P.W. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 34

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

P.W. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: June 28, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 34

Indexed as: P.W. v. Chatham- Kent Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1P.W. (the “Applicant”) has brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on January 9, 2013, 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 Chatham-Kent Children’s Aid Society.

2The Applicant complained of the length of time it took the Society to investigate her original complaint, the limited scope of the investigation and how the Society investigated and arrived at its conclusion.

3The Society took the position that it considered the Applicant’s concerns and gave her reasons, where required, for its decisions.

4The Board finds that the Society did not meet its obligations to the Applicant regarding: reasons why it did not investigate her original complaint.

5The Board dismisses the following complaints:

• That the Applicant was not heard regarding why the Society did not investigate her original complaint.
• That the Applicant was not heard or given reasons regarding how the Society investigated and the reasons for its conclusions.

Background

6The Applicant is the mother of three children, two of whom have access visits with a former partner (the “father”). Following a weekend visit to the father, the Applicant reported a number of concerns to the Society on November 22, 2011. There were problems with the sewer in the basement of the father’s home and as a result, the furnace had been removed and there was no heat. She also reported some historical concerns of emotional and verbal abuse when she was in a relationship with the father from the year 2000 to 2004 which she had already reported to [another Society]She reported an incident that the daughter had disclosed which occurred in August of 2011 that the father had grabbed the daughter by the arm.

7The Child Protection Worker completed an initial screening of the Applicant’s concerns and, in consultation with a supervisor, made the decision not to investigate her concerns. The Applicant complained to another Child Protection Worker in December of 2011 and this worker also made the decision not to investigate on the basis that there was no new information. On December 23, 2011, the Applicant contacted Intake Supervisor, [ ] to follow up on her complaints. The Intake Supervisor reviewed her file and decided to conduct an investigation which was completed in January of 2012.

8On October 23, 2012, the Applicant reported an incident to the Society when the father called her a negative name. The father came to pick up the children and was told that they did not want to go. A file was opened to investigate the concern that the children were at risk of emotional harm due to the conflict and inappropriate language used. The Society verified adult conflict and cautioned both the father and Applicant. A letter was sent to the Applicant advising her of the results of the investigation on December 5, 2012 and the file was closed.

Analysis

9The 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;

10For the purposes of this analysis, the Board has divided the Applicant’s complaint into two main issues:

1. Why the Society did not investigate the Applicant’s original complaint.

2. How the Society Investigated and the Reasons for the Conclusion.

1. Why the Society did not Investigate the Applicant’s original complaint

11The Applicant testified that she went to the Society offices on November 22, 2011 to report to [ ], Child Protection Worker, on the condition of the father’s home. She brought with her pictures posted on [a social media site] of the father’s basement. There were issues with the sewer. Her children had told her that the house was “stinky”: and they could not get into their rooms. It was only 17 degrees in the house because the furnace was taken out. She stated that she told the Child Protection Worker that her daughter had been grabbed by the father and shaken very hard when she was beside the sidewalk.

12[ ], Child Protection Worker, testified that he was writing as the Applicant was speaking and that the Applicant told him that in August of 2011, the father had grabbed the daughter by the arm and yelled at her. The Child Protection Worker stated that the Applicant did not say that the father shook the daughter. The Applicant also complained about the condition of the father’s home and incidents of domestic violence when she was involved with the father. The Child Protection Worker reviewed the Society’s file and determined that the domestic violence allegations had been previously reported to another agency and investigated. He then spoke to the Family Service Worker involved in a related file with the father who advised that another CAS [ ] had attended at the father’s home on November 21, 2011 and that the basement was being repaired due to damage to a sewer line. The Child Protection Worker consulted with a supervisor and the decision was made not to investigate the Applicant’s concerns because the report of physical harm was historical and did not appear excessive; the father’s home environment was being addressed, and information about domestic violence was historical and had been previously investigated by another agency.

13The Applicant spoke to [the other], Child Protection Worker between December 9, to 12, 2011 over three days. The Applicant was upset that the Society was not investigating her concerns. The worker reviewed the Society file and noted that [the other Society]had visited the home of the father on November 21, 2011 and determined that it was appropriate and that the basement was being repaired. A file was not opened for investigation at this time.

14The Applicant called [the other], Intake Supervisor, as her witness to answer questions about how the Society coded her allegations under the Eligibility Spectrum. The Applicant understood that the Ontario Child Welfare Eligibility Spectrum was a mandatory tool used to assess concerns that a child is in need of protection. The Intake Supervisor testified that they always use the Eligibility Spectrum to screen referrals and, in the Applicant’s case, found no concerns. The Applicant’s original complaint was that the daughter was skipping by the side of the road and was grabbed by the arm and yelled at. There was physical force in a way that did not cause an injury. The allegations were coded below the line of intervention. The information that the Society received about the father’s home was that it was appropriate; safety precautions were put in place and the unit was being repaired. The Society looked at the father’s past history and found no verified history of physical or sexual abuse. Since the families lived in two jurisdictions the [other Society] assisted and both societies spoke to the father.

