Applicant v. Society, 2014 CFSRB 5

Child and Family Services Review Board

[Applicant]

v.

[Society]

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: February 3, 2014

Citation: 2014 CFSRB 05

Indexed as: Applicant v. Society (CFSA s. 68)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an application under s. 68.1(4)5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C.11 (“Act”). The Applicant alleges that the Society did not provide her with reasons for decisions affecting her interests regarding a referral and investigation relating to her care of a child under a safety plan with the Society.

2The Board must decide whether the Society met its obligation to provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions over the course of the life of the investigation.

3The Board heard the application on January 14 and 15, 2014.

4The Board has determined that the Society has not met its obligation to provide the Applicant with reasons.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicant was employed by the Society as an intake supervisor. Her brother had a foster child, (“the child”) and they lived with the Applicant in her home for approximately two and a half years, until February 2013. The Applicant made a request to be the foster parent of the child in January of 2013. The Applicant made several referrals to the Society about her brother, commencing in February 2013. The Society investigated him as the caregiver and not the Applicant. On May 28, following a referral against the brother by the Applicant, the child was placed with the Applicant under a safety plan. The arrangement was that he would have two weeks with the Applicant and two weeks with her brother.

6On May 31, 2013, the Applicant was told that there would be access visits between the child and her brother, during the two weeks and that there would be one that week. Following that visit, on June 3, 2013, the Applicant called the Society with allegations about potential sexual abuse of the child by her brother. The Society made several decisions over the course of the investigation including to investigate the Applicant as a caregiver and to remove the child from her care and place him in a society home. On July 12, 2013, the Society concluded its investigation and decided not to re-place the child with the Applicant.

7The Applicant commenced her application to the Board on July 30, 2013.

ANALYSIS

8The parties became involved in an employment dispute and subsequently in proceedings in which the Applicant sought custody of the child. At a pre-hearing on September 23, 2013, the Board determined that it would not deal with employment or ongoing placement issues. The Board has no authority to deal with employment issues or with matters that are before the Court.

9The Board also determined (at the eligibility stage of its process) that because the Applicant was not a “parent” within the meaning of the Act, she had no right to be heard under s. 2(2)(a) of the Act and the Application was found eligible only in relation to the right to reasons. The Board determined in this case and has in other cases, that a person who is being investigated is receiving a service, whether or not they are a parent, and that they come under the rubric of s. 68.1(4)5.

10The Applicant also alleged that the Society had not followed the complaints process under the Act. The Board found the Application eligible in relation to sections 68.1(4) 2 and 3 of the Act. After hearing evidence on the matter at the hearing, the Applicant abandoned this aspect of her application as she felt she could not establish that her complaint was a complaint made as someone who had sought or received a service. Rather, it was a complaint made by an employee.

11Prior to the hearing, the Board asked the parties to map out the decisions made by the Society during the investigation. The Board reviewed the submissions of both parties and advised them that it would deal with the following decisions made by the Society.

1. The decision to permit the access visit that led to the referral
2. The decision to assign the investigation to a new worker
3. The decision to remove the child from the Applicant and put him in a Society home
4. The outcome of the investigation
5. The decision that the child would not return to the Applicant’s care
6. The closure of the investigation

12Embedded within the decisions noted above as 2, 4 and 5 are two specific decisions, namely:

• The decision to investigate the Applicant for sexual abuse and risk of emotional harm due to adult conflict
• The decision that the Applicant posed a moderate risk to the child, under the risk assessment.

13The Board addresses whether the Applicant was given reasons for all of the above decisions. In its decision, the Board refers to standards and tools that are mandatory under the Act and regulations for societies conducting investigations. These include the Child Protection Standards in Ontario (“Standards”), the Eligibility Spectrum and Risk Assessments.

14The 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.

15In 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).4 and 5 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.

16The “right to reasons” under the CFSA, 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.

Decision regarding access visit during safety plan

17The Applicant was caring for the child as part of a safety plan starting May 28, 2013. It was the Applicant’s understanding that the child would be with her for two weeks and then with her brother. The Society decided to allow access visits during the two week period. There is some confusion as to who made the decision. It was likely the unit associated with the First Nation involved. On May 31, 2013, the Child Care Supervisor called the Applicant and advised her that the child would have a visit with her brother on June 2, 2013 from noon until 4 p.m. and again on June 5, 2013. According to the Applicant, the Child Care Supervisor only told her about the decision and not why it was made. She asked if she would get visits during the two weeks the child was with her brother and [the] Child Care Supervisor said she would.

