Applicants v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, 2014 CFSRB 48

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

Applicants

v.

Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: August 18, 2014

Citation: 2014 CFSRB 48

Indexed as: Applicants v. Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (CFSA s.144, s.61 and s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1[ ] (the “Applicants”) filed three applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) against the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (the “Society’). This decision is made with respect to the three applications.

2One application, made under s. 144 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C11, as amended, (the “CFSA”), asks the Board to rescind the refusal of the Applicants’ application for the adoption of [ ] (the “Child”) and to order placement of the Child with them for adoption. It was made on June 12, 2014. Another application, filed on May 7, 2014, is made under s. 61 of the CFSA and asks the Board to rescind the Society’s decision to remove the Child from the foster care of the Applicants. The third application, filed on May 13, 2014, is made under s.68.1(4)5 of the CFSA and alleges that the Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

3The Society’s position is that the Applicants are overwhelmed by a series of events and circumstances and that it is not in the child’s best interests to be placed with them as foster or adoptive parents. Further the Society submits that it provided the Applicants with reasons for the decisions relating to the child’s placement with them as kin.

4The Applicants’ position is that while they have faced challenges, they are working to and are willing to overcome them to keep the child in their family and that as family, they should be caring for the child. They also submit that they were not given meaningful reasons for the decision to remove the child from their kin care.

5The Board confirms the Society’s refusal of the Applicants’ application for the adoption of the Child and confirms the Society’s decision to remove the Child from the kin/foster care of the Applicants. The Board has determined that the Society provided the Applicants with reasons for its decision to remove the child from the Applicants’ kin care.

6The Board heard the motion on “jurisdiction” on May 30, 2014 and the applications on June 25 and 26, 2014 and July 10 and 11, 2014. The reasons for the Board’s decisions are set out below.

JURISDICTION

7The Society challenged the Board’s ability to proceed under s.61 of the Act. In summary, their argument was that while the Board technically had the jurisdiction and authority to proceed under s.61, there was no point in doing so as the Board has no power to order the re-opening of a foster home that has been closed. This is not an issue of jurisdiction but rather, about remedial powers and mootness.

8With respect to the issue of the impact of the closure of the foster home, the Board has taken jurisdiction in cases in which foster homes have been closed. These include L.D. v. Dilico Anishinabek Family Care (CFSA s.61), 2009 CFSRB 75 and CA10-0099. The statutory pre-requisite to taking jurisdiction is that the child be a crown ward and in the continuous care of the applicants for two years. These are met in this case.

9The Board’s remedial authority is found in s. 61(8.6) which provides that:

The Board shall, in accordance with its determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, confirm the proposal to remove the child or direct the society not to carry out the proposed removal, and shall give written reasons for its decision.

10In FCY Services of Muskoka v. D.D., 2010 O.J. No.5085, (“Muskoka”) in addressing the effect of the Board’s decision under the similarly worded s.144, in which the Board rescinded the adoption refusal, the court found that the effect of the Board’s decision was clear from the decision: that the children be placed with the Applicants for adoption (para 43-45). This was so even though the legislation did not explicitly give the Board the authority to order placement of the child for adoption with the Applicants. The obvious and natural consequence of rescinding the adoption refusal at the stage of the adoption process in that case was placement for adoption with the Applicants.

11Since that time, the Board has been making clear orders, in similar circumstances, that the child be placed with applicants for adoption and has gone beyond simply stating that it has “rescinded” the Society’s decision.

12The Board has, on several occasions, directed a society not to carry out a removal or rescinded the removal of a child from a foster home with the direction and expectation that the Society do whatever is necessary to comply with that order. This would include re-opening a foster home. The Board may be able to go farther, consistent with the Muskoka decision and order the re-opening of a foster home as the natural consequence of and companion to its rescission order. The Board does not have to decide that in this case because it confirmed the Society’s decision. Had the Board determined in favour of the Applicants, the Board would have addressed in more depth the question of its remedial powers at the appropriate stage of the process.

13In terms of mootness, the question for the Board is whether there is a live controversy between the parties. The Board is tasked with deciding what action is in the child’s best interests. That question has not been determined or conceded and is very much a live dispute between the parties. Therefore, the Application is not moot.

14The Board decided that it had the authority to proceed to the merits on the s.61 Application and it did so.

