R.G. v. Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County, 2014 CFSRB 13

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

R.G. v. Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: March 18, 2014

Citation: 2014 CFSRB 13

Indexed as: R.G. v. Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County (CFSA s. 68)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”) R.S.O. 119 c. C11, as amended. The Applicant is the father of a 6 year old daughter. The child’s mother has had legal custody since January 2010. The Applicant has specified access to his daughter every other weekend and two telephone calls per week. In December, 2012 the Society was granted a temporary Supervision Order for the child in her mother’s care. A further supervision Order with conditions was made on August 13, 2013.

2The Applicant’s service complaints are as follows. He is concerned that the Society has not heard his service concerns or heard him when decisions were made and has not provided him with reasons for decisions that affected his interests during the period April to October 2013, regarding:

a. The failure of the worker to keep him informed regarding the well-being of his daughter in the care of her mother and to respond to his concerns regarding his daughter;

b. The attempts on the part of his daughter’s mother to alienate her from him; and

c. The safety of his child in the presence of her mother’s fiancé, given the fiance’s abusive behaviour towards the mother which the child witnessed.

3The Board must decide whether the Applicant was heard regarding decisions that were made affecting his interests or when he raised service concerns and whether he was provided with reasons for decisions that affected his interests.

BACKGROUND

4The Applicant and the child’s mother have had conflict relating to custody issues for which the Applicant has sought assistance from the Society. The Applicant’s chief concern relates to the presence of the child’s mother’s fiancé who now resides in her home, with the Society’s concurrence, after having initially been restricted from doing so. Other concerns relate to communication with the child, specifics regarding access visits, and alleged parental alienation.

5In a Court hearing June 17th, 2013, the Applicant expressed interest in assuming custody of his daughter because of his concerns for her well-being and safety. However, the Applicant failed to prepare and file the required documents with the Court and was found in default when the matter returned to court on August 13, 2013. A status review application is scheduled for court March, 2014 and the Society recommendation is to terminate its court-ordered involvement with the child and her family at that time. The Society has advised the Applicant to seek legal advice related to the custody matters.

ANALYSIS

6The Board’s authority in the Application before the Board and the Society’s obligations are found in the following sections of the Act:

a. 68.1(4). Matters for Board Review

b. The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

i. (4) Allegations that the society failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a);

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

c. 2(2). Duties of Service Providers

d. Service providers shall ensure,

7That 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.

8In P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33, at paras. 13-14, the Board described the purpose of s.68.1 (4) and (5) and addressed s. 68.1(4) 4 as follows:

a. The obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 reflect the importance of active participation for parents, providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. 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.

b. To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

9The “right to reasons” under the Act, means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8 at para. 13, the Board held that:

a. With 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.

The Hearing

10At the Hearing, the Applicant testified that he has concerns regarding the safety and well-being of his daughter in her mother’s home. He submitted that his concerns have not been properly heard by the Society, that the Society has not responded appropriately, and has advised him to hire a lawyer. He has asked the Society to “keep him in the loop” so that he doesn’t feel he is harassing them, but the Society has responded to many of his concerns by stating they are not child protection matters and are not within the mandate of the Society.

11The Applicant believes that the Society has made decisions without consulting him or asking for his approval. His chief concern relates to the Society’s decision to allow the child’s mother’s fiancé to live in her home, despite his previous abusive behaviour towards her, which the child witnessed. The Applicant had been advised earlier by [ ], his former Family Services Worker, that following the Family Court decision of June 2013, the mother’s fiancé would have to undertake five counselling sessions. Yet the fiancé has now been allowed by the Society to reside in the mother’s home.

12The Applicant stated that he raised further concerns with the Society about telephone access to his daughter, about arrangements related to access visits, and about comments heard in the community about the child’s mother.

13The Applicant acknowledged that he has spoken to [ ], the Family Services Supervisor on at least one occasion, for an hour, and has exchanged numerous e-mails and telephone calls with his current Family Services Worker, [ ], with regard to these concerns.

14He acknowledged that he has had these conversations with the Society’s representatives but is not satisfied with the responses.

