G.S. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society, 2014 CFSRB 54

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

G.S.

v.

Durham Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: September 23, 2014

Confidentiality Order Amended October 21, 2014

Citation: 2014 CFSRB 54

Indexed as: G.S. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.61 and s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1[ ] (the “Applicant”) filed two applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”). The first application was filed on June 16, 2014 pursuant to section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11, as amended, (the “Act”) regarding the permanent removal of her granddaughter (the “Child”) from her home on June 2, 2014 by the Durham Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”). The second application was filed on June 18, 2014 pursuant to section 68.1(4) 5 regarding matters relating to services sought or received from the Society.

2The Society argued that it had satisfied all of the requirements under the Act with respect to having provided the Applicant with reasons for decisions it made and giving her written notice of its decision to permanently remove the Child from her home.

3An oral hearing in both matters was held on August 26, 27, 28 and 29, 2014. The Board reserved its decision. The Board finds in favour of the Society regarding both matters for the reasons below.

PRELIMINARY ISSUE

4At the outset of the hearing, the Society brought a motion without notice challenging the Board’s jurisdiction to hear the application pursuant to section 61 of the Act. The Society submitted that the rights afforded under section 61 of the Act relate to regular foster parents only and do not apply in the case of kin foster caregivers such as in this application.

5The Board dismissed the Society’s motion for the following reasons.

6Section 3 of the Act defines a foster parent as a person who receives compensation to provide care to a child in their home and is not the child’s parent or a person with whom the child has been placed for adoption under part VII. Kin foster caregivers are subject to the same evaluation process and licensing requirements as other foster homes. They must have a SAFE assessment completed and must attend for PRIDE training, amongst other requirements. They are subject to regular visits by a resource worker from the Society and must comply with Ministry guidelines with regards to their homes. Kin foster caregivers receive the same compensation to provide care to a child as any other foster parent. The only difference between a kin caregiver and a regular foster parent is that the kin caregiver is approved to provide care for a specific child and not as an open foster home for future placements.

7Section 61(7.1) of the Act grants a foster parent who has received a notice of a child’s removal the right to apply to the Board for a review of this decision within 10 days. The Act does not expressly exclude kin foster caregivers.

8As such, the kin foster caregivers are the same as foster caregivers with regards to the application of section 61 of the Act and the Board finds that it has jurisdiction to hear this application.

BACKGROUND

9The Applicant is the paternal grandmother of the Child. She is also the mother of two adult sons. [ ] (the “older son”), resides with her and has significant and multiple health problems. The Applicant is the older son’s primary caregiver. [ ], (the “younger son” or “father”), is the father of the Child. [ ] is the mother of the Child.

10The Child was born on June 22, 2010 and came into care at the time of her birth due to concerns regarding the parents’ drug use and other concerns that placed the Child at risk. She was placed in a foster home shortly after birth. The Applicant was unable to consider taking the Child into her care at that time. The first foster placement ended in May 2011. The Child was subsequently placed in another foster home for six months until October 2011. She was made a Crown Ward with access to her parents on September 14, 2011. The Child was then placed in a kin foster placement with the Applicant on October 28, 2011 and access to her parents was to be supervised by the Applicant.

11The Society provided funding for daycare for the Child after her placement with the Applicant, the offer of respite and support for the Applicant to deal with managing the Child’s behavior. The Child began occasional respite in December 2013.

12In September 2013 the Society received information from a local hospital treating the older son that he had tested positive for cocaine. The father and [the mother] also tested positive for drug use in December 2013. Following the receipt of the drug test results for the parents, the Society informed the parents and the Applicant that access by the parents would be supervised at the Society’s office effective January 10, 2014.

13On January 23, 2014, the Society received a referral from the police of a report alleging there were people living in the Applicant’s home who were dealing drugs, that there was a lot of traffic going in and out of the home and that the Applicant was screaming at the Child. The Society attended the Applicant’s home on the same day and found [the mother] hiding in the basement of the home. Prescription medications and syringes that belonged to the older son were found in the home within the reach of the Child.