15The Society also challenged the Board’s authority to proceed with a services complaint by the applicants because they are foster parents and according to the Society, were not seeking or receive a service which is a pre-requisite to an application under s.68.1(4) of the Act. The Board found, consistent with its previous jurisprudence that as kin, the Applicants were receiving a service in terms of the child’s placement with them and that they were entitled to reasons for decision relating to her placement with them as a kin home, but not as foster parents.

16In H.L.B v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s.68), 2012 CFSRB 4 (para. 51) the Board held that:

Looking at the statute, the Society’s obligation to provide reasons in section 68.1 (4) 5 is not confined to “parents”. If that were the case, the obligation would be associated with section 2 (2) (a) of the Act, like the right to be heard. The right to reasons for decisions that affect one’s interests is broad and recognizes that there may be persons other than parents who are involved with children under the Act and whose lives may be impacted by Society decisions. For example, the Board has held that foster parents or teachers who are the subject of an investigation by a society are receiving a service and are entitled to reasons relating to the decisions made in the investigation. The Board has also held that grandparents who have sought access to their grandchildren from a society that controls access have a right to reasons.

17HLB was a case involving an aunt and issues surrounding the Society’s decision not to return her nephew to her care. The Board found that the Applicant had an interest in her nephew’s future placement with her and heard the Application on its merits.

18The Applicants before the Board are kin and like the aunt in HLB, they have an interest in the child’s placement with them. Therefore the s. 68.1(4) 5 application also proceeded on the merits.

19There was no challenge to the Board’s authority to proceed under s.144 of the Act regarding adoption application refusal.

BACKGROUND

20The Child, born [ ], was made a Crown ward with access and placed in the care of the Society on March 23, 2011. The Child is the niece of [ ] (the “Applicant foster mother”). The Applicants have a 15 year old daughter, [ ] (the “daughter”) and an 11 year old son, [ ] (the “son”).

21The Applicants were always interested in adopting the child but since the Applicants could not afford the cost of day care, they were opened as kinship caregivers for financial support with the intention of eventually adopting the Child. A Structured Analysis Family Evaluation (“SAFE”) Kinship in Care Homestudy was completed and a Foster Parent Service Agreement was signed in March of 2011 and the Child was placed with the Applicants.

22In July of 2011, the Applicant foster mother took a short term leave of absence from her employment due to health reasons. This evolved into a permanent disability leave as her condition ([ ]) deteriorated.

23[ ](the “Applicant foster father”) was injured during a physical altercation with some teenage boys in 2009. He suffered a number of injuries in several accidents subsequent to this injury. He was off work due to his injuries and has returned to work on an accommodated work schedule from time to time.

24The Applicants’ 15 year old daughter was diagnosed with [two health issues].

25In November of 2013, the Applicant foster mother was engaged in an argument with the daughter during which, the daughter asked the Applicant foster mother to call the police. Police attended at the home, interviewed everyone, filed a police report and notified the [ ] (“Society B”). Society B investigated and verified parent teen conflict with the daughter and concerns of alcohol consumption by the father. Society B currently has an open child protection file on the family.

26Following the annual review on April 22, 2014, the Society put the Child in a respite home, closed the Applicants’ home as foster kinship caregivers, and refused to proceed with their renewed application for adoption.

ANALYSIS

27The Board will address the s.61 and s.144 applications together. The Board appreciates that there are different nuances and outcomes to these sections of the Act but the primary concern for each is: what action is in the best interests of the Child. For foster placement, the question is whether it is in her best interests to be returned to the foster care of the Applicants. For adoption application refusal, the question in this case is whether it is in the Child’s best interests that the adoption application proceed to the next stage. There is some dispute about whether the next stage is a homestudy or adoption placement. The bottom line however is whether it is in the Child’s best interests that the Applicants continue to be considered as her permanency adoption plan.

28In Muskoka, supra, the Divisional Court described the approach to considering a s.144 application as follows (at paras. 20-22 emphasis in the original):

In this case, the pertinent provision is s. 144(11) of the CFSA, which states: "The Board shall, in accordance with its determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, confirm or rescind the decision under review and shall give written reasons for its decision".

The language of this section expressly requires the Board to make a determination as to what action is in the best interests of the child. If the decision under review is a refusal of an adoption application, the action relates to the entire adoption application process, which involves a number of distinct steps. Although action must be interpreted in the context of the decision under review (adoption application or removal from placement), it gives the Board broad authority to determine what should be done in the child's best interests within the confines of the decision/action under review.

