L.C. v. Halton Children’s Aid Society, 2012 CFSRB 37

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

L.C.

v.

HALTON CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: September 13, 2012

Citation: 2012 CFSRB 37

Indexed as: L.C. v. Halton Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1L.C. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on June 12, 2012. She is complaining about the Halton Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to subsection 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”).

2The issues addressed at the hearing were whether the Society failed to hear the Applicant when decisions were made or concerns raised and whether it failed to provide her with reasons for decisions, involving seven sub-issues related to how the Society dealt with referrals about the Applicant and from the Applicant involving the care of her three children.

3The Board conducted a hearing on August 13 and 28, 2012. The Board finds that the Society did not meet its obligations to the Applicant regarding:

• The conditions set out in the February [ ], 2012 letter

• Allegations against the husband about the baby’s health (diaper injury)

• Delay in terms of the acceptance of a psychological assessment and the impact on the Applicant and the children.

4The Board dismisses the Applicant’s other issues.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicant is a 37 year old mother of three children who is a registered nurse. At the time that the Society became involved in February of 2012, she was married to her husband, [ ], and had given birth 4 months previously to a son. The Applicant has been married 3 times and the previous marriages ended in divorce. She has a child from each marriage. She had been married to her current husband since the summer of 2011.

6The Society received an anonymous report on February [ ], 2012 that the Applicant had physically assaulted her husband. The Society contacted her on that day and the Applicant indicated that she was not going to allow them to come and see her and the baby. The Child Protection Worker went to the home on the following day to assess the baby, who was in the Applicant’s care. The Applicant refused to allow the Child Protection Worker to enter the home; however, the worker could observe that the baby was well cared for from the doorway and left.

7On February [ ], 2012, the Applicant’s husband initiated a Form 2 under the Mental Health Act on the basis of “harm to others and potential harm to self”. There were allegations that the Applicant had assaulted the husband and that she said she would drink windex and feed it to the baby. The Applicant was taken to [ ] Hospital by [the police]. She was discharged on February [ ], 2012 with a doctor’s report that indicated that the inpatient assessment “did not warrant continued detention since there is no evidence of a major mental disorder or imminent risks.” The report also stated that “she has a longstanding personality disorder that could lead to lapses in judgement and potential harm to her children.” The doctor strongly advised the Applicant to seek further psychiatric help in terms of using psychotropic medications and counselling.

8On February [ ], 2012, the Society sent a letter to the Applicant and the parties involved with the following stipulation:

“The mother is to have no contact whatsoever with her children [ ] until the following conditions have been met:

a) The mother has completed a full assessment by a psychiatrist and it has been reviewed by the Society.

b) The mother has a plan to follow the recommendations made by the Psychiatrist.

c) The Society has assessed the mother’s ability to care.

d) The mother will meet with the Society to discuss further intervention plans the week of February [ ], 2012.

e) The Society has approved that the mother may have contact with her children.”

9The 3 children were being cared for by their biological fathers with the assistance of the maternal grandparents.

10The Society held a “Signs of Safety” Meeting with the Applicant, her husband, her parents, her husband’s parents, her sister and her acquaintance, [ ], on February [ ], 2012 to plan for next steps by involving family and identifying supports. The meeting broke down due to the high level of emotion and the Society then met with the Applicant and her husband. The Society maintained the conditions on the Applicant as set out above and since the Applicant was co-operating in abiding by the conditions, determined that the Applicant had agreed to the Society’s conditions.

11The Applicant attempted to get a psychiatric assessment through referrals from her family doctor but was unsuccessful. She went for counselling at the offices of [the Doctor] for over two months but [the Doctor] was unwilling to complete a psychiatric assessment. The Society ultimately agreed to allow the Applicant to get a psychological assessment from [another Doctor].

12The Applicant asked the Society for a transfer of her file to the [Another] Children’s Aid Society (“other Society”) in April of 2012. The transfer meeting was held on June [ ], 2012. This meeting was attended by the Applicant, her father, the fathers of her three children, the Society’s Child Protection Worker and her Supervisor, and the worker and supervisor from [the other Society]l.

13The Applicant filed her application with the Board on June 12, 2012.