15The Board finds that the Society heard the Applicant’s complaints. The 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 Child Protection Worker met with the Applicant, listened to her and considered the complaints. He completed a file review, consulted his supervisor and other Society staff familiar with the file. The Board accepts the evidence of [the Child Protection Worker] that the Applicant’s original complaint was that the father grabbed the daughter and yelled at her because he was writing this information down as the Applicant was speaking. [The other], Child Protection Worker also spoke to the Applicant regarding her concerns over several days and consulted with her supervisor and other Society personnel. The Board is satisfied that the Society gave the Applicant the opportunity to be heard.

16However, under s. 68(4)5 of the Act, the Applicant also has a right to reasons for decisions made by the Society that affect her interests when she has concerns about the service she is receiving. The Society made a decision not to investigate the concerns of the Applicant about possible abuse of her daughter and the living conditions of the father’s home. The Applicant was asking for child protection services for her children and has a right to reasons for the Society’s decision not to investigate. The Board finds no evidence that the Society gave the Applicant reasons at the time of their decision. [The other], Intake Supervisor, testified that it is Society policy not to contact or advise the referent when the referral is coded below the line for investigation. However, in this case, the referent is a parent who was seeking a service for her children and deserves reasons for why the Society was not investigating her concerns.

17The Applicant called [the other], Intake Supervisor, to give evidence as to the reasons why the Society made the decision not to investigate her concerns. The Board is satisfied that the Intake Supervisor gave the Applicant adequate reasons at the hearing for the Society’s decision not to investigate her initial complaints.

2. How the Society Investigated and Reasons for the Conclusion

18[The other], Intake Supervisor testified on behalf of the Applicant. She stated that the nature of the allegation changed when the Applicant complained that the father grabbed the daughter by the arm and shook her. The Society investigated and the children did not disclose physical harm by the father. The investigation revealed that the daughter was running close to the edge of the road and was pulled back for her safety. The daughter also revealed there was no physical discipline. The son disclosed that he was afraid when he was spanked at the age of three. He has not been afraid since then. The Applicant’s complaints of historical issues have already been investigated by the [other Society]. The Society completed the investigation, did not verify the Applicant’s concerns, informed her of this and closed the file.

19[Another], Child Protection Worker, attended at the Applicant’s home on January 17, 2012 to investigate the allegation of the father grabbing the daughter by the arm and shaking her. The Child Protection Worker met with the mother and her spouse. She met with the three children at the same time in the presence of the mother who would not allow them to be interviewed privately. The father lives in the jurisdiction of the [other Society] and a worker from that agency met with the father at his home on January 12, 2012 and found no hazards in the home. The Worker from [the other Society] again discussed with the father the allegation of physical discipline which the father denied. The Child Protection Worker did not verify allegations of physical harm. The school did not have any concerns with the children and [the other Society] confirmed that there were no concerns with the father’s home.

20[The other], Intake Supervisor, spoke with the Applicant on January 23 and 24, 2012 and advised her that the allegations were not verified. A letter dated April 19, 2012 was sent to the Applicant from the Intake Worker and Intake Supervisor outlining the result of the investigation and advising the Applicant that the file was closed. A detailed summary letter dated April 19, 2012 outlining the Society’s involvement with the Applicant was sent to the Applicant from the Central Intake Screener and the Director of Services.

21The Board finds that the Society listened to the Applicant when the nature of the allegations changed and consequently investigated her concerns. During the investigation, the Applicant and her spouse were both interviewed and given the opportunity to be heard.

22The Board finds that the Society explained to the Applicant how they investigated and gave her reasons for its conclusion that her concerns were not verified. The Applicant has testified that [the other]Intake Supervisor, spoke to her on January 23 and 24, 2012 about the results of the investigation. Furthermore, two letters were sent on April 19, 2012 detailing the investigation, and summarizing the results and the reasons for the conclusion. Though the letters were sent later than the Society’s normal process, the Board is satisfied that adequate reasons were given to the Applicant on this issue.

Conclusion

23The Board finds that the Society did not meet its obligations to the Applicant regarding: reasons why it did not investigate her original complaint. Since fulsome reasons were given to the Applicant during the hearing, the Board makes no further order.

24The Board dismisses the Applicant’s other issues.

Confidentiality Order

25Parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board documents or decisions or any other documents or information provided or used in this application with anyone including through the media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings.