CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
Applicant
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County
REASONS FOR DECISION: WRITTEN REVIEW
Indexed as: Applicant v. Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County (CFSA s.68)
INTRODUCTION
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from the Applicant on June 17, 2014 regarding the Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County (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 June 24, 2014, the Board determined that 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 Application relates to the apprehension of the Applicant’s child and the Applicant’s desire to see her child and have her child back in her care.
5The Board received the Society’s response dated July 2, 2014. It is the Society’s position that the application has no merit as the Applicant had an opportunity to be heard and given reasons throughout the court process. Further, since the Society closed its file following the last court appearance involving the parents, the Applicant has not contacted the Society. The Board reviewed the draft order and the endorsement of Justice [ ], dated April 11, 2014.
6Based on its review of the Application, correspondence in the file from the Applicant, the Society’s response and the decision 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 a one year old child who was apprehended when she was a baby. The Society commenced child protection proceedings and, on April 11, 2014, the Court found the child to be in need of protection and ordered that the child be placed in the care of her father under a deemed custody order. The Court ordered access to the Applicant at a supervised access centre on alternate Saturdays.
8The Court also required the Society to make enquiries of the Applicant’s aunt to determine her suitability to assist with access for the Applicant and to make recommendations to the parents in this regard.
9The application refers to the Applicant wanting to see her child and the circumstances surrounding her going into care including that the Society did not have a warrant, did not explain why it took the child, lied to her and is trying to hurt her. Subsequent correspondence from the Applicant refers to wanting her child back. The application refers to the Applicant not being able to contact the father to arrange access and not having seen her child.
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:
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 application before the Board relates to matters that the Court and not the Board has authority over and that the Court has dealt with. The Board has no authority over custody and access issues. The Applicant participated in the Court process which was the venue for her to challenge the apprehension. The Court has made a determination that the child cannot be in the Applicant’s care. Further, the Court has made an access order that does not involve the Society. The Society appears to have fulfilled its role under the order to look in to the role of the aunt and it provided a letter to the Applicant with its recommendations and explanation on April 16, 2011. At that time, it closed its file and it has not provided any further services to the Applicant who has not contacted them. Since the child is in the care of the father, the Society has no ongoing role in terms of access. For the Applicant to enforce her access, which is the subject matter of her application to the Board, she must do so through the Court that made the order.
13In these circumstances, the Board has no authority to deal with this application.
CONCLUSION
14The Board has no jurisdiction to hear this application.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
15Pursuant 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 and 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
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 29th day of July, 2014.