ANALYSIS

14The main issues for the Board are whether the Society heard the Applicant as required when decisions were made or when she raised service concerns, and whether the Society provided her with reasons (explanations) relating to the decisions made. The Board’s authority and the Society’s obligations are found in the following sections of the Act:

Matters for Board Review

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.

Duties of Service Providers

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;

15The Board will address the various sub-issues identified in this application in groups of related themes.

Applicant’s Concerns About Validity of Basis for Separation from Children

16The first grouping of issues relates to the Applicant’s concerns about the validity of her separation from her children, namely:

• The removal of her children from her care when there was no evidence to support that they had been at risk in her care;

• The Society’s reliance on the comments made by a psychiatrist who had seen the Applicant for only ten minutes;

17The Applicant complained that her children were removed from her care despite the fact that she had cared for the eldest for 10 years and her children are well adjusted. She claimed that the Society relied on the comments made by a psychiatrist who only saw her at the hospital for 10 minutes and had relied on statements made by her husband who had been speaking to the psychiatrist for a couple of hours. Furthermore, the Society did not listen to her allegations about her husband who she alleges had been constantly drinking, threatening her and abusing his powers as [someone in a job with authority]. She asked the Society to conduct drug testing on her husband and according to her, was told not to worry, that they would conduct random drug testing. However, that was not done and the Society did not report back to her. She denied that she said she would take windex and feed it to the baby. The Applicant claimed that [ ], the Child Protection Worker called her while she was at the hospital and said that she had hit her husband, broken his toe and yelled at him. The Child Protection Worker testified that she did not call the Applicant while she was at the hospital.

18When the Applicant was discharged from the hospital, her children were with their respective fathers and she could only see her children when supervised until she obtained a psychiatric assessment as stipulated in the February [ ], 2012 letter. She was not consulted by the Society when it made the decision to lay down the conditions of her access to her children.

19The Child Protection Worker testified that she never “removed” the children from the Applicant’s care. When the Society became involved, after the Applicant was “formed”, the two older children were with the fathers and the baby was with his father. The husband had been waiting around the corner to take the baby into his care while a friend waited at the house when the police took the Applicant away.

20[ ], the Supervisor, testified on the Society’s policy regarding child protection concerns. She claimed that the children were already in the fathers’ care when the Society became involved. When the Society goes out on a call after a parent is “formed” and no one is available to care for the children, the Society will place the children in a kin home or bring them into care. Child protection standards are applied and if the children are in need of protection, the Society will go to court to demonstrate the Society’s concerns. The Society has internal policies on the investigative process to determine if the child is safe. When a “non-caregiver” is “formed”, the Society will determine if that person should have access, have a service plan in place, meet with the whole family in a Signs of Safety Meeting, and get supports to mitigate concerns. In this case, when the Society went out after the Applicant was “formed” she was not viewed by them as the caregiver at the time. The Society did not apprehend the child and place him with the husband. The baby was already with him and the Society did not go to court. According to the Society, since the applicant was co-operating voluntarily and agreeing with their plan for supervised access and said she would seek a psychiatrist, there was no need for further action. Their Signs of Safety becomes their service plan and all parties were “in agreement”.

21The Child Protection worker testified to the events that lead up the February [ ], 2012 letter putting conditions on the Applicant’s access to her children. She received an anonymous call on February 1, 2012 with regards to domestic violence that the Applicant was physically attacking her husband. The Child protection Worker called the Applicant who later returned her call and indicated that her husband was cheating on her and had left the home. She did not want the Child Protection worker to come to her home or meet with her. The Child Protection Worker attended at the home on February [ ], 2012 unannounced since she had to visit because the referral involved risk to a baby under the age of 2. The Applicant would not let her in, but the Child Protection Worker could observe from the doorway that the baby was healthy. On February [ ], 2012, the Child Protection Worker received a phone call from the husband who was at the family home with the baby and informed her that the Applicant was hospitalized. She met the husband at the family home. The husband disclosed that there had been many instances of violence and showed her pictures of marks and bruises on his body. The husband felt that Applicant needed help with her mental health and had gone to court for a Form 2 to have her hospitalized. The husband intended to go stay with his parents. The Child Protection Worker contacted [the other Society] for the Applicant’s history and interviewed the Applicant’s father who indicated great concern for the Applicant who he felt was very sick and accuses every man of cheating and drinking. The Applicant’s father had no concerns in relation to the baby being with the husband. On February [ ], 2012, the Child Protection Worker also received a call from the hospital informing her that the Applicant had been brought in after assaulting the husband and had allegedly said she would drink windex and feed it to the baby. Based on the history from [the other Society]l and the above information, the Child Protection Worker sent the letter dated February [ ], 2012 to the Applicant, all the fathers and the parents. The letter laid out the plan for the weekend for the Applicant to be supervised until the Society could assess the situation. The children were with the fathers and the Applicant’s parents would assist with supervision, if needed.

