant to understand what is happening and why, and permits the Applicant to be an active participant with some degree of influence on outcomes and processes.

34At the Hearing the Applicant withdrew his complaints regarding the following:

The Society is not allowing reasonable access for himself and his extended family members and generally not communicating about this and other issues related to his parenting style and the needs of his children.

The Society has prohibited his children from having access to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

35The Board will address each of the remaining issues under their respective headings:

The qualifications and responsibilities of Society workers who are not registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers (the “College”).

36The Board finds in the Applicant’s favour with respect to this issue.

37The Applicant, in his testimony, submitted that [ ], Ongoing Service Worker, had identified herself as a social worker in an affidavit to the Court dated January [ ], 2010. The Applicant investigated the matter with the College and was informed that [the ongoing service worker] was not registered with the College.

38The Applicant submitted that he raised his concern regarding this matter with the Society in November 2011, as well as with the Court in December, 2011. After initially raising the concern with the Society he was told by [the ongoing service worker] that she was an authorized Child Protection Worker and that it was not necessary for her to be a Registered Social Worker. The Applicant submitted that he was concerned that an unregistered worker was recommending programmes for his children, including counseling, and was involved in decisions regarding medication. He believed that only a Social Worker recognized by law was entitled to do so. The Applicant refused to have anything further to do with [the ongoing service worker].

39In her testimony [the ongoing service worker] submitted that she made a telephone call to the Applicant in November, 2011 and also left a telephone message clarifying the situation. Further, a letter regarding the matter was sent from the Society to the Applicant’s Counsel, [ ] on December 7, 2011. [The ongoing service worker] testified that subsequently the situation with the Applicant deteriorated, with the Applicant yelling and making threats to her and eventually refusing to work with her. [The ongoing service worker] also admitted that she has never corrected the January [ ], 2010 affidavit which had erroneously described her as a Social Worker.

40The evidence before the Board indicates that the Society did listen to some extent to the Applicant’s complaint that [the ongoing service worker] was not a Registered Social Worker. His concerns were noted and were addressed by [the ongoing service worker] in a telephone message and in a letter to his lawyer, [the Applicant’s Counsel].

41However, the Board is of the view that the Society’s approach to the concerns was not fully responsive and thus did not allow for meaningful understanding and thus meaningful participation in the process. The evidence was that the Applicant still did not have a full understanding of the situation regarding the qualifications and responsibilities of Society workers who are not registered with the College. He did not fully understand that it was not mandatory that a Child Protection Worker be registered as a Social Worker in order to fulfill that role and responsibility. Further, the Society did not address the Applicant’s concern that [the ongoing service worker] had been inaccurate in her Affidavit.

42The Board notes that there were serious implications of the Applicant’s not appreciating that the Ongoing Service Worker did not have to be a Social Worker and of the Society`s decision that [the ongoing service worker] would remain the worker on the file. One result was that the Applicant refused to work with [the ongoing service worker].

43The Board finds that the Society did not fully hear or address the Applicant’s concerns. It did not appreciate the reasons for his concerns regarding the qualifications of the worker who was influencing the care of his children related to counseling and medication. It did not address those concerns or provide a detailed and complete explanation to him regarding the qualifications and responsibilities of Society workers who are not registered with the College. It also did not ensure that [the ongoing service worker] corrected the erroneous information in her Affidavit.

44Accordingly, the Board directs the Society to provide a written explanation to the Applicant regarding the qualifications and responsibilities of Society workers who are not registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, and to explain why [the ongoing service worker] continued to be the Ongoing Service Worker for the family.

The Society ignored his right as a joint-custodial parent to be informed and considered in least intrusive measures of care options for his children, as opposed to foster care.

45The Board finds in the Applicant’s favour regarding the issue of his being informed and the provision of reasons relating to less intrusive care options.