The Board does not have parens patriae jurisdiction to determine best interests in relation to any action. Rather, its determination is confined to the parameters of s. 144. Put simply, the Board must determine whether the adoption application or placement is in the child's best interests having regard to the criteria set out in s. 136(2). If the adoption application or placement is in the child's best interests, the Board will rescind the Society's refusal decision. If it is not, the children's aid society's decision will be confirmed.

29The Board is making a substantive decision, in the best interests of the Child. In doing so, the Board is mandated to take into account any of the specifically enumerated best interests’ factors which are relevant. The Board and the parties identified the following relevant best interest considerations:

136(2) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:

1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.

2. The child’s relationships by blood or through an adoption.

3. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.

4. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.

30The relevant portions of s.61(8.6) of the Act, cited above, give similar authority to the Board to determine best interests relating to removal from foster care.

31The best interests factors that the Board must consider under s.61 are found in s. 37 (3) of the Act and overlap with those found in s.144. In addition, s.37 (3) refers to the following specific, relevant factor considered by the Board:

6. The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community.

32Again, the Board is making a substantive decision in the best interests of the child.

33The Board will address and then weigh the relevant factors in the context of the concerns raised by the Society. The main concern raised can be described as the impact of the foster father’s drinking on the family. Other concerns included the foster mother’s illness, the needs of the daughter and “clutter” in the home. These other concerns are addressed where and as they inform the Board’s decision.

34The Board finds that the foster mother’s illness is not a basis for its decision because of the testimony of the doctor that her illness would not preclude her from caring for the child. Further, the issue of “clutter” is not a sufficient basis on which to remove the child from her foster family. The evidence was that this issue could be remedied with family help and in future, with outside supports if needed.

The Child’s Physical, Mental and Emotional Needs

Impact of Foster Father’s Drinking

35At the time of the kin homestudy in March 2011, the Society Worker noted that the Applicant foster father “drinks more than would be considered ideal” according to the standards of the safe homestudy guidelines but did not consider it a serious problem at the time.

36The Applicant foster father sustained injuries in the incident in 2009 when he was driving home from work. He crashed his car into a barrier after some teenagers threw gravel at him through the open window. When he approached the teenagers, he was beaten up. He went back to work after several months but this incident impacted him and his family significantly. He had a few beers to get his mind off the incident. A few years later, he broke his ankle and he was off work again. After that, he reinjured his ankle again at work with 3 fractures, a bone chip and injured ligaments when he ran up to assist a lady who had slipped. The injuries made it very difficult for him to get around and his job as a [ ] required much walking. This past winter he fell on some wet grass and suffered 2 fractured ribs and a fractured clavicle. His injuries have affected his ability to do things around the house and resulted in many medical appointments. These injuries have impacted his emotional health and his role in the home.

37The Applicant foster mother stated that when the Applicant foster father was beaten up by teenagers, he became depressed when he could not help her around the house or do what he wanted to with the children. She testified that the Applicant foster father does not have a drinking problem but the daughter does not like his drinking.

38The foster father’s doctor testified that he suffered from depression after the incident and he has put him on medication. He also had three other injuries that impacted his ability to work. He has returned to work on occasion with accommodations but was out of work at the time of the child’s removal. He was returning to work the week following the hearing of this matter.

39All this has affected his relationship with his daughter. The daughter does not like his drinking and this has resulted in conflict in the family.

40The resource worker seemed to work more closely with the foster mother. It is apparent from the testimony of the resource workers, Society B’s worker and that of the Applicants’ daughter, that the foster father was somewhat “under the radar” of the Society. Once Society B became involved, it learned that the children were impacted and concerned about their father’s drinking and it felt that the Applicants both minimized his drinking. Society B’s open protection file and a safety plan that put restrictions on his drinking in the home and around the children meant that the Society responsible for the child’s foster placement had to take a closer look at the foster father.

41The Resource Worker stated that when Society B opened a file on the Applicants’ home, they would normally close the home as a foster placement. However, she reported the issues to her supervisors and kept the home open because they wanted to work with the family and Society B to provide services. The Foster Placement Supervisor stated that the Society was lenient in keeping the home open while it was being investigated by another agency. She met with the Director of Children’s Services following the involvement of Society B and decided that the situation was mitigated when Society B was providing services.

