M.P. v. Children’s Aid Society of Algoma, 2013 CFSRB 44

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

M.P.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of Algoma

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: August 20, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 44

Indexed as: M.P. v. Children’s Aid Society of Algoma (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an application against the Children’s Aid Society of Algoma (the “Society”) filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on April 5, 2013. The application was deemed eligible to proceed, pursuant to sections 68.1(4).4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11, as amended (the “Act”).

2A pre-hearing in the matter was held on May 22, 2013 to identify the issues in dispute. A second pre-hearing was held on June 20, 2013 to plan for a hearing. The hearing was held on July 22, 2013.

3The Board became aware that the Society had conducted an Internal Complaint Review Panel (“ICRP”) meeting on April 22, 2013 with respect to the matters raised in the application and had provided its written summary of the ICRP meeting to the Applicant on May 8, 2013. In these circumstances, given the ICRP process was complete by the time of the hearing, the issue before the Board is whether or not the Applicant’s concerns were heard by the ICRP, and whether or not the Society gave the Applicant a meaningful response to those concerns following completion of its ICRP process.

4The Board finds that with regard to issues a) and b), set out below in paragraph 7, the Society’s ICRP process heard the Applicant’s concerns as required by section 2(2)a of the Act and provided her with reasons for the decisions made in response to those issues and to issue c) as required by section 68.1(4) 5 of the Act.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicant and her partner reside together with the Applicant’s two biological children (N. and H.) and her partner’s two children (O. and L.). Her partner shares custody of his children with his ex-partner who is the children’s mother. The Applicant shares custody of one of her children with her ex-partner who is the child’s father.

6The Society has had involvement with the Applicant’s family since 2011. In November 2012, the Society received a report regarding one of the Applicant’s partner’s children and undertook an investigation that involved all of the children in the care of the Applicant. During its investigation, the Society interviewed N and H without advising the Applicant.

7On January 28, 2013 a Society worker reported that a child who attended daycare in the Applicant’s home and was in the Applicant’s care had been observed crossing a road unattended by an adult and nearly being struck by a vehicle. The Society commenced an investigation as a result.

8The Applicant’s complaints are as follows:

The Society had not heard her or provided reasons for decisions that affected her interests in relation to:

a) the Society’s decision to interview N. and H. at their school, without her knowledge;

b) the Society’s failure to explain the outcome of the investigation about her children and to send a copy of a letter (January 18, 2012) to the Applicant, explaining the outcome of the Society’s investigation of the Applicant, and

c) the Society’s failure to provide reasons for decisions that affected her interests with respect to the investigation relating to a child attending her day care.

ANALYSIS

9When undertaking an internal complaints process, the Society is obligated to follow the requirements set out in the Act. The Act requires the Society to listen to the Applicant’s concerns and to provide reasons for decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests.

10Under section 68(5) of the Act, the Board can review the Society’s decision following completion of the ICRP. The decision under review in this case is the Society’s summary letter of May 8, 2012 (the “Summary”).

11The focus of this hearing by the Board is:

1. Did the ICRP hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding issues a) and b)?

2. Did the ICRP provide reasons for decisions made by the Society regarding issues a), b) and c)?

12The Applicant is entitled to be heard about her complaints, as provided by section 2(2) (a) of the Act which reads:

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;

13As well, the Applicant is entitled to be given reasons for decisions that affect her interests, as provided by section 68.1(4)5 of the Act:

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

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

14The Board needs to determine whether the ICRP process, namely the meeting and the Summary, provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and with reasons for actions taken by the Society as they relate to the issues identified. The Board finds the Society provided the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and with reasons for its decisions. The Board’s reasons for this finding follow.

Issue a) The decision to interview the Applicant’s children

15The Applicant believes that the Society had no right to interview her children without her knowledge, that the subject of the interview related to her partner’s child rather than her children and that her children were confused and intimidated by the process. She expressed these views in the ICRP and to the Board. The Applicant’s partner attended the ICRP meeting. His testimony about the ICRP was consistent with the Applicant’s testimony.

