J.P. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2013 CFSRB 59

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

J.P.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: November 18, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 59

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

INTRODUCTION

1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from the Applicant on October 8, 2013 regarding a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11, as amended (the “Act”).

2The Board has determined that an oral hearing is not required in this case as the Board has sufficient information before it to make its decision based on the written material filed. The issue for the Board is whether it has jurisdiction to hear the application.

3On October 16, 2013, the Board determined that part of the application was eligible to proceed to the next stage of the Board’s process: the receipt of the Society’s response. The application was found eligible under section 68.1 (4) 4 which relates to the Applicant’s right to be heard by the Society and section 68. 1(4) 5 which relates to Applicant’s right to be given reasons for decisions that affect her interests.

4The eligible part of the Application relates to the Applicant’s allegations that the Society did not hear her or provide her with reasons regarding her reports to them that the children would come to visits at the Society office and disclose being abused, have “obvious bruises and hunger and the workers failed to act leaving the children in abuse.”

5The Board received the Society’s response dated October 25, 2013. It is the Society’s position that the Board lacks jurisdiction because the matter was decided by the Court. The Board reviewed the decisions of [Justice S.] dated January 5, 2009, [Justice W.] dated February 2, 2010 and the letter to the Applicant’s counsel dated September 24, 2008.

The Board also reviewed the Applicant’s submissions sent to the Board on November 14, 2013.

6Based on its review of the application, the Society’s response and the decisions of the Court, the Board has determined that it has no jurisdiction to hear the application. The reasons for this decision follow.

BACKGROUND

7The Applicant is the mother of three children, all of whom are now crown wards without access. One of the children has been in the Society’s care since July 3, 2007 and the Applicant has not seen her since September, 2008.

8During the child protection proceedings involving the children, she raised concerns with the Society about the safety of the two girls in the care of the grandparents and about the father. She told the Society and the police on numerous occasions that the children disclosed being abused, that they had bruises and that they were hungry and denied food.

9She applied to the Board alleging that she was not heard regarding these reports or provided with reasons for decisions taken by the Society regarding the reports of potential abuse.

ANALYSIS

10The Board has no jurisdiction to hear complaints if they involve matters that are before the Court or have been decided by the Court.

11Section 68. 1 (8) (a) of the Act provides that:

68.1

(8)

The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,

(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

12The Society provided the decisions of two judges, involving each of the three children. The Court specifically dealt with the fact that the Applicant made multiple allegations and made findings of fact regarding how the Society resolved them.

13The first child, whom the Applicant has not seen since 2008 was made a crown ward with no access by [Justice S.], who released her judgement on January 5, 2009. Regarding the two girls with the grandparents, [Justice S.] noted at paragraph 68 of her decision that the mother claimed that the children were abused by their grandparents and disclosed this to her at her visits. [Justice S.] found that there was one disclosure about a smack and further that “the Society’s evidence that the children are not making these allegations at the visits as claimed by the mother, is logical given that the visits are closely supervised by their staff. The mother did not adequately explain how these workers could fail to hear such statements by the children when they are always present”. The Justice went on to specifically deal with the escalating number of reports by the mother in this regard and commented that they could be harmful to the children (para 76). The Justice found that the children were doing well in the care of the grandparents and that their medical and dental needs were being taken care of and that they were in a stable home (para 67). The Court left the window of access open with the Applicant regarding the two girls with the grandparents.

14In 2010, [Justice W.] made the two girls crown wards without access for the purposes of adoption and issued her reasons on February 2, 2010. In her reasons for judgement, she referenced the ongoing use of access visits by the Applicant to encourage the children to disclose abuse by the grandparents and the father (para 27). The placement with the grandparents broke down because of conflict with the Applicant and persistent reports of abuse (para 28). The Court made a finding that the Applicant’s contentious and uncooperative relationship with the Society and her encouragement of allegations by the children has not changed since the decision of [Justice S.] (para 33; 43; 45).

15Following this decision, all of the children were crown wards with no access and the Applicant no longer had an active society file. The two girls were not with the grandparents and did not see the father or the Applicant.

16The subject matter of the Applicant’s complaint to the Board has been dealt with by the Court. The Court has disposed of the Applicant’s service-related allegations that the Society did not respond to her reports of abuse as disclosed by the children at access visits. The Court has made findings of fact about the ongoing reports of abuse which included an examination of the Society’s response and a finding that there was only one disclosure from a child about being “smacked”. The Applicant has not seen one child since 2007 and her concerns related to the other two girls. Following the decision of [Justice W.] in 2010, the Applicant has had no further contact with the two girls and therefore, there could be no new incidents that were not addressed by the Court.

17In these circumstances, the Board has no authority to deal with this application.

CONCLUSION

18The Board has no jurisdiction to hear this application.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

19Parties 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.

SHEENA SCOTT _______________________ Sheena Scott

Vice Chair