42Both societies attended at the transfer meeting on February 4, 2014 to provide services to assist the family. Present were: the Resource Worker, the Child’s Worker, the Intake Worker, the Child Protection Worker, and the Applicant foster mother. The purpose was to get as many services as possible for the family, let them know the societies’ concerns, their plan and expectations. The family in turn had the opportunity to tell them what their needs and challenges are. The Intake Worker stated that the meeting was very positive and revolved around counselling for the family, services from [agency], camps, extracurricular activities for the children, volunteer drives, housekeeping and the reason why the Child Protection Worker from Society B was involved. The Intake Worker had put a safety plan in place during the initial investigation of the home which stipulated that the Applicant foster father is not to be drinking in the home and not to return home if intoxicated.

43From January to April 2014, the Resource Worker noted that there were no improvements. The Resource Worker went to the Applicants’ home on April 22, 2014 for the annual review. When she arrived, the Applicant foster father was driving away. She was surprised because both caregivers need to be present for the review. The Applicant foster mother said that he had gone to do some paperwork to get back to work and that she did not know he needed to be there. The Applicant foster mother apologized for the house being messy and cluttered. The Resource Worker asked how the Applicant foster father was doing with “not drinking”. The Applicant foster mother replied “very well”, however, when the Resource Worker asked the daughter, she replied that the Applicant foster father was drunk the day before and was not sober all the time. The Resource Worker advised the Applicant foster mother of this and a conversation ensued between mother and daughter with the daughter accusing the mother of choosing the father over the kids. The son also said that the Applicant foster father was drinking again. The Resource Worker felt that the plan was not working and that the Applicant foster father needed to go elsewhere if he is drinking. He had been asked to stop drinking by Society B when the plan was developed but he did not agree to this condition. Instead he agreed not to drink in the home or around the children.

44At the time of the annual review, the impact of drinking and the family dynamic still appeared to be an issue to the Resource Worker who surmised that things were not working well. The Applicant foster mother looked overwhelmed and the foster father was unable to help with chores. The daughter was not attending school regularly and was not interested in any of the programs and social groups suggested by the Child Protection Worker. The Applicant foster mother did not want outside strangers to come into her home but arranged for her sister to come to clean. The Applicant foster mother had decided not to drive of her own accord and the Applicant foster father was doing all the driving. The child had lice (a recurring event) and this was difficult to manage.

45The Applicant foster father testified that he had tried to comply with the safety plan as best he could. He stated that he was not at the Annual Review when the Resource Worker came because he was faxing some documents to get back to work. Regarding the concern that he was drinking when he returned home the night before the Annual Review, the Applicant foster father testified that everyone in the house was asleep. The Board heard from the daughter that he was stumbling up the steps. The Board heard from a neighbour that he had had some drinks but was not drunk and that it was dark, so she walked him home. Whether he was drunk on that occasion is not the issue; he was still drinking in general and it was still impacting his children. The son and daughter both revealed to the Resource Worker that the father was drinking the day before the Annual Review.

46With respect to drinking in general, the Applicant foster father testified that he drank 2 or 3 beers, 2 or 3 times a week. He did not think that having a couple of beers was a problem. However, the Applicants both identified to the Intake Worker that the Applicant foster father drank 3 to 5 drinks some nights. Further, both children identified up to 10 drinks some nights and sometimes it might be 5 or 7. Both noted that alcohol was a problem for “dad”. The Doctor stated that the Applicant foster father’s alcohol consumption has produced chronic effects [ ]. The Doctor would describe his level of drinking as moderate to heavy from an addiction standpoint. The Doctor has not yet diagnosed alcoholism; nor has he ruled it out. Though the Applicant foster father has not had an assessment for alcohol addiction, the Board concludes from the medical evidence of the Doctor and the disclosures from his children that alcohol is a serious issue for him and his family.

47The Foster Placement Supervisor stated that the issues of the Applicant foster father’s drinking, the Applicant foster mother not disclosing this and not following the safety plan of Society B were of concern. The Child was placed in a respite home on April 23, 2014 until a decision was made about the Applicants’ home.

48The Foster Placement Supervisor contacted the Child Protection Worker (Society B) regarding current protection concerns. The Child Protection Worker conducted another safety assessment on April 23, 2014 and in conversation with the Foster Placement Supervisor reported many issues. These included that there was still an active protection file. There was open conflict between the daughter and the Applicant foster father regarding his drinking and not contributing to the family. These verbal altercations could get “nasty”. The Child Protection Worker advised that the Applicant foster father does not see the impact of his drinking and that the family had not accessed any of the services recommended to them since December of 2013 which included [several agencies and supports]. The Child Protection Worker considered that these issues were chronic since the Applicant foster mother is very dependent upon the Applicant foster father.