16In the Summary, the Society stated the following: “….when we receive an allegation that a child has either been harmed or there is risk of harm by the caregiver, it is our practice that we do not contact the parent prior to interviewing the children.” The allegations that led to an investigation requiring the children to be interviewed were about the Applicant as a caregiver and therefore the safety of all of the children in her care. As a result, the Society needed to speak to all of the children and it references this in its Summary.

17The witness for the Society who attended the ICRP explained that the Applicant had been informed at the meeting of the Society’s right to conduct interviews without a parent present under the kind of circumstances that led to the investigation. Furthermore, she stated that the Applicant spent a significant portion of the meeting expressing the concerns that she had regarding the children’s reactions to being interviewed.

18The Board finds that the Applicant was heard on this issue, and was given reasons for the Society’s actions on this issue.

Issue b) The Society’s failure to explain the outcome of the investigation and to send a copy of a letter (January 18, 2013) to the Applicant

19The Applicant testified that the Society only provided the January 18, 2013 letter addressed to the Applicant’s partner after the Applicant had submitted her application to the Board. She did not testify about raising this issue at the ICRP meeting.

20The Summary states the following:

(….) our internal records indicate that when (….) the Child Protection Worker (“the worker”), interviewed the children she met with you on the same day to inform you of the outcome. The worker informed you that she did not have any concerns about the children in your care, and as a result did not need to meet with the other two children on the same day.

21The Society explained that the letter was sent to the Applicant’s partner since the more specific allegation that led to the investigation involved one of his children. The Society provided a copy of the letter to the Applicant after she made her application to the Board and after it became aware that this was a concern of the Applicant. Both the Summary and the letter described the outcome of the investigation.

22The Board finds that the Society’s ICRP process heard the Applicant on the main issue regarding the outcome of the investigation. The Summary does not indicate that the Applicant raised the issue of the timing of her receipt of the letter. This was commented on during the course of the hearing and the Board understands that the Society provided a copy of the letter to the Applicant once it became aware of the Applicant’s concern that she had not received a copy of it. While the central focus of the investigation was the partner’s child, in retrospect, given the investigation involved all of the children, it might have been more appropriate for the Society to communicate in writing with both the Applicant and her partner.

Issue c) That the Society has not provided her with reasons for a decision that affected her relating to a child attending her daycare

23Section 2 (2) (a) of the Act affords the right to be heard to a parent or a child and not a community caregiver such as the Applicant regarding the child in question. The Applicant is not entitled to be heard on this matter since she is not a parent of the child in question.

24The Applicant is entitled to be given written reasons for the Society’s actions regarding pursuing an investigation and its outcome regarding this issue pursuant to s.68.1 (4) 5 of the Act. The Society wrote to the Applicant on March 9, 2013 regarding this issue. The letter outlines in detail the reasons why the Society became involved with the Applicant as a daycare provider and the reasons for its investigation. The letter provides detailed information regarding the report made by the worker about an unescorted young child and risks to his safety in crossing a road. The letter also includes detailed information regarding actions taken by the Society in response to the matter and its general obligations as a child protection agency in such matters. In addition, the Board heard testimony from a Society worker that she had provided a copy of the Society’s complaint review procedure brochure to the Applicant on January 29, 2013 when she met with the Applicant at her home regarding the matter.

25The Board recognizes that the Applicant disagreed with the Society regarding its view that the child was at risk. However, the Board finds on this issue that the Society did provide written reasons to the Applicant and that it had no obligation to hear the matter during the ICRP meeting since the Applicant is not the parent of the child in question in this matter and thus has no right to be heard pursuant to s. 2 (2) (a) of the Act.

DECISION

26The Board finds that the Society complied with the relevant sections of the Act regarding the ICRP process and the issues identified and dismisses the application for the reasons given.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

27Parties 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.