46The Applicant testified that [the children] were apprehended from their mother’s care in January, 2010, based on their mother’s statement. The Applicant was not directly contacted by the Society with regard to the apprehension although the Society did serve Court documents to his lawyer. He was not provided with an opportunity to be considered as a placement for the boys. He stated that, in response to his question to the Society as to why the children were not placed with him, he was not given an answer. [The ongoing service worker] stated only that he had “some issues”.

47The Applicant testified that twenty (20) months later he was given reasons. He was told that he required a CPIC Check and a Vulnerable Sector Check, which he pursued. He noted that [another society] completed a home study to determine the possibility of future placement of the children with him. It also indicated that it would supervise the children if they were placed in the [city] area.

48[The ongoing service worker] testified that at the time of apprehension there was a Supervision Order in place which allowed for access by the boys’ father. When the children were apprehended following a visit with their father, they were speaking of killings, making bombs, harming their mother, siblings, and other family members. The Society made the decision to place the children in care, with their mother’s consent. Although the Applicant was informed of the apprehension of his children through Court documents, the Society did not directly contact him to explain what was happening.

49[The ongoing service worker] testified that the Society could not place the children with the Applicant as he was the source of concern and filed an amended Application with the Court to reflect this. Court documents were drafted, the Applicant was served, and he had the opportunity to respond in Court. The result of the Court Hearing was that the children were placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society.

50[The ongoing service worker] testified that she generally communicated with the Applicant by e-mail or telephone calls. In this case, the relationship between her and the Applicant had broken down as he was refusing to speak with her. Sometimes he would communicate through his lawyer.

51Counsel for the Society submitted that the Society did later consider placement with the Applicant. At the request of the Society a home assessment was conducted by [other society] to determine if the applicant’s plan to have his children placed with him was feasible. Inquiries were also made regarding the transfer of the children’s placement to a location in [city]. As a result the applicant had access to the children for ongoing periods of time. [The other society] then advised the Society that it had ongoing concerns about the applicant’s continued failure to provide the requested CPIC and vulnerable sector check, as well as his financial stability since he did not provide proof of his income. Moreover, the Society had ongoing protection concerns related to the Applicant’s lack of follow-through, his giving of inappropriate gifts, and the nature of his communication with the children. The Society was no longer supportive of placing the children with the Applicant.

52As noted above, s. 2 (2) a of the Act states that children and their parents have an opportunity to be heard, when appropriate, when decisions affecting their interests are made.

53The Board recognizes that the apprehension of [the children] was related to concerns regarding the Applicant, and that there may have been some question of providing the Applicant with an explanation at the time of the apprehension. Nonetheless, given that the Society is a service provider for both children and their parents, there was a need for the Society to have communicated directly with the Applicant to explain the reasons for its decision as he was affected by that decision. Prior to the Court date, the Applicant did not know what was happening to his children and was given no reason for the Society’s decision to apprehend the children and not to consider him for placement.

54The Board finds that the Society should have communicated with the Applicant personally, prior to the Court date, regarding the apprehension of his children, and provided him with reasons for their apprehension. Further, the Society should have provided the Applicant with reasons as to why the children were not being placed in his care at that time.

55The Board directs the Society to provide the Applicant with reasons in writing as to why he was not contacted with regard to the children’s apprehension and with reasons as to why the children were not placed in his care following their apprehension.

The Society left him out of decisions related to medical care and treatment related to his children.

56The Board finds in the Applicant’s favour regarding this issue.

57The Applicant testified that his children are on medication and he does not know what the medications are. He does not know what the children’s medical conditions are. No one has talked to him. He raised his concerns regarding the children’s medication with [the ongoing service worker]. [The ongoing service worker] told him that the medications were over the counter drugs. Later he found that they were prescription drugs. He has not asked again, as [the ongoing service worker] is not registered as a social worker.

58At the Hearing, [the ongoing service worker] testified that she did have a conversation with the Applicant regarding medication and asked him to contact the Children’s Services Worker, [ ], regarding the children’s medical information. The Children’s Service Worker, [ ], testified that the Applicant never called her regarding medications, nor did she call him. Her testimony is that she believed that it was [the ongoing service worker] responsibility, as the Family Service Worker to communicate with the applicant about the children’s medication.