14A Serious Occurrence Investigation (“SOI”) was initiated as a result and, in the course of that investigation while at the Applicant’s home, the Child informed a Society worker that the father was in the basement of the Applicant’s home. A search of the basement uncovered a mattress, blankets, bags of clothing, an uncapped syringe and spoons with dried substances on them. The police were contacted and confiscated the drug paraphernalia. The father was not found to be present in the basement at that time.

15The Child was interviewed at her daycare on April 2, 2014 in the course of the SOI and stated that her parents live in the Applicant’s basement and “do needles” in the basement. She was able to demonstrate how her parents do needles. As a result of these allegations, the Child was removed from the Applicant’s home on the same day and placed in the respite home.

16The Society initiated a second SOI based on the disclosures made by the Child on April 2, 2014. As a result of the outcome of its investigation, the Society met with the Applicant on June 2, 2014 and advised her that her home would be closed as a kin foster home for the Child and that the Child would be permanently removed from her care. On the same date, the Society provided the Applicant with formal written notice of the closure of her home and the permanent removal of the Child and her rights under the Act to make an appeal.

ANALYSIS

Section 61 Application

17The Board has determined that it is in the best interest of the Child to be permanently removed from the care of the Applicant for the reasons set out in the following paragraphs. As such the Board has confirmed the Society’s decision to permanently remove the Child from the care of the Applicant.

18In reaching a decision, the Board considered the following overarching principles as spelled out in sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Act:

1(1)The paramount purpose of this Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well being of children.

1(2)The additional purposes of this Act, so long as they are consistent with the best interests, protection and well being of children, are:

1. To recognize that while parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and, wherever possible, be provided on the basis of mutual consent.

2. To recognize that the least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child should be considered.

3. To recognize that children’s services should be provided in a manner that,

i. respects a child’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment,

ii. takes into account physical, cultural, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children,

iii. provides early assessment, planning and decision-making to achieve permanent plans in accordance with their best interests, and

iv. includes the participation of a child, his or her parents and relatives and the members of the child’s extended family and community, where appropriate.

19In accordance with section 61(8.6) of the Act, the Board must decide what action is in the best interests of the Child. The Board considered the following relevant best interests factors in section 37(3) when making its determination:

2. The Child’s physical, mental and emotional needs and the appropriate care or treatment to meet these needs.

3. The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

4. Any other relevant circumstance

20In addition, the Child has a native background and therefore in accordance with s. 37(4) of the Act, the Board must take into consideration the importance of preserving the Child’s cultural identity. Her father is a member of the [First Nations]. In June 2014, the Office of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada informed the Society that the Child was not eligible for registration at the time since her father had not registered and does not have status. However, the Child may qualify in the future and this aspect of the Child’s background is a relevant best interests factor in this case.

21The main issues before the Board are whether there is sufficient evidence of a failure on the part of the Applicant to meet the Child’s needs while she was in her care and a risk of harm to the Child while in the Applicant’s home that warranted the Society’s decision that the Child was in need of protection. The Board must also consider the Child’s cultural identity as a native person as a factor in rendering its decision.

22The Society’s decision to remove the Child was the result of concerns related to drug use by the older son of the Applicant and by the Child’s parents and two investigations initiated in January 2014 and in April 2014. The Board heard from the children’s services worker, the SOI worker, and two supervisors regarding these investigations as well as from the Applicant.

23The use and trafficking of illegal drugs, among other factors, led to the decision that the Child was in need of protection at the time of her birth in 2010. The issue of drugs remained a constant theme in this case. The Child exhibited signs of opiate withdrawal at the time of her birth. Both parents were identified as being addicted to drugs and alcohol and the father was facing criminal charges for trafficking in drugs at the time of her birth. [The mother] also had limited pre-natal care and the parents’ living arrangements were unstable. The parents did not have a plan for the Child at birth and the Applicant was unable to provide a plan at the time and therefore the Child was placed in a foster home. The Child was made a Crown Ward in September 2011 and, in October 2011; she was placed in the care of the Applicant.

