CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

C.E.

v.

York Region Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: January 9, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 2

Indexed as: C.E. v. York Region Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.68)

1C.E. (the “Applicant”) filed an application on September 1, 2011 with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“the Board”) complaining about the York Region Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”). The application was found to be eligible for review under s.68.1(4) 4 and 68.1(4) 5 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) on September 8, 2011.

2The Applicant alleged that the Society did not give her the opportunity to have input into the Society’s decision to have access to her son supervised by his father in the family home. She further alleged that the Society did not hear her concerns regarding this arrangement and did not provide an explanation to her regarding the need for such an arrangement. A hearing on the merits was held on November 21, 2011 and December 5, 2011.

3The Board finds that the Society did not fully meet its obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4, which relates to s.2(2)(a) of the Act, but did comply with s.68.1(4) 5 of the Act and dismisses this part of the Applicant’s complaint for the reasons that follow.

BACKGROUND

4The Applicant is the mother of E.W. (“the child”) born June […], 2007. The Society became involved with the Applicant, the child, and the child’s father (“the father”) , on a voluntary basis on February […], 2011. On that date, the Society received a call from the local police informing it of a domestic situation between the Applicant and the father, her husband at that time. As a result of the call, the Society implemented an interim safety plan for the father to supervise the Applicant’s access to their son in the home until a worker had been assigned and could meet with the Applicant, the father and the child.

5On March […], the Applicant was admitted to hospital to deal with her mental state and was discharged on March […], 2011. The assigned worker did not meet with the Applicant until March […], 2011, at which time the safety plan was removed. The Applicant was re-admitted to hospital involuntarily on March […], 2011 and was discharged on April […], 2011. The safety plan was re-implemented upon the Applicant’s return from the hospital and was in effect until a court order was issued on May […], 2011.

6The Applicant and the father resided in the family home with the child during the periods February […] until March […], 2011; between March […] and March […], 2011 and between April […] and May […], 2011. The Applicant was in hospital between March […] and March […], 2011 and between March […] and April […], 2011.

7The hearing addressed the Applicant’s complaint regarding the Society’s actions between February […], 2011 and May […], 2011. The Applicant alleged in her complaint that the Society did not involve her in its decision related to the safety plan and how it would be implemented; the Society did not hear her concerns regarding the plan and its implementation and the Society did not provide her with reasons for implementing the safety plan.

ANALYSIS

8The Board must determine whether the Society heard the Applicant and gave her an explanation for its actions.

9The Board has concluded that the Society did not fully meet its obligations to the Applicant.

10The 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 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.

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.

11The Applicant’s involvement with the Society was triggered by a call to the local police on February […], 2011 made by the father alleging that the Applicant was trying to leave the family home with their son. The Applicant was fearful because the father was angry and upset and had punched a door in the home. When the father spoke with the police, he accused the Applicant of being [mentally ill] and gave them information on her medication. The police advised her to go to her general practitioner (“doctor”). The Applicant went to her doctor and spoke with the police. In the Applicant’s view, neither the police nor her doctor had any concerns regarding her mental state. She had remained at a friend’s home for a few days and then returned to the family home. She was informed by the father that the Society had been contacted and had directed that he supervise her access to their son in the home.

12The Applicant spoke with the intake worker on February […], 2011 in order to discuss the safety plan and was informed that a protection worker had not yet been assigned. The intake worker informed her as well that the Applicant could not be alone with her son until the assigned worker had an opportunity to meet and speak with the Applicant, the father and the child and assess the situation.

13The intake worker stated that the Society had conflicting information from the police and the father about the Applicant’s mental state. As a result of the conflict between the Applicant and the father and unclear information about the Applicant’s mental state, an interim safety plan was put into place until the Society had assigned a worker who could complete a review and assess the matter based on more complete information, including interviews with the Applicant, the father and the child.

14The Applicant was voluntarily admitted to hospital on March […], 2011 until March […], 2011. On March […], 2011, the Applicant spoke with the assigned protection worker. She shared information with the worker about the incident on February […], 2011 and the pattern of emotional and verbal abuse by the father directed at her. She also shared the details with the worker regarding historical information about [her mental health concerns]. She discussed the conflict between herself and the father and the father’s concerns about the Applicant’s [mental state]. The Society spoke with one of the Applicant’s doctors at this time and was informed that she was symptom free and both her [mental health concerns] were almost fully remitted. As a result, on March […], 2011, the Society reconsidered its position regarding the need for the Applicant’s access to be supervised by the father and no longer believed that it was required. The Society indicated that this position was communicated directly to the father who agreed with the plan and the Society assumed that he would inform the Applicant of the decision.

