A.D.E. and K.E. v. Children’s Aid Society for the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound, 2013 CFSRB 29

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

A.D.E. and K.E.

v.

Children’s Aid Society for the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: June 5, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 29

Indexed as: A.D.E. and K.E. v. Children’s Aid Society for the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1ADE and KE (the “Applicants”) applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on December 31, 2012, pursuant to sections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) regarding a matter relating to services sought or received from the Children’s Aid Society for the Districts of Nipissing and Parry Sound (the “Society”).

2The Applicants complained that the Society did not hear them or their service concerns when decisions were made and did not provide them with reasons for decisions that affected their interests regarding the safety and well being of their son TC [the child] in the care of his birth father JC [the biological father], and regarding the Society’s treatment of ADE since its involvement with her.

3The Society took the position that during a series of meetings with the Applicants from January 2012 to January 2013 it had provided the Applicants with opportunities to raise their service concerns and had provided them with reasons for decisions that the Society had made.

4The Board finds that the Society did hear the Applicants’ service concerns and did provide them with explanations for decisions it made during a series of meetings with them.

5The Board, therefore, dismisses the Applicants’ complaints.

Background

6The Applicants are parents of WE, born 2007; [the child], born 2010; and ME, born 2012. Following [the child’s] birth, a DNA test confirmed that [the child] was the biological child of [the biological father].

7The Society’s first involvement with the Applicants occurred when a Society worker interviewed ADE, the child’s mother, in hospital following the birth of [the child] in February 2010. Several weeks after interviewing ADE, the Society closed the file.

8The Society’s second involvement occurred in January 2010, after ADE contacted the Police with the allegation that [the biological father] had threatened her life. Subsequently Police charged [the biological father] with assault. Following that event, [the biological father] started proceedings in Family Court and a DNA test was administered which substantiated that [ ] was the biological father of [the child]. At that time a Society worker visited ADE’s home to investigate. Subsequently the file was again closed.

9The Applicants’ further involvement with the Society began in July 2011. The Applicant ADE called the Police who contacted the Society to report that [the child’s] father, [the biological father], had grabbed [the child] from his mother’s arms and had driven away with him. The Society investigated and found that the child was in the care of his paternal grandparents, and that there was no custody order in place. Subsequently, a matter concerning custody and access was brought before the Family Court which ordered alternating week access to the child, [ ], for the Applicants and [the biological father]. The Society then applied for a Supervision Order because of concerns regarding risk of emotional harm to both [the child] and his older brother WE. The Court approved the Society’s request to assess and explore family dynamics, outstanding criminal issues, and potential mental health issues of the adults involved, ADE, KE, and [the biological father], under a Section 54 Assessment.

10The Society’s position in October 2012, following a year of assessment, was that the child [ ] was having his needs met in the home environments of both the Applicants and the biological father, and was feeling safe in both homes.

11On November [ ], 2012, in Child Welfare Court, the Society was granted leave to withdraw from the Applicants’ case. The Applicants were represented at that time by counsel and the Order was approved by their counsel. All further matters related to the Applicants and [the child] are currently before the Family Court, and involve custody and access issues rather than child protection matters.

Analysis

12The Board has the authority to determine if the Applicants received explanations from the Society.

13Sections 68.1(4)4 and 1(4)5 read as follows:

68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

(4) Allegations that the Society has failed to provide the complainant(s) with an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting the complainants’ interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving;

(5) Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant(s) with reasons for a decision that affects the complainants’ interests.

14The Applicants sought explanations from the Society. They questioned why the Society had closed their case when they believed that there were still protection concerns regarding the child’s biological father, [ ], and they had concerns regarding the Society’s treatment of ADE.

Concerns regarding TC in the care of his father JC

15At the Hearing, the Applicant ADE expressed concerns regarding the care [the child] was receiving when in the care of his biological father, [ ]. Overall, she felt that her child was at risk with [ ]. Specifically, the Applicants were concerned with the safety and well-being of [the child] in the care of his birth father, including concerns regarding unhealthy diet, bed time, potty training, alleged physical and emotional abuse, and drug use by the child’s birth father. ADE was of the view that the Society had not followed through on these concerns and despite these concerns had withdrawn from the case.

