CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
S.N. v. Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County
REASONS FOR DECISION
Date: June 26, 2014
Citation: 2014 CFSRB 33
Indexed as: S.N. v. Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (CFSA s. 68)
INTRODUCTION
1S.N. (the “Applicant”) filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on April16, 2014 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 Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County (the “Society”). The Applicant has two children who reside with her. [Common law partner] is S.N.’s common law partner who resided with the family until September 2013.
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:
a. The terms related to the reintegration plan of [common law partner] in the family home.
b. Issues related to the assessment of alcohol consumption and of alternatives to the proposed method to assess the consumption.
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 made.
4An oral hearing in this matter was held on June 20, 2014. The Board reserved its decision. The Board finds in favour of the Applicant for the reasons below.
BACKGROUND
5The Society’s current involvement started following an incident on September 19, 2013 where it is alleged [common law partner] assaulted the Applicant during an argument as a result of him being intoxicated. Following this incident, [common law partner] faced charges and was not allowed in the family home until December 18, 2013. [Common law partner] did not return home on that date because the Society had started a protection application and directed [the applicant] not to allow [common law partner] in the home at that time. In January 2014, the Society was granted an interim order of supervision placing the children in [the applicant’s] care with all access by [common law partner] to be exercised at the Society’s discretion. This order remains in force.
6The Applicant’s complaints regard the actions of the Society during the period of planned reintegration of [common law partner] in the family home following a meeting that took place on February 26, 2014 until the actual reintegration on May 2, 2014.
7The February 26 meeting was held to determine a reintegration plan for [common law partner]. in the family home. On that day, the parties reached an agreement which was drafted by a Society representative as follows (errors in the original):
Plan:
[[Common law partner]] will go to [agency] to assess any alcohol misuse. The [family services worker] will make the referral to [agency] and [common law partner] will sign consents for our agency to talk to the counsellor to give context of the situation and then get the counsellor’s opinion about the assessment is complete. [Common law partner] needs to consider this and will confirm his agreement by Monday March e, 2014. If he doesn’t agree, he will propose another plan so that we may get an assessment of his alcohol use. We must approve the plan.
[S.N.] will work with [her counsellor] at rural Women’s Support Program to address her issues of trauma and ensure she gains insight about her triggers so that she can safety plan around those triggers so her kids aren’t negatively affected by [S.N.’s] actions if she is triggered. [Counsellor] will be able to communicate with [family services worker] to report how [S.N.] is doing in this regard.
[[Common law partner]] will have increased access at home with the kids. He may have unlimited, unsupervised access during the day and start having one overnight/week. He will not drink in the home for now. [Family services worker] will have both announced and unannounced visits during the unsupervised access. If there are no concerns over the next four weeks, we will support [[common law partner]] moving back home after the next court date if the court agrees.
[Family services worker] will need to have open access to the children so that she can check in with them on how access is going and how they are doing in general. [S.N.] and [[common law partner]] will help to make [family services worker’s] role in the children’s lives more normal and not frightening through their discussing it with them in an age appropriate way that reduces any fear they may have about her.
The court process will proceed until we have more information from the above three points that ensures there are ideally no incidents, but if there are any incidents, that there is a good safety plan in place that keeps all frightening actions away from the kids. If this is the case, our court application can be amended to withdraw from the court, and enter into a cooperative, voluntary agreement. The next court date [March 25, 2014], information will go to court before the court day based on the above plan and hopefully we can move to a “Settlement Agreement” that the judge will agree with.
8The complaints raised by the Applicant relate to the implementation of this plan, the Society’s failure to discuss changes with her and to provide her with an opportunity to be heard about these changes, as well as the Society’s failure to provide timely detailed reasons for the decisions that affected her interests.
ANALYSIS
9The 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.
10The Board’s authority and the Society’s obligations are found in the following sections of the Act:
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.
68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
(4) Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2(2)(a).
(5) Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
11In 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:
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.
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.
12With respect to s. 68.1(4).5, 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 parent 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.