22The Board finds that when the Society made the decision to impose the conditions laid out in the letter of February [ ], 2012, it did not consult with the Applicant to give her a chance to be heard. According to the testimony of the Child Protection Worker she did not speak to the Applicant when the Applicant was in the hospital and only spoke to her by phone on February [ ] and briefly outside her home on February [ ], 2012 about other issues. This decision greatly impacted the Applicant since the condition of supervised access in fact separated her from her children. Though the Society framed it as an access issue, when the Applicant could not get access, it became an issue of custody.

23The Society claimed that it did not remove the children from the Applicant’s care. It also claimed that the Applicant was not the caregiver at the time. However, before the Applicant was “formed”, she was the primary caregiver for all three children and had been for the entirety of the children’s lives. There was no evidence before the Board that the Applicant was ever separated from the children. For the Society to claim that the Applicant was not the caregiver when the Society became involved is disingenuous. Though the Society did not apprehend the children, it did put conditions on the Applicant’s access which prevented her seeing the children without supervision. This constitutes a de facto removal of the children.

24The Society also claimed that the Applicant agreed to their conditions; however, it was aware that the Applicant was co-operating with the Society to get her children back. The wish of the Applicant was to get her children back and she made that known to the Society many times. Yet the Society admitted that they never gave her the opportunity to make a case to be primary caregiver for the children again, including when she moved back in with her parents, some time later.

25When the Society made the decision to impose these conditions on February [ ], 2012, it did not consult the Applicant to give her an opportunity to be heard, or give her reasons as to why it was making this decision. Further, in not re-assessing the primary caregiver role at any point—even when circumstances changed, the Society failed to hear the Applicant’s true position, by actively re-framing it or ignoring it

26The right to be heard exists for parents and their children to permit them meaningful participation in the process, to ensure that their perspective will be taken into consideration when the Society is making decisions that impact their lives. 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. The Applicant was not given any opportunity to influence the Society’s imposition of conditions. There was no evidence that she was unavailable or unable to speak to the worker while in the hospital. There was no attempt made to ask her, her side of the story surrounding the admission and the allegations about windex.

27Further, the Applicant was never given the chance to make a case as primary caregiver. The focus of the Signs of Safety meeting (discussed below) was supervised access and despite being aware of the Applicant’s desire to have her children back in her care, the Society never engaged her on the issue, even when she moved back in with her parents. The potential for this to mitigate any perceived risks was never addressed with the Applicant. By re-characterizing and ignoring the Applicant’s known wish to be primary caregiver, the Society did not hear her when it made its ongoing decisions to persist in its position of supervised access.

28The right to reasons also reflects the importance of meaningful participation for parents. To meet the statutory obligation, reasons must be timely and detailed and the Applicant must be given sufficient information to understand what factors were considered in making a decision and why. The February [ ], 2012 letter contained no reasons but rather, stated simple conditions. The letter did not provide sufficient detail for the Applicant to understand what factors were considered in arriving at the conditions and why. The Society did not meet its obligations to the Applicant at the time leading up to the decisions in its February [ ], 2012 letter.

29The Society never explained to the Applicant why it would not consider her as primary caregiver. By focussing on supervised access and not caregiving, the Society avoided the issue and failed to respect to the right to reasons which is in aide of active participation in the decision-making process. The Applicant had no basis on which to directly challenge or agree to what was being put to her as a “done deal”.