16The Society maintained that workers had met the Applicants at a series of meetings specifically to address their concerns and to explain the Society’s decisions. The meetings were identified as follows. Meetings with the:

• Manager of Services, July [ ], 2012;
• Case Manager, and Protection Supervisor, January [ ], 2012;
• Director of Services, February [ ], 2012;
• Manager of Services, December [ ], 2012 on behalf of the Executive Director; and,
• Director of Services on behalf of the Executive Director, January [ ], 2013.

17At the Hearing, representatives of the Society submitted that they had addressed the concerns raised by the Applicants regarding the child [the child] in the care of [the biological father]. They had discussed with [the biological father] the issues of [the child’s] sleep, food intake, and potty training. They noted that [the child] seemed comfortable in his father’s home and that they did not note signs of physical and emotional abuse. The Board notes that the child protection issues related to [the child] were properly before the Child Welfare Court on November [ ], 2012, and that any further concerns related to custody and access are matters for the Family Court.

18The Society acknowledged the Applicants’ concern regarding the use of drugs by [the biological father]. It noted that the Society had initiated drug testing for [the biological father] and had told him that he was to be drug free when caring for [the child]. The Society acknowledged that [the biological father] had received a positive drug test result in October 2012. The Society submitted that this information had been provided to the Court which, in the face of this, and further information that there was no evidence that [the biological father] had used drugs while in a care-giving role, had decided to continue [the biological father’s] alternating access.

Concerns regarding the Society’s treatment of ADE

19At the Hearing the Applicants complained that the Society worker who visited ADE in hospital, following [the child’s] birth, had treated them like criminals. According to the Applicants, the Society worker misunderstood their story. The Applicant ADE alleged that, because of the stress she experienced at that time, she was not able to breastfeed. The Applicants alleged that it was [the biological father] who contacted the Society following [the child’s] birth.

20At the Hearing, representatives of the Society clarified that it was the hospital Maternal Social Worker who had made the referral to the Society at the time of [the child’s] birth. She was concerned about possible postpartum depression on the part of the Applicant.

21The Society stated that its workers had met with the Applicants, at the meetings noted above, to review the concerns related to the Society’s treatment of ADE. It submitted that, despite the discussions at these meetings, the Applicants were not satisfied with the explanations they received. The Society maintained that there was a significant difference between not agreeing with the position of the Society and the Society not providing an appropriate level of service.

22The Society submitted that its primary concern was the wellbeing of the child [ ] who appeared to be doing well in both homes. Monthly visits, both announced and unannounced, had been made to [the biological father’s] home. The Society determined that it had no further protection concerns related to [the child]. The Society submitted that it had met with each of the Applicants separately and together to discuss their concerns and the reasons for its decisions.

23The Society submitted that the protocol for closing this case included information regarding supports in place for the parties, information that they were engaged with professionals, and that there were no concerns in either home. It noted that on November [ ], 2012 the Society was granted leave in Child Welfare Court to withdraw from the Applicants’ case. The Society pointed out that the Applicants were represented by counsel, and that the order was approved by their counsel and by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. The Society added that all further matters related to the Applicants and [the child] are currently before the Family Court and involve custody and access issues.

The Board’s conclusion

24The Board finds that representatives of the Society did meet with the Applicants on a number of occasions, as noted above, to address their concerns and provide them with reasons for the Society’s decisions. The Board finds that the Society appropriately focused on the wellbeing of the children WE, [the child], and ME. It notes that the Society investigated and determined that [the child] appeared happy and well cared for in both homes. The Board finds that the Society addressed the concerns related to [the child’s] care with the Applicants and to the matter of [the biological father’s] alleged drug use through the Court.

25The Board observes that the Society’s meetings with the Applicants were not followed by written explanations or letters from the Society summarizing the information provided. The Board recommends that in future all such meetings be followed by written minutes and summaries.

26The Board finds that the Society heard the Applicants’ concerns and did provide them with reasons for decisions that affected their interests. The Boards, therefore, dismisses the Applicants’ complaints.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

27Parties 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.