15There was no contact between the Applicant and the Society between March […] and March […], 2011. A psychiatrist who had seen the Applicant contacted the Society on March […], 2011 and reported that the Applicant had been acting irrationally, her mental state had been deteriorating and her [illness] had been escalating. The psychiatrist also stated that the Applicant had alleged abuse by the father, but provided no examples and expressed a concern that the Applicant would not access treatment to deal with her mental state and needed to be admitted to hospital as a result. The psychiatrist had the Applicant admitted involuntarily on March […], 2011. The Applicant discharged herself from hospital on April […], 2011.

16The protection worker spoke with the Applicant on April […], 2011. The Applicant wanted to know what the Society’s position was regarding the safety plan. The worker informed the Applicant that the Society required the safety plan to be re-implemented until the Society had adequate information based on a mental health assessment in hand to determine if the Applicant posed a risk to the child. The worker stated that the Applicant asked about the rules that were to be in place and was told that the Applicant was to have no unsupervised access until she had obtained follow up assessment and treatment. The worker further stated that the Applicant understood what the arrangement was. The Applicant was angry at the position taken by the Society at this point and the information provided by the psychiatrist and wanted the Society to speak with her lawyer, although she did not provide the Society with signed consent to contact the lawyer.

17The protection worker had several conversations with the Applicant after April […] – on April […], April […] and April […], in order to deal with the concerns raised by the Applicant regarding the alleged abuse by the father and the reasons for the safety plan. The worker stated that during these conversations, the Applicant did not provide examples of the alleged abuse by the father, nor would she consent to the Society obtaining any police reports related to the alleged abuse. Furthermore, the Applicant did not present any alternatives to the safety plan that was in place. This worker indicated that at no time between March […], 2011 and April […], 2011 did the Applicant express any concerns about the father providing care for their child.

18A new worker was assigned the file on April […], 2011 and the file was transferred to her on April […], 2011. The new worker had been informed by the child protection worker at the time of the transfer, that a safety plan was in place due to protection concerns for the child related to adult conflict and mental health concerns about the Applicant. The new worker had several meetings with the Applicant between April […], 2011 and May […], 2011.

19The Applicant requested a meeting with the Society to discuss her concerns regarding the safety plan, how the Society was dealing with her case and the father’s treatment of her. The meeting took place on April […], 2011 and was attended by the child protection worker, the new worker, the child protection supervisor, the family service supervisor, society counsel, the director of services, the Applicant and her legal counsel. At that meeting, the Society reiterated its reasons for the safety plan and what it was requiring of the Applicant regarding a mental health assessment. The child protection worker stated that during this meeting, the Applicant expressed a concern that the child was being allowed to remain in the care of an “abuser”, namely the father.

20The new worker had a phone conversation with the Applicant on April […] and a home visit on April […], 2011. During these contacts, the Applicant expressed concerns about the father’s behaviour toward her, problems with the living arrangements, and her feelings that she was being marginalized as a parent. The Applicant described the father as being abusive, not letting her use the phone and telling her to “shut up” in front of their child. They also discussed the status of the Applicant’s efforts to obtain a mental health assessment and the need for the Society to be able to have input into the process in order to ensure that it had adequate information for the purposes of determining whether the safety plan needed to remain in place.

21The Applicant contacted the local police on May […], 2011 alleging that the father was being abusive and locked her out of the bathroom while he was in it with the child. The Society received information from the police following their involvement in this incident about concerns regarding the conflict between the Applicant and the father and concerns about the Applicant’s mental state. The new worker met with both the Applicant and the father at the Applicant’s request on May […], 2011 in order to discuss a parenting plan to address the conflict between the Applicant and the father regarding the implementation of the safety plan.

22After the meeting on May [..], 2011 with the Applicant and the father, the new worker met privately with the Applicant in order to obtain her consent for information from the mental health assessor to determine if the criteria the Society needed to assess risk would be addressed. The new worker followed up with a letter dated May […], 2011 in order to make it clear in writing to the Applicant regarding what the Society required and to clarify the reasons why it needed the information. The new worker stated that she made it clear to the Applicant that the Society needed comprehensive information regarding the Applicant’s mental health from an accredited professional that included a history as well. She further stated that if such an assessment came back with no mental health concerns, then the Society would not need to keep the safety plan in place.

23The new worker also attempted to obtain detailed information from the Applicant regarding allegations of the father’s alleged abuse and did not receive any further information from the Applicant.