49The Foster Placement Supervisor decided to close the Applicants’ foster home and remove the Child because the Applicants had not accessed services to address protection concerns, they did not admit drinking issues, and overall, the situation in the home was not improving.

50The Board notes that the Applicant foster father’s drinking may be a way of coping with depression and with his family’s many struggles; he and his family are under considerable stress. The issue for the Board is not that the family has struggles or that the Applicant foster father has some depression but rather, how his choices about managing his difficulties has and could impact the Child.

51The Board concludes that given the ongoing nature of the Applicant foster father’s drinking and the many question marks about his ability to curb his drinking in the interests of his family, the Applicants cannot meet the child’s emotional and developmental needs. Not only has the Applicant foster father chosen a path of withdrawing from the family, he was not willing to quit drinking and get immediate help even though Society B was involved with his family. The fact remains that he did not get help until after the child was removed. His doctor has told him he must stop drinking and will be monitoring his commitment to stopping, for health reasons. However, the doctor was not in a position at the hearing to either measure whether the Applicant had stopped or whether he could stop. The Board has no persuasive evidence that the Applicant has made a commitment to stop drinking or that he is able to control his drinking in the interests of his family. The Applicant foster mother has minimized the problem and the impact on her and the children. The Applicant foster father is in indirect and direct conflict with his daughter over the drinking. He is essentially unavailable to his family, including the child for much of the time. This scenario means that it is not in the best interests of the child to be placed in the foster or adoptive care of the Applicants.

52The impact of this on the Applicants’ two children is also relevant. The Applicants and professionals all agreed that the daughter is in need of counselling but there was no evidence that the Applicants have been able to expend the energy or get the help necessary to try and facilitate the help she needs. There was some evidence that the [ ] counsellor may meet with her and her father down the road. For her, her father’s drinking is a trigger and this has not been resolved. The son spends his time playing video games - essentially withdrawn. In this context where the core family issues have not been addressed, the Child’s needs would not get the priority they deserve.

53While the foster father is working to resolve the situation, there are too many unanswered questions and it is not in the child’s interests to be placed in limbo when there is no certainty that the foster father can do what is needed on a long term basis.

The Child’s Relationship by Blood with Extended Family and Continuity of Care

54The Child is the niece of the Applicant foster mother. The Child’s biological father, the brother of the Applicant foster mother, and his partner were unable to care for the Child. The Applicants came forward with a permanent plan as a foster/kin placement with the intention to adopt the niece.

55The Child has been placed with the Applicants since March 2011 and has become a member of the family. The daughter considers her a sister and said that she loves her and misses her. She speaks to the Child on the phone and the Child tells her that she wants to come home. The Child calls the Applicants “mom” and “dad”. The Applicant foster mother said that the Child misses her at bedtime and will not sleep until she calls her. After visits, the Child does not want to leave and asks if she can come home.

56The Child’s Worker stated that the Child related very well with the Applicant foster mother and interacted well with the Applicant foster father. The Child often approached the daughter and gave her hugs.

57The Board acknowledges that there is a bond between the Child and the Applicants. The continuity of care and the existing bond favour the Applicants. However, the Board has no clinical evidence about the impact of disrupting the Child’s continuity of care at this stage of her development.

The Effects on the Child of Delay

58The Child is 5 years old and needs a permanency plan. Two families have indicated an interest in adopting her—the daughter of her first foster family, and an aunt. The Child is at an age when she may still be able to form a healthy attachment and does not have the time to wait for the Applicants to resolve their many issues. It is in the Child’s best interest to move forward to her permanent adoptive home.

Conclusion

59It is clear that the Applicants and their daughter love the Child who is related to them by blood and has developed a bond with them. While these factors would suggest the child should remain in the foster care of the Applicants or be adopted by them, the child’s overall emotional, developmental needs must be met by the family who is to care for her. The Applicants are not in a position to meet the child’s needs because of the unresolved impact of the drinking on the family’s struggles. When weighed in the balance, family bonds take a back seat, in this case to the child having her needs met moving forward. Further, the child’s need for stability and permanency as part of those needs would not be met by delaying her future to give the Applicants another opportunity to overcome their situation, primarily the impact of the Applicant foster father’s alcohol use. Finally, the child’s place in a family and continuity of care including her bond with the Applicants can be served and maintained by an adoption plan that includes liberal contact with the Applicants, as family.

