M.L. v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford and Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County, 2012 CFSRB 34

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

M.L. v. CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OXFORD And FAMILY AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES OF GUELPH AND WELLINGTON COUNTY

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: August 29, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 34

Indexed as: M.L. v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford and Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1M.L. (the “Applicant”), filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to subsection 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) against the Children’s Aid Society of Oxford (“Oxford Society”) and the Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (“Guelph Society”) on March 19, 2012.

2The Applicant alleges that the Societies failed to hear his service concerns or hear him when decisions were made and that he has not been provided with reasons for decisions that affected his interests regarding;

• The use of physical and other inappropriate discipline in the foster home

• The conduct and outcome of the investigation, including lack of communication between the Societies

• The lack of accountability for the foster home

3The Oxford Society was in attendance at the hearing. However, it led no evidence and the Board relied solely on evidence presented by the Applicant.

4The Guelph Society did not attend the hearing having advised the parties in its August 1, 2012 submissions of its intention not to be present.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicant is the father of a son and a daughter who were placed in foster care for approximately six years. They were returned to their parent’s home on January [ ], 2012. [ ], Oxford Social Worker interviewed [ ] the son and [ ] the daughter individually and privately on February [ ], 2012 and the children disclosed that the foster mother had been hitting [the son] with a wooden cooking spoon and with her hand; as well the foster father had also been hitting the child with his open hand. The daughter reported that she had not been hit by the foster parents but she had witnessed her brother being hit.

6The Oxford Society did not have jurisdiction to investigate the foster home where the children had been placed and where the abuse occurred because it is located outside of their catchment area, in [county]. Therefore, the Oxford Society referred the investigation to the Guelph Society. A file was opened by the Guelph Society and an investigation was completed which did not verify the abuse charges. The Applicant was concerned about this outcome, sought clarification and ultimately, brought this application to the Board.

ANALYSIS

7The Board must determine whether the Societies heard the Applicant as required and whether they gave him reasons regarding:

• The use of physical and other inappropriate discipline in the foster home

• The conduct and outcome of the investigation including lack of communication between the Societies

• The lack of accountability for the foster home

8This application was made under section 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Act. Section 68.1 (4) of the Act gives the Board the authority to review the following:

• 68.1 (4) 4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2 (2) (a);

• 68.1 (4) 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;

9The Board finds that the Guelph Society did not hear the Applicant, nor did it provide him with detailed, meaningful explanations to address his justified concerns and complaints with regards to the care of his children in the former foster home.

10The Board finds that the Oxford Society heard the Applicant with respect to the use of inappropriate discipline in the foster home by referring his request for an investigation to the Guelph Society. Further, the Oxford Society did follow up with the Applicant and provided him with the reasons provided to it by the Guelph Society.

11To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the Societies taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to him so that he feels that his concerns are taken seriously and investigated thoroughly. This would indicate to the Applicant that he was treated with honesty, dignity and with respect, even though he may not agree with the outcome.

12To meet the statutory obligation, reasons must be detailed and the Applicant must be given sufficient information to understand what factors were considered in making a decision and why. The Guelph Society failed to meet this obligation to provide the appropriate information to inform the Applicant.

13The obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 reflect the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. This is facilitated through genuine communication, giving applicants the opportunity to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to or accept decisions.

14The Applicant testified that his son and daughter returned to live at home on January [ ], 2012 after being placed in a foster home in the county of [ ] for approximately six years. On February [ ], 2012 the children were interviewed separately and privately in their home and they both disclosed to the Oxford Social Worker that their former foster parents had physically abused [the son] by hitting him over a protracted period of time. [ ], Oxford Child Protection Worker, interviewed the children again on February [ ], 2012 while they were at school after which [ ] Oxford Service Manager contacted the Applicant to inform him of the children’s disclosures.

15The Applicant testified that his thirteen year old son was diagnosed as a high functioning, border line mentally disabled child with severe Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. He acknowledged that there were challenges in caring for the child; but he believes that the foster parents had the responsibility of keeping his child safe and happy and should not have subjected him to continued abuse over many years with his daughter as a witness.

16The Oxford Service Manager and the Oxford Child Protection Worker met with the Applicant and his wife a week after interviewing the children at school at the Oxford Society’s office. The Applicant stated that they informed him that they “believe” the children and that the case would be handed over to the Guelph Society for investigation as the foster home was out of their Society’s jurisdiction.

17The Applicant telephoned the Guelph Society at the end of February 2012 and left a couple of messages without any responses. He was informed by the Oxford Society at a second meeting that according to the Guelph Society, the foster parents had denied the allegations therefore the Guelph Society did not verify the allegations and would close the file.

18The Applicant testified that he contacted Officer [ ], at the [city] police station, [an agency] as well as an officer in [another city] seeking assistance as he had been unable to speak to the Guelph Society about the abuse or the foster parents. In looking for accountability, he had to look beyond the Guelph Society in that jurisdiction because they had not provided him with input or with answers.

19The Board finds that the Oxford Society heard the Applicant with regards to his complaint about inappropriate punishment in the foster home and referred the complaint to the appropriate Society (Guelph) for investigation. The Oxford Society followed up and communicated the results of the investigation to the Applicant although they were unable to provide the details he required. They provided the best information that they had and could not answer questions as to why there was no verification given the children’s disclosure: that was for Guelph to explain.