13The issue that triggered the Society’s change in position, and the resulting complaint by the Applicant related to [common law partner’s] decision to not attend at [agency] for an alcohol assessment. In accordance with the plan, this decision was communicated to the Society by letter dated March 2, 2014 given to the family services worker at a home visit on March 10 or 11, 2014 after she had cancelled a couple of appointments with the Applicant. Rather than attend [agency][common law partner] proposed obtaining a letter from his treating physician. [Common law partner] did not feel that the assessment by [agency] was necessary and he was concerned the results would be used for another purpose. He was also concerned because such an assessment had never been requested before, including in the court application.
14[Common law partner] testified that his doctor informed him he would prepare the letter if the court ordered it. [Common law partner] therefore felt that, if he was ordered to do so by the court, he would obtain a letter from his doctor to determine that he did not have an issue with alcohol abuse. He also volunteered that the issue of past seasonal depression could also be addressed in that letter.
15On March 21, 2014, having not heard back from the Society about [common law partner’s] decision, the Applicant emailed stating that she assumed the proposal was agreeable to the Society. The family services worker responded by email to the Applicant on March 24, 2014, the day before the scheduled court appearance, indicating that the delay in response was “not intentional, but rather as a result of discussions occurring regarding [common law partner]’s letter and my other case obligations.” The worker indicated the Society was “disappointed that [common law partner] is unwilling to seek an assessment of his alcohol use.” She added that, as the Society remained concerned about his alcohol use, the Society would seek a settlement conference date at the court date the next day and, the Society would review its position. No offer to meet to discuss the issue was made in the e-mail communication. Also absent from the email is any statement regarding the agreed 4 weeks plan to allow [common law partner] to return to the family home.
16The Board heard testimony, both from the Applicant’s witnesses and the family services worker, that there were no “concerns” raised during any of the access visits during the four weeks following the agreement. Yet, according to the Applicant, on March 25, 2014, not only was [common law partner] not allowed to return home, but no mention was made in court of the reintegration plan. The Applicant stated that she had expected that to be part of the agreement to proceed on March 25, 2014 as she was never informed otherwise. The next day, she wrote to the family services worker raising the issue.
17She did not receive a response until April 2, 2014. In its response, the Society indicates that its interpretation of the agreement was that all three issues: [common law partner] attending for an alcohol use assessment, [the applicant] continuing to work with her counsellor and 4 weeks of access passing without “concerns” needed to be met for the Society to allow [common law partner] to reintegrate into the family home on March 25, 2014.
18The family services worker stated that as the court had just ordered the medical note from [common law partner’s] doctor on March 25, she had not yet received the information. As well, she indicated the Society would ask [common law partner] to sign a consent to allow her to speak to his doctor to “provide context to the Society’s concerns”. In the April 2 response the family services worker indicated that her “disappointment” at [common law partner’s] decision to not pursue the [agency] assessment in her letter of March 24, 2014 meant that she did not agree with his proposed plan. She goes on to state:
“There will be no changes to the current arrangement until information from [[common law partner]] family doctor and your support worker are obtained in order for the Society to review its position further in preparation for the May 14th, 2014 Settlement Conference.”
She ends the letter stating, “I will be sending a separate email to book our next home visit and to discuss, in person, with [[common law partner]] the request for a signed consent for his family doctor.”
19Nowhere in the April 2 letter is there an invitation to discuss what is obviously a difference in perception about the nature of the reintegration plan nor is there any invitation to voice differences of opinions or questions about the Society’s “position”.
20The Board heard from the Applicant that the family services worker did not invite discussion about the plan at any time after the meeting of February 26, 2014. Nor was any explanation provided to her about the Society’s reasons for changing its position at the last minute.
21The Board heard from the Applicant’s counsellor that she was not contacted by the worker until the very end of March, just before the matter was to be in court. The Board also heard that when the family services worker called the counsellor to request the letter, she did not mention that this information was required for March 25 court date.
22The Applicant testified that when she left the February 26 meeting, and at all times in March, she clearly understood that the issue of [common law partner’s] return home and the issue of the withdrawal of the court application were separate and had separate expectations attached to them. Her understanding of the condition for [common law partner’s] return home, which was shared by [common law partner], was that after the four weeks of overnight access visits without issue, he would be allowed to reintegrate into the home. The other expectations related to the withdrawal of the court application.