60There was evidence that a family member, an aunt is interested in adopting the child and that the Society supports ongoing contact with the Applicants and their children for the child. The Society’s Adoption Supervisor testified that a family adoption plan would, if appropriate, take precedence over a non-family plan. Based on this evidence, the Board trusts that the Society will respect the importance of family as it carries out the child’s permanent planning.

61The Board has determined that in this case, the Applicants’ inability to meet the child’s needs outweighs the advantages of a family placement with the Applicants.

Decision

62On July 21, 2014, the Board made the following order:

Following the hearing of this matter on June 25, June 26, July 10 and July 11, 2014, the Child and Family Services Review Board (“the Board”) made the following decisions:

The Board confirms the Society’s refusal of the Application of [the Applicants] to adopt the child, [the child], born [ ] pursuant to section 144 (11) of the Child and Family Services Act (“Act’).

The Board confirms the decision of the Society to remove the child, [ ], born [ ] from the foster/kin home of [the Applicants] on April 23, 2014 pursuant to section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act (“Act”)

S. 68.1 APPLICATION

ANALYSIS

63The Board must decide whether the Applicants were given meaningful reasons for the Society’s decision to remove the Child from their kinship care. As kin, the Applicants are entitled to reasons.

64The relevant legislative provision is:

68.1(4). The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

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

65The “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

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.

66The Board found that the Society met with the Applicants in person and gave them reasons for their decision.

67On the day that the Child was taken from the Applicants’ home and put into a respite placement, the Foster Placement Supervisor met with the Applicants. She let the Applicants know that she had met with the Resource worker. She explained the Society’s reasons for putting the Child on respite, namely, their concerns of the Applicant foster father’s drinking which the Applicant foster mother did not disclose and the Applicants not following the safety plan of Society B. She told them that she will meet with them again to determine the next steps.

68On April 25, 2014, the Foster Placement Supervisor met with the Applicants again at the Society office. She went over the licensing requirements for the home, and the reasons for the Child’s removal. The Society was particularly concerned that there was a breach of trust in the relationship when the Applicant foster mother did not reveal the Applicant foster father’s drinking. The Applicant foster mother stated that she was accused of lying and she apologized for not being truthful because she was concerned and thought that it would make things better. The Applicant foster mother was so distraught when the Child was removed that she had no clear recollection of what happened at this meeting and on the day of the Child’s removal.

69The Foster Placement Supervisor decided that she would contact the Child Protection Worker (Society B) before she made a final decision on the status of Applicants’ home. The Child Protection Worker had conducted another safety assessment on April 23, 2014. He reported that there is still ongoing verbal conflict between the daughter and the Applicant foster father regarding his drinking and not contributing to the family; that the Applicant foster father does not see the impact of his drinking on his family; that the family has not accessed any of the recommended services and that the protection file is still active.

70On April 28, 2014, the Foster Placement Supervisor made the decision to close the home and called the Applicant foster mother to advise her of the decision. She told her that the information received from the Child Protection Worker did not mitigate the Society’s concerns and that the home would not be maintained as a foster/kin home.

71The Foster Placement Supervisor sent a letter dated April 29, 2014 to the Applicants providing written notice of the closure of their home. The letter stated that the Child was put on respite from their home because of the Applicant foster father’s drinking and causing conflict with the daughter. Also the Applicant foster mother denied the drinking until the daughter disclosed that the Applicant foster father was drunk the day before. As a result there has been a breach of trust on the Applicants’ part and the Society could not continue their partnership with them.

72The Board concludes from the above that the Society has had face to face meetings with the Applicants and given them clear reasons as to why the Child was removed from the home and why the home was closed as a kin/foster placement. The explanations given were descriptive of the concerns, to the point and contained detail. The Applicants were given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow them to understand why and how the decision was made. It is unfortunate that given all of the distress involved, which is understandable, that the meetings do not stand out for the Applicants. However, the Society confirmed its reasoning in writing. The Society has complied with its obligation to provide reasons.

s. 68.1 DECISION

73The Board finds that the Applicants were given reasons by the Society and dismisses the complaint of the Applicants.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

74Pursuant 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.