18The Applicant was not happy with this decision because she understood that an investigation was underway, relating to a referral she had made on May 27, 2013. She expressed this to the Child Care Supervisor and was told that this was the decision that was made.

19The Board is not tasked with assessing the validity of the Society’s decisions. The question for the Board is whether the explanation given for the access visit was meaningful. The decision was communicated in advance of the event and thus was timely. However, the Society only communicated the decision: no explanation was offered. As such, the Applicant was not given any information regarding the factors taken into account in revising the arrangements under the safety plan and thus would have no basis for understanding why or how the decision was made. Therefore, the Society has not met its obligation to provide reasons.

The Referral and Early Decisions in the Investigation

20On June 3, the Applicant called her co-worker, the Intake Unit Service Manager and made a referral about possible sexual abuse of the child, based on what she observed when he came back from his access visit. The Intake Unit Service Manager was the person who had been investigating the previous referrals involving the child.

21The Intake Unit Service Manager, who testified at the hearing on behalf of the Applicant, testified that in response to the referral, she contacted the police and took the child to the doctor with the Applicant. She also had a meeting or case conference in which it was decided that visits with the brother would be suspended but that the child would stay with the Applicant. The Associate Executive Director testified that the Intake Service Manager asked people to sign off on the meeting notes, not having been there. The Unit Service Manager testified that she passed the information on to others and asked them to sign off.

22On June 5, the Associate Executive Director made a decision to take the Intake Unit Service Manager off of the investigation and assign another investigator, the Director of Service. She called her that evening and advised her she would be taking on the case. The Director of Service then called the Intake Unit Service Manager to advise her that she had been taken off the investigation.

23The Associate Executive Director also emailed the Intake Unit Service Manager on June 6, 2013. The email reads, in part:

I am taking the investigation on [ ] and giving it to [Director of Service]. The investigation is getting very worrisome and I think we really need to get a new set of eyes to look at this.

24According to the Associate Executive Director, this meant that she was concerned about the conduct of the Unit Service Manager regarding asking people to sign off to a meeting they weren’t at regarding the investigation.

25The Intake Unit Service Manager, however, interpreted “worrisome” as referring to the number of referrals and the severity of the last referral. Nothing further was clarified for her when she was taken off the case.

26On June 5, the Associate Executive Director and the Director of Service made a decision to investigate the Applicant as well as the brother regarding the possible sexual abuse. Both testified that this was based on the Society’s practice of investigating the primary caregiver.

27They also decided to investigate the Applicant for risk of emotional harm because of the history of referrals against her brother and the conflict between them. According to the Director of Service, they needed to investigate the whole picture and take extra precautions because the child was a foster child placed in a place of safety.

28The Eligibility Spectrum is the mandatory tool for provincial child welfare agencies to “code” a referral and determine the type of investigation they will conduct.

29The Referral is the Society’s document setting out what information was received and how it was coded on the Eligibility Spectrum. It refers to the primary code as risk of sexual harm and to secondary codes of risk of harm from primary caregiver and risk of emotional harm from caregiver.

30The Investigation plan includes the codes for sexual abuse and risk of emotional harm, state that the Director of Service is assigned to investigate the Applicant and references: “Decision to remove child from both caregivers due to the on-going referrals and concerns”.

31Nothing was communicated to the Applicant about the change in investigator and what she would investigate on June 5, 2013. This communication took place on June 6, 2013.

32Further, the decision was made to remove the child from the Applicant’s care during the investigation. The decision was made by the Associate Executive Director and the Director of Service at the same time they discussed the investigation on June 5, 2013. They decided that due to the conflict and the investigation, it was best to place the child in a neutral setting. This decision was also communicated to the Applicant on June 6, 2013.

