CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
J.G.
v.
Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society
REASONS FOR DECISION
Date: February 12, 2013
Citation: 2013 CFSRB 08
Indexed as: J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1The Applicant J.G. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on July 25, 2012, pursuant to sections 68.1(4)4 and 68.1(4)5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11, as amended, (the “Act”) regarding a matter relating to services sought or received from the Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”). The Board had found the application eligible for incidents that occurred after December 13, 2011.
2The Applicant alleges that the Society has not listened to her service concerns or heard her when decisions were made and has not provided her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests regarding the following:
- The Child’s safety while living with her Father, regarding:
Drug history of the father
Internet postings
Alcohol use by the Child
Bus incident
The incidents of early April 2012
The stalking of the Applicant and her sons
The Child’s surgery
- Planning after the apprehension of the Child on May [ ], 2012:
Planning for the Child’s placement
Possible placement of the Child at her boyfriend’s home
Allegation that the Child would move
The Society’s failure to do anything to assist the Applicant and her daughter to repair their damaged relationship.
The conduct of the Society’s Director of Family Services at the meeting held on July [ ], 2012.
3The Society argued that it had satisfied all of the requirements under the Act with respect to having heard the Applicant and having provided her with reasons for decisions it had made.
4An oral hearing into this matter was held on October 3 and December 13, 2012. The Board reserved its decision. The Board dismisses the complaint 1 for the drug use, internet postings and Child’s surgery. It also dismisses complaint 2 for the possible placement with the boyfriend and the allegation of the move. It dismisses also complaint 3 and 4. The Board finds in favour of the Applicant on complaint 1, for the alcohol use, the bus incident, the incidents of early April 2012 and the stalking of the Applicant and her sons. It also finds in favour of the Applicant on complaint 2 on the issue of the planning of the Child’s placement.
BACKGROUND
5The Applicant’s complaints are focused on the actions of the Society following December [ ], 2011 regarding her daughter (the “Child”) born on [ ][ ], 1996.
6The Child lived with the Applicant for the first fifteen years of her life. The Society has a long-standing history of contact with the Applicant, dating back to 2002. The most recent involvement started in August 2011, following an allegation regarding the Child and the Applicant and a request for help by the Applicant to the Society. The Applicant told the Society that, in late July 2011, as a result of behaviour that was out of control, she sent the Child to live with her ex-partner, the Child’s biological father (the “Father”), and did not want the Child to return home until there had been a substantial change in the Child’s attitude.
7The Father was arrested on November [ ], 2011 and kept in custody. The Applicant requested that the Society apprehend the Child, and place her back in her care. However, the Society decided instead, on November [ ], 2011, to return the Child to the Father’s care. The Father was then living with his partner (the “Partner”). The Applicant alleged that the Partner’s background made her unfit to be one of the principal caregivers for the Child.
8During the first five months of 2012 the Applicant raised numerous concerns with the Society about the Child’s ongoing residency in the Father’s home, and about the behaviour of the Father and his Partner.
9The Society received information on May [ ], 2012 that the Father had been arrested again on May [ ], 2012 and was in jail, leaving the Child without a guardian or caregiver. The Partner had moved out. On May [ ], 2012 the Family Service Worker (FSW) met with the Child at her school. The Child acknowledged that her father was in jail. The Child informed the FSW that she would not stay with her mother or maternal grandmother. Later that day the Child willingly accepted a placement in a group home. Late in the day of May [ ], 2012 the Applicant called the Society to report the incarceration of the Father. During this call the Applicant was informed that the apprehension and placement of the Child had already occurred. A few days after the placement at the group home the Society placed the Child with a foster parent, where she remains.
ANALYSIS
10The Board has authority to determine if the Applicant was heard when she raised concerns with the Society, and when decisions were made. The Board also has the authority to determine if the Applicant received reasons for decisions made that affect her interests.
11The Board’s authority and the