15The Applicant expressed the wish that the Society had had more consideration of him as a father and had taken his concerns seriously. He wants to be part of his child’s life and wants her in a safe place. He feels that the Society has not treated him with respect. He is not happy with the Society’s decision with regard to the child’s living situation in her mother’s home which he believes not to be in her best interest.

16Counsel for the Society submitted that between April and October, 2013 the Society did provide responses to the Applicant’s concerns, although some may have been delayed, and acknowledged that the Applicant has not agreed with the responses. She submitted that many of the Applicant’s concerns are not protection concerns but relate to custody matters including telephone calls with the child, issues regarding clothing not being dropped off, and allegations that the mother is saying bad things about the Applicant.

17Counsel submitted, with regard to the mother’s fiancé being in the home, that the Applicant was aware of conditions imposed by the Court related to requirements for counselling for the mother and her fiancé. A Family Court Order imposing these conditions was agreed to by all parties, including the Applicant, in June, 2013. The Applicant was represented by Counsel at the Hearing. The Order was not specific to requiring five counselling sessions, but was at the discretion of the Society.

18Counsel submitted that the Society investigated the incident related to the mother’s fiancé, completed a risk assessment at the time, and has since monitored the situation, including attending at the mother’s home. The Society placed very stringent expectations on the mother regarding the fiancé’s presence.

19The Society decided to lift the conditions and allow the fiancé to be in the child’s mother’s home after lengthy consideration and collateral contacts. It verified that the mother had completed 5 counselling sessions, the fiancé was engaged in an anger management program, and the couple had completed couples’ counselling and was seen to be making good progress.

20Counsel submitted that although this matter was discussed with the Applicant in several conversations with Society representatives, the Applicant continued to disagree with the decision.

21Counsel submitted that at the June 2013 Family Court Hearing, the Judge, after hearing that the child’s mother intended to marry her fiancé, stated that the parties should develop a new plan for the child. The Court date was rescheduled to August 2013. At that time, the Applicant was found in default as he had not prepared a plan nor filed forms to support his stated intention to seek custody of his daughter. The status review hearing is now scheduled for March 2014.

22The Applicant’s current Family Services Worker, [ ] testified that in the seven months since becoming the family’s worker, she has spoken to the Applicant on the telephone at least five times, some conversations lasting up to thirty minutes. She has received numerous e-mails, sometime ten e-mails on a Monday morning. She stated that she does not ignore the Applicant’s concerns but many are beyond the mandate of the Society, for example, the issue of the child’s mother not sending slippers for the child’s access.

23[The current Family Services Worker] submitted, with regard to the issue of parental alienation, that she believes the child loves her father and enjoys her time with him. However, there is significant conflict between the parents. She acknowledged that there have been disagreements between the parents related to telephone access and issues of scheduling. She noted there is a plan in place regarding emergency contact, should it be necessary.

24[The current Family Services Worker] submitted that the child continues to be exposed to negative communication between the parents. She has attempted to work with both parents to encourage them to reduce the conflict and to use alternate means of communication. The Society recognizes the concerns related to emotional harm to the child and continues to put expectations in place with the mother, to which she has agreed, in order to minimize these concerns.

25In summary, the Society is of the view that it has responsibly addressed the protection issues related to the child and has responded to the Applicant’s concerns during lengthy discussions, e-mails and letters. A letter to the Applicant on August 16, 2013 from the Family Service Worker and the Service Manager directly addressed the Applicant’s concerns regarding protection and custody. The Society believes it has gone beyond its mandate to address the Applicant’s concerns.

DECISION

26The Board has reviewed the submissions of the parties and the written communication between the Applicant and the Society representatives including e-mails and letters. The Board finds that the Society has attempted to hear the Applicant’s concerns and to address them. The Board finds that the Applicant resists having a clear understanding of the Society’s mandate related to its role in the protection of children, and is still dissatisfied with the service received.

27The Board notes that there is a Family Court Hearing in March 2014 at which time the Applicant may express his concerns to the Court and that the Society has suggested that he seek legal advice related to custody issues.

28The Board finds that the Applicant was heard regarding decisions that were made affecting his interests and when he raised service concerns and was provided with reasons for decisions that affected his interests.

29The Board dismisses the Application.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

30Pursuant to Rules 30.1 and 30.2 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure parties 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.