20The Guelph Society did not hear the Applicant when he raised concerns about the abuse of his children or the foster home. They did interview the foster parents but did not follow up with the Applicant or the children, through the Oxford Society to deal with the discrepancy between the credible children and the apparently credible foster parents. They had carriage of the investigation and they left the investigation unfinished, which is not indicative of having heard the Applicant. Further, the Society failed to return the Applicant’s calls and failed to communicate with him the outcome of this very serious allegation. The Guelph Society did not provide reasons directly to the Applicant as it could have, had it returned his calls.

21The Guelph Society also failed to inform the Oxford Society of the details of the investigation for their follow up with the Applicant. The reasons given to Oxford to pass on to the Applicant did not explain how Oxford’s perspective that the children were credible was factored into the decision making. The explanation lacked sufficient detail for the Applicant to understand why the allegations were not verified in the face of competing findings of credibility. The Applicant was left with more questions than answers.

22The Guelph Society failed to return the Applicant’s calls to discuss the matter and failed to provide answers to his questions regarding the foster home and the foster parent’s accountability. The Applicant believes that the foster parents should be held accountable for the abuse his children suffered while they were placed in the home. He also believes that the foster parent’s denial that they used inappropriate punishment in the home is not sufficient grounds to close the file.

23The Applicant had raised other concerns about the foster home that relate to the question of accountability for that home. The Applicant testified that over the last five or six years he has bought toys and games for his children while they were in the foster home and these items were taken away and given to the foster parent’s nieces and nephews. He stated that he had complained to many of his fifteen workers over the years and when [ ], Oxford Children’s Worker checked the log for the last four years she found the complaints logged but found no resolutions. The Applicant believed that the misappropriation of his children’s toys was an example of the foster parent’s reprehensible behaviour and lack of accountability to the Guelph Society, as it had taken no action to correct this long standing complaint.

24He also testified that the children made their disclosures two days after their custody was finalized because they did not want to say anything and get into “trouble”. He testified that his son’s behaviours improved tremendously since he has returned home but he needs answers. Had the Guelph Society engaged the Applicant, it would have had the opportunity to hear the full extent of the Applicant’s concerns and to follow up on all outstanding concerns. By failing to return the Applicant’s calls, they did not give him the opportunity to discuss the full extent of the concerns about the foster home, which could have impacted the investigation and the outcome.

25The Board finds that the Guelph Society did not provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and did not return his attempts to communicate or provide him with the meaningful information he requested with regards to the disclosures of abuse in his children’s former foster home. The Society did not provide him with the reasons to understand why the abuse had not been verified and why the file had been closed.

26The Board finds that the Guelph Society did not hear the Applicant in that it did not provide any response or opportunity for meaningful resolution to the Applicant’s complaints regarding his children’s missing toys and the impact of the foster home’s actions on his son’s behaviour. Nor did the Guelph Society respond to the Applicant’s queries regarding the consequences for the foster parents. The Society provided no reasons for its lack of action or response.

27The Societies did not communicate with each other effectively or with the Applicant to share information in a meaningful way, resulting in the Applicant’s search for other community organizations to assist him. However, it was the Guelph Society that did not meet its obligations to the Applicant under the Act as the Society in charge of the investigation and the placement of the children in the foster home. The Guelph Society did not work with the Oxford Society to effectively transfer the information from one jurisdiction to the other which left the Applicant with no Society to help him find the answers to his grave concerns.

DECISION

28The Board finds that the Guelph Society did not hear the Applicant and provide him with reasons when decisions affecting his interests were made and concerns raised about the discipline and care of his son in his former foster home. The Oxford Society heard the Applicant and worked as an intermediary in providing information to the Applicant but it was unable to answer his questions and concerns as the necessary investigation details were not provided by the Guelph Society.

29The remedies available under the Act are the following:

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

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

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

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

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

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

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

30The Board orders the Guelph Society to provide detailed written reasons to the Applicant explaining its decisions regarding the following matters, with reference to the Child Protection Standards in Ontario, the Eligibility Spectrum and the applicable legislation, within 15 days of the date of this order:

1. The role of the Guelph Society with respect to the oversight of the foster home and its powers in relation to investigations of the foster home.

2. The steps it took to investigate the foster home for all allegations made by the Applicant including with respect to physical and other inappropriate discipline and toys.

3. The factors it took into account when deciding not to verify the abuse allegations and how it dealt with the Oxford Society’s finding that the children were credible.

4. An explanation as to why it did not follow up further given the discrepancy between the children’s credible disclosure and the foster parents’ denial and how it determined that the foster parents’ denial would be given more weight and any practices or procedures or standards for assessing such discrepancies.

5. An explanation as to why it did not return the Applicant’s calls.

6. Any policies, procedures or protocols about investigations involving children from another Society and any joint police protocols.

31The Board also orders that the Society meet its obligation under the Act by either meeting with Applicant in person or over the phone (if he does not wish to meet in person) to discuss the written reasons provided, within 30 days of the date of this order.

Confidentiality Order

32The 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 on-line. Any documents or information shared by the parties and the Board must be used only for the purposes of the hearing of this application

RICHARD LINLEY

_________________

Richard Linley

Presiding Member

LORNA KING _________________

Lorna King

Board Member

FRANCES SANDERSON

_________________

Frances Sanderson

Board Member