33The Applicant testified that she texted the Child Care Supervisor on June 5, asking if she could take the child out of town on a visit. On June 6, 2013 the Applicant received a text from the Child Care Supervisor asking if she was going to the child’s day care graduation. The Applicant was not aware of any graduation. The Applicant left training and went to the day care with her Intake Unit Service Manager, only to find out that there was no graduation. The Director of Service testified that it was an honest mistake as another child known to her at the same level was graduating that day. While the Applicant was at the day care, after she had decided to take the child home for the day, the Child Care Supervisor arrived and told her that the Service Manager had told her to come and get her and that she wanted to see her at the Society and to bring the child. The Applicant was distressed and said to the Child Care Supervisor that she hoped they were not going to take the child away and put him in the agency home. According to the Applicant, the Child Care Supervisor told her “it would be okay” and took her to the Director of Service’s office.

34According to the Applicant, the Director of Service told her that she was being investigated due to the series of referrals being “worrisome”. She did not explain why it would be the Director of Service and not the Intake Unit Service Manager who had originally had the investigation. She told the Applicant that she was to be investigated as the child’s caregiver because it was unknown who had allegedly abused the child.

35The Applicant responded “are you kidding me” and became very upset. She expressed her concern that it was clear who the potential abuser was. The response was “it’s the process”. The Director of Service also told her that the child would be removed from her care. The Applicant told her how upset she was and got up to leave. The Director of Service said “sit down, we are not finished, we have to interview you”. The Applicant was in tears and responded “not now, I will get a lawyer”.

36The Director of Service testified that it was urgent to deal with the situation with Applicant and the child on the 6th because the referral required a 24 hour response (the referral form says 7 days). She did not explain this urgency to the Applicant at the meeting. She told the Applicant that she would be investigated for emotional harm but did not share exactly what she would be investigated for. She was general because she did not want to taint the investigation. According to the Case note, she told the Applicant that due to the nature of the referral and the investigation, the child would be removed from her care to a different placement. The Applicant asked “why” and the Director of Service told her that as part of the investigation we need to investigate all caregivers. When she expressed that the person was known, the Director of Service told her that she was aware of how we approach high risk investigations and that she would need to interview her at a later date. She agreed that the Applicant was upset and with the Applicant’s testimony about the meeting.

37The Applicant said goodbye to the child and left the Society offices, with the child crying.

38The question for the Board is whether the communication of the reasons for: the investigation of the Applicant, the decision changing the investigator and the decision to remove the child constituted meaningful reasons.

39These reasons were all communicated within a close proximity to when the decision was made; timing is not an issue. The circumstances and manner of delivery were, however, unfortunate, specifically, the confusion around the day care and the child being nearby when the reasons were delivered.

Decision to investigate applicant

40With respect to the decision to investigate the applicant for sexual abuse and for emotional harm, the Director of Service did not provide sufficient detail. The Applicant was taken off guard and upset. The Director of Service gave a very basic explanation that as a caregiver, the Applicant had to be investigated for the allegations of sexual abuse. She did not explain why this was the case. The Standards require an interview of all caregivers but not that they necessarily be “investigated”. The type of detail necessary to complete the explanation would include things like: the timing of the referral, information from the doctor or why this was different from how the previous referrals had been dealt with.

41To respond to questions by saying this is the process or you know the process, does not provide a meaningful response. It is terse and non-responsive. Outlining the process would have met the required level of detail. The onus is on the Society and the fact that the Applicant is a worker does not change the level of responsibility to explain things to her as a caregiver who is being investigated.

42There was even less detail about the investigation for emotional harm. The Director of Service wanted to keep it vague so as not to affect the process. However, she mentioned that the referrals were worrisome. This term was not defined or put in context. The Applicant was left with no information about what this investigation would entail but was left to guess. Her wanting to be interviewed at another time has nothing to do with the delivery of reasons for the investigation. The Director of Service had clearly moved on from the information she was willing to impart to the stage of getting information from the Applicant; a distinct part of the process. While it is understandable that the Society does not want to give all of the information about an investigation to a person being investigated, they do need to give a base line of information beyond the superficial. This was not done. The Society did not provide meaningful reasons for the decisions to investigate.

Decision to change investigator

43In terms of the decision to change the investigator, no reasons were ever given to the Applicant by the Society. Clearly, she was not given any information on the basis of which she would be able to comprehend the decision. Only one witness mentioned, in passing, the friendship between the Applicant and the Intake Unit Service Manager. If this, or the actions of the Intake Unit Service Manager regarding the sign off to the meeting, was the reason, it could have been set out clearly that the Society needed someone to investigate the Applicant who was not a friend and who had the appearance of impartiality.