59Counsel for the Society submitted that the Society’s position as legal guardian for the children requires that it follow the recommendation of medical practitioners and the Society has implemented those recommendations. Discretion as to whether parents are advised is rooted in their level of participation. The Applicant never contacted the Children’s Services Worker.

60With regard to the use of psychotropic drugs, Counsel referred to Section 132 (b) CFSA which states,

(1) A service provider shall not administer or permit the administration of a psychotropic drug to a child in the service provider’s care without,

(a) If the child is sixteen years of age or more, the child’s consent; or

(b) If the child is less than sixteen years of age, the consent of the child’s parent or, where the child is in the Society’s lawful custody, the Society’s consent.

61The Board notes that Section 106, CFSA provides that, subject to subsection 51 (4) and sections 62 and 63 (temporary order society and Crown Wards) of part III (Child Protection), the parent of a child in care retains any right that he or she may have,

(a) To direct the child’s education and religious upbringing; and

(b) To give or refuse consent to medical treatment for the child. R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11, s. 106.

62The Applicant may have been under the mistaken assumption that under section 106 he as a custodial parent had the right to give or refuse consent to his children receiving any medication. However, as set out in section 132 only the Society’s consent to treatment is needed for his children as they are temporary Society wards under a Court order.

63The Board finds that the Applicant asked for information regarding his children’s medical status. Despite evidence before the Board that the Society held a medication review and meeting with the children’s physician, [doctor], on August [ ], 2011, it notes that medical information regarding the children was not shared with the Applicant.

64With regard to s. 2 (2) a of the Act, the Board notes that there is an expectation that professionals will act in a respectful and attentive manner to the needs of their clients and address their concerns. The Board recognizes that the Applicant’s concerns regarding his children’s medical status and medications were significant.

65The Board finds that although the Applicant did ask for information regarding his children’s medical status and medication, the Society did not hear his concerns regarding these matters and did not make an effort to provide this information to him. It notes that each worker felt it was the responsibility of the other to speak with the Applicant, but neither did so.

66Accordingly, the Board directs the Society to provide the Applicant with written current information regarding the children’s medical conditions, the medications and any possible side effects of the prescribed medications.

The Society has prohibited his children from having access to the Office of the the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth.

67The Board dismisses the Applicant’s complaint that he was not heard regarding his concerns related to his son’s access to the Provincial Advocate. It finds in the Applicant’s favour with regard to not having been given reasons related to his concerns.

68The Applicant testified that the Society prohibited his children from having access to the Provincial Advocate. He submitted that [one of the boys: [“the child”]] had called him to say that something had happened at school and he was being punished by having his personal property, his Wi-Fi, taken away. The Applicant stated that he contacted the Police and the Provincial Advocate and that he left the matter with the Provincial Advocate. The Provincial Advocate attempted to reach his son but did not speak with him personally. The Applicant submitted that the child never had the opportunity to speak with the Provincial Advocate and it was his belief that the Society was not making the child available for the Provincial Advocate to speak with him.

69At the Hearing, [R.E. “Advocate”], Office of the Provincial Advocate, testified that he spoke with the Applicant although it was usual practice to speak with children only, at their request. Activities by the Provincial Advocate are driven by youth not by parents’ wishes. However, in this case, he left a message with the Society indicating that he was available to speak with [the child]. He was subsequently told by [the child’s] Child Service Worker, [ ] that she had given the information to [the child], and that [the child] would call if there were any issues. [The Advocate] testified that during the telephone call with [the child service worker] he had no reason to believe that the Society was not being forthright.

70The Board heard [the child service worker] testify that she received information from [the child’s] foster parents that [ ] of the Provincial Advocate’s Office had called [the child], who was not at home at the time. [The Office of the Provincial Advocate] had left a message for [the child] to call him. [The child service worker] noted that the Applicant also called her regarding his request for [the child] to call the Provincial Advocate. She contacted [the Advocate] to confirm the Provincial Advocate’s interest. She indicated to [the Advocate] that the information had been passed on to [the child] and that his rights had been explained to him. [The child service worker] testified that [the Advocate] did not ask her to make the child available to him. He explained that the practice is that the child calls the Provincial Advocate, if he wishes to do so.