30In terms of the reliance on the admitting psychiatrist as part of the rationale for supervised access, the Society obtained further information from [the other Society] on February 6, 2012. The Child Protection Worker and [ ], her Supervisor determined that a Signs of Safety Meeting was necessary and set one up for February [ ], 2012. The Society received the final report from the hospital on February [ ], 2012. The Signs of Safety meeting was halted due to the high emotions of the participants and the Child Protection Worker and her Supervisor decided to meet with the Applicant and her husband without the rest of the family to explain why they needed a psychiatric assessment. The last paragraph of the final report was read to the Applicant who was left with a copy of the report to read while the workers were out of the room. The Child Protection Worker testified that they relied on the doctor’s report and not how long he spent with the Applicant. They explained to the Applicant that they had to listen to a psychiatrist when he says there is a concern for children and that is why they are having a follow-up assessment.

31The Applicant testified that she attended the Signs of Safety meeting on February [ ], 2012. She felt that the Society treated her like a child. She was told that she did this and she needed to be supervised, the reasons were not important. Since she had been advised by psychiatrists and others to do what the Society said, she just followed along because she still wanted her marriage to work. She had been dealing with the birth of a child, her relationship and her children being taken away. According to her, no one asked her what she would like or recognized that she had not been listened to. She did not think there was any discussion of her husband’s problems. The Applicant stated that she and her husband met with the Child Protection Worker and her Supervisor after the meeting and she was shown a copy of the psychiatric report from the hospital. The Child Protection Worker read her parts of the report.

32The Board finds in favour of the Society on the issue of its reliance on the comments made by a psychiatrist who had only seen the Applicant for 10 minutes. The Society gave the Applicant the opportunity to be heard during the Signs of Safety meeting with the entire family. When the meeting was terminated because of the emotions of the family, the Child Protection Worker and her Supervisor met privately with the husband and Applicant to inform them and explain the comments made by the psychiatrist. The Applicant expressed her concerns about relying on the psychiatrist who had met with her only briefly. The Applicant had the opportunity for input at this meeting and reasons were given to her as to why the Society must follow up based on the information provided by the psychiatrist. The Society heard her concerns and explained that they wanted a full psychiatric assessment in addition to the note from the psychiatrist at the hospital.

Allegations against the husband

33The next grouping of issues involves the Applicant’s allegations against the husband (or “father’) regarding alcohol use and the care of the baby.

34The Child Protection Worker testified that she investigated the Applicant’s concern that her husband was drinking. The Applicant first made the allegations on February [ ], 2012, when the Child Protection Worker contacted her by phone. The Child Protection Worker testified that she spoke to the Applicant’s father who had no concerns with the husband’s alcohol use or the care of the baby. She also spoke to the husband’s parents and the two older children. She did not feel that it was necessary to do drug or alcohol testing since she did not find any evidence that the husband was drinking. She met with the Applicant on February [ ], 2012 and told her that they were not doing drug/alcohol testing since the husband was living with his parents and was not sole-caregiver and based on what her father had said.

35The Board finds in favour of the Society on the issue of drug/alcohol testing for the husband. The Child Protection Worker heard the Applicant when it made the decision not to conduct drug and alcohol testing. This is so because she followed up on the allegations and investigated by interviewing the Applicant’s father, the husband’s parents and the children. She had also been given details about the allegations by the Applicant who had a chance to give her specifics following her investigation, the Worker then reported back to the Applicant that they were not doing drug testing and the reasons for that decision.

36On May [ ], 2012, the Applicant reported to the Child Protection worker that her son came back from the husband in a dehydrated condition with his bottom blistered and bleeding and full of feces. She had called the husband who said it was just diaper rash and that the son had been sick and had diarrhoea. She cleaned up her son and took him to see the doctor the next day. She called the Child Protection Worker to tell her that the son’s condition was more serious than just diaper rash and offered to show her pictures. The Applicant stated that the Child Protection Worker did not want to see the pictures and said that it was common for babies to get diaper rash and that she would look into it. The Applicant called the Child Protection Worker numerous times and never heard back from her.

37The Child Protection Worker testified that she spoke to the Applicant about new foods being introduced to the baby and said that it was normal for babies to have diaper rash. She declined the offer to look at pictures of the baby. She spoke to the husband to caution him about the rash, but did not follow up with the Applicant. It was her evidence that the Society has a protocol in custody/access cases to not report back to the other parent without consent due to confidentiality concerns. She did not explain this to the Applicant and did not have another conversation with her regarding this issue.