24The Applicant is in her mid-fifties and suffers from long-standing physical and mental health problems that have required multiple medications for more than a decade.

She has been the primary caregiver for her older son who suffers multiple significant health problems since the age of 10. He has had periods of hospitalization related to these conditions and injuries resulting from them. He resides with the Applicant and she is his primary caregiver in the home with the assistance at times of a personal support worker. Both the Applicant and her older son smoke. The issue of smoking in the house was identified as an issue of concern by the Society at the outset of its relationship with the Applicant.

25A Safe Home Study of the Applicant’s home was conducted starting in May 2011 and completed by the kinship care worker in September 2011. The report was signed by the kinship care worker on September 9, 2011 and by the Applicant on October 27, 2011. At that time, the Applicant identified that only her older son was living in the home. The Society requires that a prospective kin caregiver identify anyone living in the home at the time of the application so that each person can be involved in the assessment, review and approval process which include criminal reference checks, references, and medical reports. Neither of the Child’s parents was included in this assessment and therefore neither was approved as part of the Safe Home Study. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the home would have been approved had they been living there, given that the Child was found to be in need of protection from them and they were to have limited supervised access to the Child.

26The Safe Home Study Report posed a concern to the Board because the content of the report appeared to be inconsistent with the rating summary completed by the kinship care worker. The rating summary is not shared with the prospective caregiver; however, it is meant to reflect strengths and concerns along a number of psychosocial dimensions such as an applicant’s history, personal characteristics, family relationships, psychosocial environment, and general parenting capacity among others. Each of these dimensions has several factors that are rated on a scale ranging from exceptional strength, on one end of the continuum to extremely serious concern on the other. The rating for every factor in the summary for the Applicant was 2, which is equivalent to strength. The kinship care worker testified that this summary form had not been completed properly.

27In reviewing the Safe Home Study Report, the Board noted concerns in a number of areas that raise a question about the initial approval of the Applicant’s home and subsequent placement of the Child. There were concerns identified with regard to the Applicant’s history, personal characteristics, past drug use by her older son who was living in the home, financial limitations, smoking in the home, past parenting experience with children in the Applicant’s care, and the Applicant’s educational aspirations for herself and her sons among others. The report did not include a review of the Applicant’s capacity to reinforce the Child’s native heritage and cultural identity as a native person given her father’s background. The Safe Home Study Report was approved on a probationary basis for 6 months with the following expectations:

1. the Child attend full time daycare;

2. the Society continue to evaluate the Applicant’s parenting ability and that the Applicant work cooperatively with the Society and follow all recommendations made by Society workers;

3. there will be no smoking in the home;

4. the Applicant will accommodate all parenting supports as recommended by the Society;

5. the older son (who was living in the home) will not be left in a care-giving role and he will provide the Society with his criminal reference check as soon as possible.

28The Society acknowledged that it never received copies of the older son’s criminal reference check or all medical reports and that the outcome of these reports were such that it may have led to a decision not to approve the Applicant’s home as a kin placement for the Child.

29The Society began to have concerns regarding the suitability of the placement of the Child in the Applicant’s home starting in December 2013. Prior to that, the Applicant had expressed concerns regarding managing the Child’s behavior and supports were put into place to assist her including full daycare. In addition, the Society had ongoing discussions with the Applicant regarding her continued smoking and her older son’s smoking in the home. This issue was never fully resolved.

30The Society had received consent from the Applicant’s older son to obtain medical records and requested them from one of the health facilities at which he was being treated. The records the Society received indicated a positive result for cocaine, opiates and benzodiazepine. The Child’s worker discussed these results with the Applicant and her older son and underscored that the older son could not be using illegal drugs in the home since this would pose a risk to the Child.