44The Society did not meet its obligation in this regard.

Decision to remove child during investigation

45The removal of the child from her care had a significant impact on the Applicant’s interests in caring for the child, with whom she had a relationship. She had approached the Society previously about becoming a foster parent for him and was waiting for this process. The importance of the decision can be a factor in the Board’s determination of the level of detail required to make an explanation meaningful. This will depend on the circumstances. In this case, the Applicant was caught off guard in another setting and directed to come to the office with the child. She was given reasons for more than one decision at the same time and she was visibly upset. The level of detail given was again, minimal and had to basically be inferred from the comment about “how we approach high risk investigations”. There was no discussion of the need for a neutral setting because of the conflict or any outlining of the protocol regarding sexual abuse investigations by one caregiver against another.

46The Society did not provide the Applicant with sufficient information about the factors to enable her to understand how the decision was made and why the child was being removed from her care pending the outcome of the investigation. In the Board’s view, the standard of information for any caregiver, whether or not a Society employee, remains the same because the obligation is to the individual as a person receiving service and not as an employee.

The investigation and its outcomes

47The Director of Service proceeded with her investigation. The Director of Service provided some information to the Board about the investigation. This included information about some of the factors considered in making the decisions. She interviewed the foster mother and the child and saw that he was well adjusted. She met with the other sibling and with the brother. She also met with the Applicant with lawyers present for the both parties. The interview lasted approximately 2 hours. She also obtained medical documentation about the child but could not speak to the doctor who had left the community. Instead, she relied on the doctor’s notes and the lack of evidence in the notes about physical harm to the child. She spoke to the police who would not investigate without further evidence.

48As part of the investigation, the Society conducted a risk assessment. This is mandatory under the Standards and was one of the tools used to determine whether the child should be re-placed with the Applicant after the investigation was completed. The Risk Assessment placed the child at “moderate” risk in the ongoing care of the Applicant. It was placed on the system on July 15, 2013, after the verification decision date.

49An Intake/Investigation Outcome Notice (“Notice”) signed by the Director of Service and Associate Executive Director records the Society’s decision on the outcome of the investigation. It indicates that “31 B” (risk of emotional harm) was verified. The form refers to the child having emotional distress with nightmares and crying and to the child being led by the Applicant’s daughters when questioned on videos provided by her. The form also states that while the child is loved by both caregivers, they cannot cooperate in his interests and they have been in conflict for several months. Further, the child is questioned and appraised after visits, appearing to cause emotional harm to him at times. The form also states that the videos and pictures are invasive, including one of the child’s privates.

50The form indicates that there was no verification of physical or sexual abuse because “the information provided did not clearly indicate that abuse had occurred”.

51A case conference was held at which the Society mapped out its decisions relating to the outcome of the investigation and the subsequent placement of the child. 7 Society personnel attended the meeting including the Intake Unit Service Manager (for part), the Director of Service and the Associate Executive Director. In addition to the information contained in the Notice, the case conference notes refer to another sibling contributing to the conflict between the Applicant and her brother, by speaking to the Applicant about the brother. The notes also state that the brother dismisses the Applicant’s concerns about the child and also characterizes her to the Society as only his landlord when he was living with her and the child. The Society concluded that this was not feasible because she provided assistance with the child. The notes indicate that the Applicant didn’t share all of her concerns about the brother with the Society, that the allegations against him were serious but never verified and that the Society has tried to “accommodate” both caregivers but it has not worked, the belief being that the issues will be ongoing and continue to cause emotional harm. The notes also state that the child is doing well in his current placement and is well-adjusted.

52The document sets out three columns that include decisions. The decisions relevant to the Applicant are:

• Verification of 31 B: child has experienced emotional distress due to custody issues between two caregivers
• Visits to say goodbye need to be set up at neutral location
• Permanency planning (with other relatives than Applicant to start)
• Investigator to go with CWW or FSW Service Manager to inform Applicant on July 12
• Foster Care will be closing this file as a foster placement.

53The Associate Executive Director testified that she was not sure the goodbye visits decision related to the Applicant. The Intake Unit Service Manager testified that it applied to both the Applicant and her brother. The wording of the document supports this conclusion as it refers to visits (plural) and not one visit.