23The Board agrees that on the face of the Plan, the paragraph that deals with the access visits and [common law partner’s] reintegration “stands alone” as far as cause and effect. The statement relating to the withdrawal of the court application is the one that refers back to the list of tasks to be accomplished. In fact, not only do these tasks not need to be completed, the only requirement was for the Society to have obtained information about the plan.
The court process will proceed until we have more information from the above three [sic] points that ensures there are ideally no incidents, but if there are any incidents, that there is a good safety plan in place that keeps all frightening actions away from the kids.
24At the very least, the Society failed to provide explanation in a sufficiently detailed manner for the Applicant to understand what she needed to do to achieve her family’s reunification. At the worst, the Society changed its mind when it was met with some resistance about one of its expectations; without providing a chance to the Applicant to discuss the repercussions of this decision or to explain the reasons why the Society felt it needed to change the previously agreed upon plan.
25Once the family services worker received the March 2 letter and decided that the proposed alternate method to assess [common law partner’s] alcohol use was not acceptable to the Society, she should have informed the Applicant of this position clearly and, she should have convened a further meeting to discuss options and positions. It is not enough for her to “assume” that the parent will understand what she means and make decisions based on obscure communications; such as being told the worker is “disappointed” and concluding that it means that the Society will now change its position.
26As stated above, the right to be heard entails 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. To be heard involves active listening and discussion. For parties to leave a meeting with such different understanding of an agreement means that communication was not effective in conveying the Society’s point of view and, as a result, the Applicant was denied an opportunity to express fully her point of view and have an ability to have an impact on the decisions being made about her family.
27With regards to the second part of the application relating to the provision of reasons for decisions made that affect the Applicant’s interests, similarly, the Board finds that the Society failed in giving sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow her to understand why and how the decision was made. As well, the Board finds that the Society generally did not provide information to the Applicant in a timely manner but waited for her to seek responses to her requests. The delays were explained by the family services worker in her testimony as being caused by a number of reasons ranging from periods of illness to needing to have discussions with her superiors and to her “other cases obligations”. While the Board certainly recognizes that certain delays are inevitable, the Board finds that in this specific case, the delays were unreasonable. The Applicant in her testimony stated this issue in a manner that could not be worded in a better way: “You would think that someone was making decision when she [the family services worker] was sick. For them it’s their job, for me it’s my family and 15 days is a long time.”
28The Board finds that the Society failed to hear the Applicant about issues that affect her interests in a very serious matter, the integrity of her family unit. The fact that the Society used [common law partner’s] proposed alternate method of assessment of his alcohol use as a last minute “reason” to not proceed with the agreed upon reintegration plan without even discussing this issue with the Applicant constitutes a complete failure on the Society’s part in understanding and putting in practice active participation for parents and in providing them with the opportunity to have some degree of influence in the process. The Society did not engage in genuine communication or give the Applicant the opportunity to have input into the decision making and certainly did not provide her enough information to make informed responses or accept decisions.
CONCLUSION
29The Board concludes that the Society did not comply with its obligations to hear the Applicant and provide reasons for its decisions under section 2(2)(a) of the Act. The Board finds that the Society consistently failed to provide the Applicant with information regarding the plan for reintegration of [common law partner] in the family home and that, when it did provide some information to the Applicant, it was not done in a timely manner and resulted in her being denied a chance to participate in decisions being made that affected her interests. The Board also concludes that the Society did not provide reasons to the Applicant with regards to its change of position regarding the option to propose an alternate method of assessment of [common law partner’s] alcohol use and that it failed to hear the Applicant when that decision was made to discuss her concerns about this decision.
30The explanations for the Society’s actions around the reintegration plan were stated at the hearing and [common law partner] has reintegrated into the family home since May 2, 2014. Therefore, no order needs to be issued in that regard. The issue of determination of an appropriate method to assess [common law partner’s] alcohol use is now before the court and the Board will not issue an order in that regard.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
31Pursuant 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.
SUZANNE GILBERT
________________________
Suzanne Gilbert
Presiding Member
NATHALIE FORTIER
__________________________
Nathalie Fortier
Vice-Chair
Dated in Toronto, Ontario on this 26th day of June, 2014.