31In the meantime, the Plan of Care for the Child included regular drug screening required by the parents who had access visits with the Child a couple of times a week for a few hours each visit and these visits were to be supervised by the Applicant in her home. In early 2013, the parents requested increased unsupervised access with the Child. There were multiple problems with getting regular drug tests completed by the parents. The Society received a copy of both parents’ drug test results completed in December 2013. Both tested positive for a variety of illegal substances including cocaine and a cutting agent for cocaine.

32On January 10, 2014, the Society met with the parents to discuss the results of the drug tests and they then met with the Applicant who was informed by the father of the matter. Both the Applicant and the parents were informed that future access visits between the Child and the parents would occur at the Society’s offices and be supervised by the Society and would no longer take place at the Applicant’s home or under her supervision. The Society informed the parents that the matter would be reviewed in light of the outcome of future drug test results. At the time of this discussion, the Society did not have any information to suggest that any drug use by the parents took place while in the Child’s presence.

33The Applicant was informed at the same meeting about the drug results from her older son’s testing and informed that he could not be using illegal drugs in the home. The Applicant did not know where the older son obtained drugs, conceded that it was not acceptable for him to be using them and agreed to discuss the matter with him.

34On January 20, 2014, the Child’s worker and the kinship care worker attended the Applicant’s home. The Applicant had spoken with her older son regarding the drug results. The workers discussed how continued drug use would put the placement of the Child at risk and that the Society would require hair follicle testing on the older son. They also discussed at that time that the parents could only be in the Applicant’s home when the Child was not present.

35On January 23, 2014, the Society received a call from the local police informing it that it had received of a complaint about possible drug trafficking in the Applicant’s home, people going in and out of the home and someone yelling continuously at the Child.

36Two Society workers attended the Applicant’s home on January 30, 2014 as a result. The Applicant, a family friend and the Child were present in the home at the time. While discussing the police report with the Applicant, they heard [the mother’s] voice in the background. They asked the Applicant if [the mother] was in the home. She replied that she was not there. They asked to conduct a home search and in the course of doing so found [the mother] hiding in the basement. The father arrived at the home shortly thereafter after being contacted by the Applicant. The workers told both parents they could not be in the home when the Child was present.

37The Applicant acknowledged that the parents had been staying in her home for a few nights since they had no place to go. There was no admission of any drug trafficking. The parents agreed to leave the home at that time. The workers noted a bottle of pills on a television stand and a number of syringes. These were identified as belonging to the older son and the Applicant was directed to place them in the locked box required by the Society for that purpose and out of reach of the Child. The Applicant immediately complied with this direction.

38The Society initiated a SOI as a result of these incidents. The SO worker, the children’s services worker and the kinship care worker met with the Applicant in her home on February 7, 2014 to conduct an investigation. The report completed by the SO worker documents the details of this meeting. The workers explained that it was not in the Child’s best interest for her parents to be in the Applicant’s home and the Applicant understood that this was the case. The Applicant acknowledged that she was conflicted between meeting the needs of her younger son and the needs of the Child. The workers expressed the view that it was important for the Applicant to place the needs of the Child before the needs of her younger son. The Applicant discussed the financial problems faced by her younger son and the difficulties in financing housing. She acknowledged at that time that the Child’s parents were sometimes “high” when they visited her home. The workers also discussed drug use by the older son. The father arrived during this visit and agreed that he would not stay in the home and would not visit when the Child was present. This was the second occasion when a clear position regarding the presence of the Child’s parents in the Applicant’s home was discussed with the Applicant.

39The Society did not verify a child protection concern at this time but noted in the investigation summary that “there are concerns that [the Applicant’s] loyalty to her son may eventually take precedence over her capacity to provide a safe environment for [the child].” The Child started being placed for respite in a foster home on an ongoing basis at this time which continued in the same home in which she was later temporarily placed on a full time basis in April 2014 and permanently placed by the Society on June 2, 2014. The findings of the investigation were communicated to the Applicant in writing on March 6, 2014.