54The evidence was that the Director of Service provided reasons to the Applicant on the phone on July 12, 2013, with the Associate Executive Director in the room to hear her side of the conversation only. It is not disputed that the Applicant refused an in person meeting and wanted the reasons over the phone. The Director of Service notes state:

I told her we had verified 31B as we felt the on-going issues between brother and sister were affecting [the child]. She asked about the outcome for [her brother] and I explained that I was only informing her of hers. She asked about who the officer was for this case, I told her that I would not disclose information on her investigation, but that it was done by the book. She asked if I interviewed [the brother] and I again said that it was done by the book.

55In addition to the information in her notes, the Director of Service testified that she told the Applicant that they did not feel it was in the child’s best interests to be put between the two caregivers given the conflict. The Applicant did not ask questions about her investigation but asked for the complaints process pamphlet.

56According to the Applicant, she did not get an explanation as to why the Director of Service would not answer her question about the OPP. The Applicant was under the impression a joint protocol for investigations was in place. According to the Applicant, she also asked if the Director of Service interviewed the child and was told “it was by the book”. The Applicant testified that she asked if they would consider placing the child with her and that she was told it was not in his best interest to be placed with either caregiver and that they were making long term plans. She does not recall reasons being given. She also asked how the Society determined emotional harm under the Eligibility Spectrum and was told it was because of the ongoing conflict between her and her brother. Other than the discussion of the complaints brochure, this was the extent of the conversation. The Applicant’s account of events is consistent with that of the Director of Service except that the Applicant testified that she did ask more questions. In either case, the description of the level of detail and answers is consistent.

57An “outcome notification” letter dated July 12, 2013 was mailed to the Applicant. It states:

Please be advised that a Child Protection Investigation was completed on the home of [the Applicant].

Upon completion of the child protection investigation and a case conference it was determined that the protection concerns verified due to risk of emotional harm to the child.

This investigation will be closing effectively July 12, 2013.

Should you have any questions regarding this investigation, please contact [the Director of Service].

58Was the Applicant given meaningful reasons for the various outcomes of the investigation?

Non-verification of abuse

59The reasons given for non-verification of sexual abuse against the Applicant were very minimal: namely that there was a lack of information that the abuse occurred. The reasons were not provided in context, specifically that the Applicant had made a referral against someone else but was herself investigated because she had the child in her care at the time of the referral. There was no link made between the Applicant and the allegation to indicate whether and to what extent any consideration was actually given to the Applicant having abused the child and, if so, how it was ruled out. Further, there was no information given about the difficulty obtaining information from the doctor that was described in the testimony of the Director of Service.

60The response that it was “done by the book” or a refusal to answer questions about police involvement because this was the investigation of her brother, is not sufficient to explain the outcome, particularly since the Applicant was investigated for the sexual abuse allegation and not just her brother. The Society provided no outline of why it lacked the information to make a determination relating to the Applicant. The Society failed to provide enough information about the factors involved to enable the Applicant to understand how the decision was made and why.

Verification of emotional harm

61The Society’s documents relating to the investigation provide some insight and detail into its reasoning. The factors referenced in the Society’s case conference notes include the invasive questioning of the child in the Applicant’s home upon return from visits. This information was not passed on to the Applicant. She was simply told it was due to conflict. Information that could have shed light on the Society’s reasoning and helped the Applicant understand, challenge or accept the decision was not provided to her. The verification letter provides no reasons whatsoever and, while this may meet the minimum benchmark of the CPSO, the Board is looking at the statutory right to reasons which has a higher benchmark than that contained in the Standards.

62Further, there was no information given to the Applicant at all about the emotional harm aspect of the verification. The Board and the Applicant learned some information at the hearing. The Director of Service testified that the child is well adjusted in his current placement. She did not provide an analysis of how this compared or contrasted to his emotional distress in the past. However, the child’s distress is noted in the case conference notes. It is not clear if the medical notes reviewed contained any information about the child’s emotional health or potential risk to his health due to the conflict.

63The Applicant was given no insight whatsoever into the reasoning and was shut down when she asked specifically about this issue. In the Applicant’s experience to meet the definition of emotional harm under the Eligibility Spectrum, you need a situation in which there was a risk that the child would be distraught or suicidal, for example, with an assessment from a doctor or a psychologist. She did not understand how that verification could have been reached based on the conflict with her and her brother. No one drew her “a map” as to how the relationship between her and her brother and the child could lead to this finding.