24The worker from the Society who was responsible for reviewing the file once intake had received the call from the police on February […], 2011 did not have the opportunity to speak with the Applicant until March […], 3011, the day after her release from hospital. The worker explained that the Applicant was not contacted while she was in hospital because the Society did not want to interfere with the care and treatment she was receiving and that the child was safe in the care of his father. The Society did not communicate the interim safety plan and the reasons for it in writing to the Applicant once it had made its decision. If it had done so, it may have cleared up any misunderstanding in the Applicant’s mind at this early stage that could have prevented the future escalation of concern.

25On March […], 2011, the Society determined that the safety plan was no longer required and relied upon the father to relay this information to the Applicant. The Board believes that the Society had a responsibility to communicate its decision directly to the Applicant either in writing or orally and should have done so.

26The Society had concerns about the mental health of the Applicant at the time that the Applicant released herself from hospital on April […], 2011 and as a result of concerns about the Applicant’s mental state. The Society explained to the Applicant on several occasions why the safety plan was re-implemented and what steps needed to be taken in order to consider whether it needed to remain in place. The meeting on April […], 2011 was scheduled in order to address the Applicant’s concerns regarding the plan and explain the reasons why it was in place. The Society also explained its reasons in writing to the Applicant on May […], 2011.

27The Society gave the Applicant multiple opportunities to be heard regarding the need for the safety plan that was re-implemented on April […], 2011 and the reasons for it. However, the Board concludes that the Society could have responded more meaningfully to the Applicant’s repeated complaints regarding her perception that the plan was not a fair plan or a workable plan for the reasons that follow.

28The Society had knowledge from as early as February […], 2011 that the Applicant and the father were in conflict with one another sufficient to have the police involved. The Applicant repeatedly complained about the power imbalance in the relationship and her perceptions about the father’s verbal and emotional abuse. Although the Society was unable to obtain any detailed information regarding her concerns, the thoughts, feelings and perceptions of the Applicant were forcefully expressed on several occasions and were real to her.

29By April […], 2011, if not earlier, it became apparent to the Society that the family was breaking down. The safety plan devised by the Society, i.e., that the father supervise the Applicant’s access during a period of marital instability, was doomed to fail. On May […], 2011, unbeknowst to the Applicant, the Society wrote a letter to support the father to pursue an order placing the child in his interim care and custody. The Society has since advised the Applicant that they regret not providing her with a copy of this letter when it was released to the father. Subsequent to receiving this letter, the father commenced a family court action on May […], 2011.

30The Board recognizes that the Society believed that throughout its involvement with this family, which was voluntary in nature, it had no alternative living arrangements to propose that would be likely to meet the approval of both the Applicant and the father. The Society did not support the Applicant’s proposal to take the child to live in a shelter, and the Applicant told the worker that she did not wish to leave the child with the father. The Applicant and the father resided in the family home during the periods between Febraury […] and March […] and between April […] and May […],2011. The Society was involved during these periods and believed that supervised access by the father was the least intrusive way for the Applicant to spend time with the child.

31The Board also recognizes that the Society was relying upon the cooperation of both the father and the Applicant to implement the safety plan and provide the information it required to assess the continued need for the safety plan. The Applicant had not provided the required information to the Society by May […], 2011.

32The Society may have been better able to show the Applicant that she was in fact being heard about the difficultites of being supervised by the child’s father, by offering her some options to spend time with the child that did not involve the father. For example, the Society could have proposed that the Applicant spend time with the child while he attended daycare, which is the current arrangement, or that supervised visits take place at their offices, even though the Applicant may not have accepted this proposal. While the Society did not feel that it was necessary to suggest supervised access visits as the Applicant was residing with the child at home, by declining to do so, the Sociey did not fully acknowledge what it felt like for the Applicant to be supervised by someone who she felt was abusive during a period of time in which her marriage was breaking down.

33The Society gave the Applicant the opportunity on a number of occasions to express her concerns about the safety plan after it was re-implemented as of April […], 2011 and the Society gave the Applicant reasons why the plan was in place. However, the Board concludes that the Society did not hear the Applicant’s concerns about the nature of the arrangement for the safety plan since it proposed no alternative arrangements that took the Applicant’s concerns into account.

CONCLUSION

34The Board finds that the Society did not fully meet its obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4 [s.2(2)(a)] of the Act since, in its decision making, it failed to take into account the Applicant’s repeated expressions of concern about the nature of the arrangement for the safety plan. The Board finds that the Society did meet its obligations under s.68.1(4) 5 and gave the Applicant reasons for the safety plan on multiple occasions and in writing and therefore dismisses this part of the complaint.

35The Board finds that at this time, given the Board’s ruling and the information provided at the hearing, no order is necessary regarding the breach of section 68.1(4) 4.

ORDER

36The 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 internet.

Andrea Himel

Presiding Member

Donald Butler Board Member

. Gail Gonda

Board Member