H.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services, 2013 CFSRB 09

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

H.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: February 15, 2013

Citation: 2013 CFSRB 09

Indexed as: H.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1On July 15, 2010, (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) against the Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (the “Society”) pursuant to 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) R.S.O. 119 c. C11, as amended. The application was found to be eligible for review on July 26, 2010.

2These are the reasons on the merits of this Application. Following a motion challenging the Board’s jurisdiction, the Board determined that it had jurisdiction on January 18, 2012. In its reasons on jurisdiction, dated February 1, 2012, the Board identified the sole issue for this hearing as: whether the Society gave the Applicant reasons for the decision to refuse to return her nephew to her care pending a treatment placement.

3The oral hearing on the merits was held on January 21, 2013 at which time the Board reserved its decision.

4The Board dismisses the Application for the reasons that follow.

BACKGROUND

5The comprehensive background summary for this application can be found in the Board’s Interim Decision on Jurisdiction, issued on February 1, 2012 (H.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services, 2010 CFSRB 151. Significant events from that background are included in this decision for clarity on the issues surrounding the complaint.

6The Child had been living with the Applicant from March [ ], 2010 onwards. The Applicant had a health concern that the Society was aware of. The placement was a difficult one at times. On June [ ], 2010 the Applicant telephoned the Society to request that the Child be removed from her home. On Friday, June [ ], 2010 the relationship had deteriorated to the point where the Applicant asked the Society to arrange for the Child to spend an extended access weekend with his mother. The Society successfully made that arrangement. On Monday June [ ], the Applicant and the Child presented themselves at the Society office seeking a placement for the Child as the Applicant was not able to take him back at that time. On the afternoon of June [ ], 2012 the Applicant accompanied the Child to a group home where the Society had secured an emergency placement.

7The Child did not like the placement and on June [ ], 2010 ran away. He showed up at the Applicant’s home wanting to stay in her home. The Applicant called the Society to request that the Child be returned to her care until such time as the Child could be placed in a treatment facility. Her request was denied. The Applicant had subsequent phone calls and meetings with the Society relating to her request and to the Child’s placement.

ANALYSIS

8Under s. 68.1 (4) 5 of the Act, a complainant who has sought or received a service, has a right to reasons for a decision that affects her interests.

9With respect to this section of the Act, what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A complainant must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

10The decision in question is the decision not to re-place the Child with the Applicant pending the location of a treatment placement. The relevant time frame is from the date of her request to have the Child returned to her care on June [ ], 2010 up to the date of the application, July [ ], 2010.

11Based on the evidence before it the Board finds that the Society did provide the Applicant with sufficiently detailed, timely reasons for its decision and dismisses the Application.

12The Applicant testified that she made at least two telephone calls to the Society on June [ ], 2010. One was to the Child’s service worker (the “Service Worker”) and one was to her kinship worker (the “Kinship Worker”). The Child’s Service Worker told the Applicant that she could not support the Child’s return due to his behaviours in the Applicant’s home. The Kinship Worker informed the Applicant that she would be closing the home as a Kinship-in-Care placement. A letter to that effect was prepared and mailed to the Applicant on June [ ], 2010. No other reasons for not returning the Child were given on that date.

13On June [ ], 2010 the Applicant attended at the group home as she had heard that the Child wanted to run away again. On June [ ], 2010 the Child did run away and went to the Applicant’s home asking to stay. The Applicant told him he could not as it was no longer her decision to make. On or about the same date both the Child’s Service Worker and the Kinship Worker called the Applicant to set up a meeting with the [program team] to discuss the Child’s placement options and to arrange for a tele-psychiatric conference.

14The [program team] meeting occurred on June [ ], 2010. The Applicant testified that she participated in the discussions. The formal meeting focussed on seeking a treatment facility for the Child. The [program team] did not endorse the Child’s return to the Applicant’s home. The Applicant acknowledged in her testimony that one of the participants at the meeting told her she, the Applicant, was not able to meet the Child’s treatment needs. She also acknowledged being told that the Child needed 24-hour supervision, something she could not provide.