64Under the Eligibility Spectrum, moderately severe risk (which is what was verified) is described as:

Risk that the Child is Likely to be Emotionally Harmed Resulting From Caregivers Actions or Inaction and/or Inadequate Caregiver Response

It is alleged/verified that there is a risk that the child is likely to be emotionally harmed as demonstrated by serious anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self- destructive or aggressive behavior, or delayed development, and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the risk of emotional harm results from actions, failure to act, or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.

65Meaningful reasons would have captured the information behind each aspect of the verified risk including reference to the child’s demonstrated emotional condition. This was not done and, as such, the Applicant was not given sufficient information about the factors taken into account to enable her to understand the reasoning behind the decision.

66Further, the Applicant was not advised of the decision made by the Society in this context that she was a family member and not a landlord. This information goes to her brother’s side of the conflict but is relevant to how the Society viewed her. It may have validated the concern of conflict for the Applicant to have been given this information.

Decision not to return the Child to the Applicant

67The reasons for the decision not to return the child are reflected in some detail in the risk assessment and the case conference notes. This level of detail was not passed on [to] the Applicant including reference to the videos, the questioning, an invasive photo of the child and the lack of cooperation between the Applicant and her brother. The Applicant was simply told it was not what was best for the child, given the conflict.

68The Applicant was never told the details of the risk assessment or the level of risk that the Society had determined the child to be under should he remain in her care. At the hearing, she discovered an error in the document, which the Society agreed to amend.

69The Applicant was given virtually no information about this decision, leaving unanswered questions such as: Does a verification automatically mean removal from the caregiver? Were other options such as working further with the Applicant on the concerns considered? What were the risk assessment findings and how would this and the verification affect her in future if she sought to parent?

70Again, the Applicant was not given enough information about the factors taken into account to enable her to understand how the decision not to re-place the child with her was made and why.

71She was not told about the goodbye visit decision and this visit never occurred. She was given no information about the decision, the reasons for it or why it never took place. This clearly did not engage the applicant in genuine communication or comply with the Society’s obligation to give reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

CONCLUSION / ORDERS

72For the above reasons, the Board finds that the Society did not meet its obligation under s. 68.1 (4) 5 of the Act to provide to the Applicant reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

73In terms of remedy, the Society argued that the information provided at the hearing has now filled in the gaps and that no more reasons are needed. The Board agrees that some gaps have been filled in, but not all.

74The Board orders the Society to provide detailed written reasons to the Applicant in the form of answers to the following questions:

1. Why was the decision made to allow access visits during the two week safety plan periods. What specific factors and perspectives were considered? Was the referral of May 27, 2013 considered? To what extent did the ongoing investigation impact the decision?
2. Was the decision to change investigators because of : a. the friendship between the Applicant and the Intake Unit Service Manager who had the open file?; b. the number of referrals from the Applicant?; c. the actions of the Intake Unit Service Manager regarding sign off for the “case conference”?; and/or d. some other reason? Please specify.
3. Does the Society draw a distinction between interviewing caregivers under the Standards and actively investigating the caregiver? If not, why not? If so, why was this not done regarding the Applicant and the allegations of sexual abuse?
4. Did the Society actively investigate whether the Applicant had sexually abused the child and if so, what information did it seek and from whom?
5. How did the Society assess the child’s demonstrated emotional state with reference to the Spectrum criteria for verifying risk of emotional harm under 31 B? What was the conclusion and what factors was it based on?
6. After correcting the error on the risk assessment, explain the scoring and the basis for “employs overly controlling” abusive or overly restrictive behavior” at A7.
7. Explain how the verification and/or risk assessment might impact the Applicant in future if she seeks to have a child placed in her care by the Society or the courts in terms of child welfare history checks.
8. The Society had concerns about the Applicant’s daughters. Why were they not interviewed? To what extent did those concerns impact the decision to verify risk of emotional harm?
9. Was the option of working with the Applicant to address the Society’s concerns considered? If not, why not? If so, why was this ruled out?
10. Why was the Applicant not told about the goodbye visit? Why did the visit not occur?

75The Society shall have 30 days from the date of the decision to comply with the Order. The Society shall provide a copy of its reasons to the Board.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

76Pursuant 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