38The Supervisor testified that the concerns about the baby’s health (and alcohol use by the father) would justify an investigation under the eligibility spectrum and that the Society would get back to the referring parent. She was specifically asked about policies and protocols and did not mention the “confidentiality” protocol cited by the Child Protection Worker. The Board accepts the evidence of the Supervisor who was asked about the governing policies and protocols in investigations and who offered the information about getting back to the referring parent. She was unaware whether the Child Protection Worker had followed up in this case but the clear expectation from her evidence was that of follow up. The Board rejects the evidence of the Child Protection Worker on this point and finds that no confidentiality protocol precludes follow up in custody and access disputes. Even if such a policy existed, it could not override parents’ statutory right to reasons for decisions that affect their interests. The Child Protection Worker was obliged to provide reasons to the Applicant for the Society’s conclusions about the baby’s health.

39The Board finds that the Society did not give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard in a manner that does not minimize her concerns. To be heard means that a person has a chance to tell her side of the story, in a respectful context where the society listen with an open mind. The Child Protection Worker by refusing to look at pictures of the baby’s ailment did not allow the Applicant to tell her side of the story and minimized her concerns by saying that it was common for babies to have diaper rash.

40The Board also finds that the Society did not provide an explanation to the Applicant as to how she handled the Applicant’s concerns. After the Applicant raised her concerns, the Child Protection Worker never reported back to the Applicant about this issue. The Child Protection Worker raised the issue of confidentiality but could not point to where this protocol would be found. The Board has found that this protocol does not exist. The Board finds that the Society did not hear the Applicant or give her reasons on the issue of baby’s health.

Delay

41The next grouping of issues has to do with delay and the impact this had on the Applicant’s situation. These issues relate to:

• The Society’s failure to make the Applicant aware at the earliest opportunity that it would accept a psychological assessment in place of a psychiatric assessment which the Applicant was unable to obtain.

• The Society’s failure to recognize the impacts that its actions and failure to act in a timely manner have had on the Applicant and her children, especially her infant son.

42The Applicant complained about the Society’s timeliness in its actions. The Applicant had difficulty finding a psychiatrist who would complete a psychiatric assessment as required by the Society. She asked the Society for names of doctors which it could not provide since the Society does not have a directory or roster of psychiatrists. She was told she had to get referrals from her doctor. The psychiatrist referred by her doctor did not feel she needed an assessment, just counselling. She found [the Doctor] on line and attended at her office for counselling for over 2 months starting in late February of 2012. The psychiatrist indicated to the Society that she would not be completing the assessment. The Applicant testified that she contacted the Society and asked them “what now”, saying she was “at a loss” and asking for names because she was out of options. The Applicant continued to search for a psychiatrist to complete the assessment without success. On May [ ], 2012, the Applicant asked the Child Protection Worker if she could use the services of a psychologist, [ ].

43The Child Protection Worker testified that the Society wanted a psychiatric assessment from the very beginning and that access would be supervised until the assessment was completed. She met with the Applicant on February [ ], and April [ ], 2012 at her parents’ home. She called [the Doctor] on April [ ], 2012 and left a message with the receptionist. The reply from [the Doctor] was that she was only treating the Applicant and not assessing her. The Child Protection Worker discussed with the Applicant that she still needed an assessment. The Child Protection Worker was aware of the length of time it was taking and that the Applicant was using her best efforts to find a psychiatrist. The Applicant then found [ ] who was a psychologist. On May [ ], 2012, the Applicant called the Child Protection Worker who asked her supervisor who happened to be in the room, if a psychological assessment would suffice since the Applicant was having difficulty finding a psychiatrist. The Supervisor agreed. On May [ ], 2012, the Child Protection Worker sent a letter to [the psychologist] giving a summary of the Applicant’s history and the Society’s concerns. The Society agreed to pay for the assessment which eventually went to [the other Society] since the file had been transferred.