40On March 26, 2014, the Applicant and the Child’s parents met with the workers and supervisors involved in the Child’s case. The purpose of the meeting was to review the Service Contract between the Applicant and Society which was designed to take into account the recent incidents and developments and in particular to formalize the arrangement regarding the parents’ presence in the Applicant’s home and other expectations and to monitor the safety and well-being of the Child. The contract stated a number of terms including the following:

1. The parents of the Child would not reside in the home and/or visit the home when the Child was present.

2. The house is clean and clear of dangerous objects/substances such as prescribed medications, insulin needles and illegal drugs.

3. Do not allow anyone in the home over the age of 18 when the Child is present without having a criminal reference check provided to the Society in advance.

4. Permit unannounced visits by the Society.

5. Complete urine screens and/or hair follicle tests as requested within 24 hours.

6. Arrange for the Child to go on relief the first weekend of every month Friday to Sunday.

7. Do not allow smoking of cigarettes in the home by any person.

8. For the Applicant to provide full care of the Child and not allow any other person unless pre-approved by the Society to watch, supervise or provide care to the Child without the Applicant present.

41The terms of the contract were reviewed with the Applicant and she was informed that the terms were to come into effect on the date of the meeting whether she signed the agreement or not. The Applicant said at the meeting that she would not complete the hair follicle drug test.

42On the same date, the children’s services worker attended at the home of the Applicant for a planned meeting to complete the child’s Plan of Care. The Child was home at the time and told the worker that her father was in the basement. The Applicant went down to the basement and did not locate him. The Child said that her father was hiding under blankets. The worker went to the basement and found blankets, a mattress against the wall, clothing in bags and other belongings, an ashtray with cigarette butts in it, spoons with dried substances in them and an uncapped syringe.

43The worker contacted his supervisor and was directed to show the spoon and needle to the Applicant and to contact the police. He was further directed that there was no need to remove the Child at that time if the Applicant “was not inebriated or under the influence”. The worker advised the Applicant that the police would be called to handle the drug paraphernalia. When questioned regarding the items found, the Applicant stated the Child’s parents go downstairs when the Child is not there and a friend does as well and stores stuff in the basement. She acknowledged that she did not know what they do in the basement. The Applicant contacted the father regarding what was found and he denied that the spoon and needle belonged to him. The worker reiterated the terms of the Service Contract reviewed earlier and encouraged the father to follow through on drug testing.

44The Society initiated a SOI as a result of this incident. The SO worker and the children’s services worker met with the Child for the purposes of the investigation on April 2, 2014 at her daycare centre. During the course of their interview, the Child informed the Society that the Applicant, mommy and daddy, her uncle and her “grandpa” lived with her. She did not know who grandpa was. She stated that the Applicant and grandpa sleep on the top floor and mommy and daddy sleep in the basement. When asked what mommy and daddy do in the basement, she stated that they “do needles”. When she was asked to show the workers what she meant by doing needles, she rolled up her sleeve and poked her arm with her finger several times and said, “blood comes out and it smells bad”. When asked what happens when daddy does needles, she replied, “daddy cries and I cry”. The workers reported that there was no hesitation on the Child’s part in answering any of their questions.

45As a result of these allegations, the Child was not returned to the Applicant’s home and was placed temporarily in the care of the foster home that was providing her with respite. The workers met with the Applicant the same day to inform her of the allegations and the Society’s decision to temporarily remove the Child from her care pending the completion of its investigation. The Applicant was upset but stated that she understood why the Society had to take the steps that it did and that the Child’s father was constantly placing demands upon her.

46Society workers met with the Applicant and the Child’s parents on April 3, 2014 at the Society’s office. The ongoing drug concerns were discussed along with the statements made by the Child. The father admitted to the workers that he was using drugs and showed them multiple track marks on his arms and admitted to injecting his prescribed medication. [The mother] also admitted to using the father’s prescribed medication. The Applicant acknowledged that she “had an idea” that the parents were using illegal drugs. The Society workers reiterated that they could not allow the Child to continue to reside in the home with the current risk factors present. The Applicant stated that she needed to take a week off to “clear her head” and to help the Child’s parents get things in order.