71The Board finds that the Applicant did express his concerns to Society representatives regarding [the child’s] access to the Provincial Advocate. It notes that [The child service worker] followed up by contacting the Provincial Advocate and by discussing with [the child] his right to contact the Provincial Advocate. The Board finds that the Applicant’s concerns were heard by the Society. However, the Society did not follow up with the Applicant and give him reasons for its actions regarding his concern about [the child’s] access to the Provincial Advocate.

72The Board finds that the Society did hear the Applicant’s concerns and dismisses this aspect of the Applicant’s complaint. The Board finds that the Applicant was not given reasons related to his concern regarding [the child’s] access to the Provincial Advocate.

73The Board directs the Society to provide the Applicant with an explanation of its actions regarding his concern related to [the child’s] access to the Provincial Advocate.

The Society is not listening to the children’s concerns related to personal property, their expressed wishes related to their father and their input related to their individual Plans of Care.

Personal property

74The Board finds that this is a matter which was before the Court and dismisses this aspect of the Applicant’s complaint.

75The Applicant testified that he was concerned about the Society’s taking his children’s personal property and returning that property to him.

76The Society submitted that the matter concerning the personal property of the children was before the Court and a matter upon which the Court had made an order. The Board heard evidence that the Applicant had provided technology to his sons which contained inappropriate material. On December [ ], 2011, the Court ordered that the Applicant should not communicate with the children through Facebook, Skype, I-Phone, Smart Phone, computer, or any like electronic device. The Society removed the technology from the children and returned it to the Applicant.

77Upon hearing the merits of the issue and the evidence, the Board now finds that this is a matter which was before the Court. It therefore dismisses this aspect of the Applicant’s complaint.

Input into Plans of Care

78The Board dismisses this aspect of the Applicant’s complaint.

79The Applicant testified that he did not believe that his children were being allowed to participate in their Plans of Care.

80With regard to the children’s input, [ ], Family Service Supervisor, testified that the children had been involved in discussions regarding their individual plans of care.

81The Board notes that there is no evidence before it to indicate that the Applicant had expressed concerns regarding the children’s input to the Society. If the Society is not aware of a concern, it cannot be expected to respond to that concern.

82Accordingly, the Board dismisses this aspect of the Applicant’s complaint.

Children’s Wishes

83The Board dismisses this aspect of the Applicant’s complaint.

84The Board acknowledges that the matter of the children’s expressed wishes related to their placement and to their contact with their father is currently before the Court. Until the Board heard the relevant evidence, it was not in a position to understand this. Accordingly, the Board dismisses this aspect of the Applicant’s complaint.

CONCLUSION

85For the reasons above, the Board orders the following:

1. The Board orders the Society to provide a written explanation to the Applicant regarding the qualifications and responsibilities of Society workers who are not registered with the Ontario College of Social Workers and Social Service Workers, and to explain why [the ongoing service worker] continued to be the Ongoing Service Worker for the family.

2. The Board orders the Society to provide the Applicant with reasons in writing as to why he was not contacted with regard to the children’s apprehension and with reasons as to why the children were not placed in his care following their apprehension.

3. The Board orders the Society to provide the Applicant with written current information regarding the children’s medical conditions and the medications they are prescribed.

4. The Board orders the Society to provide the Applicant with a written explanation of its actions regarding his concern related to [the child’s] access to the Provincial Advocate.

FINAL ORDER

86The hearing was conducted in private and was not open to the public. Parties and their representatives must not use, share or disclose any documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including the media or through the internet.

DENYSE DIAZ

___________________________

Denyse Diaz

Presiding Member

CELIA DENOV

__________________________

Celia Denov

Board Member

MARY WONG

__________________________

Mary Wong

Board Member