44The Society did not meet its obligations to the Applicant with respect to timeless relating to the report and consequently, the impact of delay. The sub-issues of the late acceptance of an alternative type of report and the overall impact on the Applicant and her children of the delay are both linked to the delays the Applicant experienced in fulfilling the Society’s condition for a psychiatric assessment. The Society imposed a condition that the Applicant to its knowledge, was having difficulty meeting. The Applicant told the Society about her frustrations in obtaining an assessment. The Applicant testified that she repeatedly asked the Society for names of doctors she could see. The Society kept putting the requirement back to her and did not engage in problem-solving about the delay.

45The Society did not hear the Applicant’s frustration about delay because it did not take any pro-active steps from the beginning of February until the middle May when it finally consented to the Applicant getting a psychological assessment. The Society did not assist her in getting a psychiatrist to perform the assessment or offer any alternatives such as a psychological assessment until the Applicant suggested it. This delay contributed to the Applicant being unable to fulfil the condition put on her by the Society to get unsupervised access to her children, in fact, separating her from them. The lack of responsiveness to the Applicant’s inability to meet the requirement amounted to a failure to hear her concerns about her overall situation with the Society.

46The Applicant also raised a concern about a comment made by the Child Protection Worker, just prior to June 2012 when discussing delays in the case. The Child Protection Worker has admitted to making a statement to the effect of “ I bet you enjoyed your time away from your husband and children so you can think”. The Applicant’s response to the worker was that this was the worst time of her life, being away from her children. She cried on the phone. According to the Applicant, the Child Protection Worker responded saying she had a meeting and had to go. The Child Protection Worker explained at the hearing that she was trying to put a positive spin on the situation for the Applicant. However, she did not explain why she did not clarify her intentions to the Applicant but rather, apparently cut the conversation short. The comment and ending the call were indicative of not hearing the Applicant’s concerns about the impact of delay on the Applicant.

47Also related to the issue of delay is the Applicant’s final sub-issue regarding:

• The length of time it took to have the Applicant’s file transferred to another Society as requested and agreed to and the confusion related to the process for doing so;

48The Applicant requested that her file be transferred to [the other Society] in April of 2012 as she no longer lived in the area serviced by the Society. The Society sent a letter to [the other Society] on April [ ], 2012 summarizing their involvement with the Applicant and their concerns and requested a transfer meeting. The transfer meeting did not occur until June [ ], 2012. The Applicant was initially told that it would take a week to two weeks to do the transfer. During this time the Applicant called the Society repeatedly inquiring about the transfer. She called the supervisors of both the Society and [the other Society].

49The Child Protection Worker testified that she does not know why it took so long for the file to be transferred. She made numerous phone calls to [the other Society] and scheduled a transfer meeting but [the other Society] wanted a meeting with just the societies. She knew that the Applicant was getting very frustrated that the process was taking so long.

50The Board finds that the Society heard the Applicant. The Child Protection Worker made numerous calls to [the other Society] in order to facilitate the process and kept the Applicant informed. She also attempted to set up a transfer meeting. There were also documented contacts between the Applicant, the Child Protection Worker and her Supervisor during this time. The Board is satisfied that the Applicant was heard and given reasons as best as the Society could, given that the delay was on the part of [the other Society].

Conclusion:

51The Board finds that the Society did not meet its obligations to the Applicant regarding:

• Conditions in the February [ ], 2012 letter

• Allegations against the husband about the baby’s health (diaper injury).

• Delay in terms of the acceptance of a psychological assessment and the impact on the Applicant and the children.

52The Board dismisses the Applicant’s other issues.

53The Board orders the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the Applicant, with reference to the Child Protection Standards in Ontario and the Eligibility Spectrum regarding:.

1. The Society’s response to the Applicant’s allegations about the baby’s health (diaper injury) and any ongoing follow up.
2. The Society’s failure to consult with the Applicant prior to making the decisions in the February [ ], 2012 letter.
3. The Society’s failure to consult with the Applicant about becoming primary caregiver again and its reasons for not permitting the Applicant to resume primary caregiver roles for the children including when she returned to live with her parents.
4. The Society’s failure to follow up with solutions when the Applicant was experiencing difficulties in obtaining a psychiatric assessment, leading to delays in her meeting the Society’s conditions.

54The Society shall comply with this order within 30 days of the date of this decision.

Confidentiality Order

55Parties 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 must be used only for the purpose of the hearing of this application by the Board.