15After the formal meeting the Applicant met with the Child’s Service Worker and the Children’s Service Supervisor. During her testimony the Applicant acknowledged that one of these two staff members provided her with additional reasons for not returning the Child, those being her health condition could be at risk with the Child in her home and her safety could also be at risk due to the Child’s behaviours. The Child’s Service Worker testified that she was present when the Children’s Service Supervisor made those comments to the Applicant.

16The Applicant was not satisfied with what she had heard on June [ ], 2010 and requested a further meeting with staff members to pursue her desire to have the Child returned to her care. The Society arranged that meeting for July [ ], 2010. The Applicant attended the meeting as did the Children’s Service Supervisor, the Kinship Worker, the Family Services Supervisor and, the Resource Supervisor.

17The evidence before the Board from the Resource Supervisor was that at the July [ ], 2010 meeting, seven reasons were given to the Applicant for not returning the Child to the care of the Applicant. Four of those reasons had been given verbally to the Applicant on June [ ], 2010; three additional reasons were detailed. The reasons provided were as follows:

a) The Child needed treatment and three placements had been contacted to take him. One of the placement options had no openings; the other two might have space for the Child later that year. The Applicant was notified that a referral package had been sent to one of these potential placements and the Society was waiting to hear back from them.

b) The Applicant needed to be safe. Previously, the Applicant had, from her experience with the Child, identified him as being a sociopath. In addition, according to the Applicant, the Child had no empathy or feelings for others and showed no remorse for his actions.

c) The Group Home was staffed twenty-four (24) hours a day to deal with the Child’s behaviours. The Applicant would be unable to be awake twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. In addition, there were other youth at the Group Home with like behaviours and therefore extra staff was brought in for this purpose.

d) When the Child had resided with her, the Applicant had reported to the Resource Worker that she would get frustrated to the point where she felt like choking or punching the Child and/or telephoning the police. In addition, when the child got angry, he would throw things around the house. The Resource Worker reminded the Applicant of a time when she had said that she was going to “knock his teeth out” and these comments were increasing in frequency and putting the Child at risk to the point that if things escalated again, the Society would see this as a protection concern and come and get the Child.

e) The Applicant had identified earlier to the Society that she had health issues and that having the Child live with her was putting stress on her heart.

f) It was important for the Applicant to maintain a strong relationship with the Child and that the above-noted concerns might hinder that relationship, especially if things broke down again.

g) Maintaining a positive relationship with the Child was vital in the interim since any treatment facility placement would include a family component. Since the level of commitment of the child’s mother was unknown at the time of the meeting, it was possible that this family component, in all possible likelihood, be or at least include, the Applicant.

18The Applicant testified that she had informed the Society at the July [ ], 2010 meeting that her health problems had cleared up and this should not be considered as a reason to deny the Child’s placement with her. The Society did not alter its decision and stood by its reasons as stated.

19The Applicant acknowledged in her testimony that she was at the meetings, heard the reasons, questioned and disagreed with some of the reasons. She recognized that, at two meetings with society staff but particularly on July [ ], 2010, she had received detailed reasons.

20The Board finds that the Applicant did receive timely reasons which contained sufficient detail for the Applicant regarding what factors the Society considered and why in making its decision not to return the Child to her care while awaiting a treatment-based placement. The Applicant had ongoing discussions including two meetings, within the two weeks following her request. The Society explained what the group home could offer as compared to what the Applicant could offer. While the Applicant disagreed and felt that her health issues had been resolved and questioned the ability of the group home to meet the needs of the Child given that he had run, the Society did not shift its position but maintained its decision, backed up by its reasoning which was comprehensively put to the Applicant at the meeting of July [ ], 2010.

DECISION

21Section 68.1(7) of the Act states that after reviewing the complaint, the Board may do one of several things including: (e) dismiss the complaint.

22The Board dismisses the complaint.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

23Parties 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 document or information shared by the parties and the Board must be used only for the purposes on the hearing of this application by the Board.

24Anyone who wishes an exception to this order must do so only with an order of the Board or the Court, as appropriate.