47The Applicant had been asked in the past to provide any police reports to the Society. As a part of this SOI, the Society contacted the police to obtain any reports to date involving the Applicant and the Child’s parents. The Society received several reports which had not been previously provided by the Applicant that were of a concerning nature. One of them involved an incident in which the Applicant had reported the theft of prescription medication to the police and two others involved shoplifting incidents during which the Child was present. The Society followed up with the security office of the retailer involved and was informed that the Applicant had been observed shoplifting on multiple occasions in the presence of a child. The retailer did not report all of these incidents out of concern for the Child.

48The Society workers and supervisors involved in the case including the director of service met with the Applicant on May 26, 2014 to discuss the investigation and to inform her that they would be verifying the Society’s concerns that the Child was at risk in her home based on information from the interviews, police reports and discussion with the security guard. The SO worker stated that he was verifying that the Child was put at risk in a number of situations while she was in the Applicant’s care. The Society had concluded that the Child witnessed her father using drugs, was present on occasions when the Applicant was shoplifting and the Applicant had allowed the Child to have unauthorized contact with her parents.

49The Applicant acknowledged that the parents had been living with her but were trying to get housing. They were having difficulties doing so since they had bad credit. She was aware that they had other options such as a shelter. They also discussed an incident that occurred on May 20, 2014, during which her older son fell down the stairs, broke several bones and had to be hospitalized.

50The Society met with the Applicant again on June 2, 2014 to inform her that the Child would not be returned to her care and her home would be closed as a kin foster placement for the Child. They informed her that they would be seeking a permanency plan for the Child given her age, the time she had been in care and the number of placements she had experienced. The Society provided its decision and the right of appeal in writing to the Applicant in the meeting on the same date. The reasons for the removal outlined in the preceding paragraph were reviewed with the Applicant by the children’s services supervisor.

51The Board heard from the foster mother who has been providing occasional respite since December 2013 for the Child and continuous, full time care for the Child since her removal on April 2, 2014. The Child was described by the foster mother, and others, as having lots of personality, being very bright and advanced verbally, who loves singing and dancing. She had poor eating habits when she first came into the foster home and would constantly ask for sweets. She was frail and underweight and gagged whenever she tried eating most foods. She also did not know how to brush her teeth. She was reported as suffering from night terrors while in the care of the Applicant but did not experience them in the foster home. Since she has been in the foster home, her eating habits have improved; she has gained weight and now eats a wide range of foods without gagging. When first placed in the foster home, she was taken for a dental checkup and was found to have eight cavities that were filled. She had a very strong cigarette smell in her hair and in her clothes that was noticeable to the respite foster mother when the Child was going back and forth between the respite home and the Applicant’s home. The foster mother testified that it took some time to completely remove the smell from the Child’s hair after she was placed in her home permanently.

52The foster mother kept a log during the time the Child was in her care and testified that the Child had stated that “mommy sleeps in the basement and yells at me when I go down there” and that “daddy does needles, keeps them on the counter and mommy does too”. She also reported that the Child is good, listens to her, is very affectionate with her and has referred to her as her “mommy”. She testified as well that the Child is “bratty” to the Applicant and her father and is “mouthy and rude” during access visits with them. The Child has made a good adjustment in the foster home and consistently refers to her “nanny”, the Applicant, and clearly has a strong, loving bond with her.

53The Applicant did not refute any of the Society’s testimony and their grounds for the permanent removal of the Child. She did admit that she had allowed the parents of the Child to reside in the home after she was directed by the Society not to do so. The Applicant acknowledged that the Society explained the reasons for the removal of the Child in the meeting on June 2, 2014 and that she understood the reasons. She acknowledged that she had received the decision in writing on the same date and that she understood the content of the letter and that the Child would not be returning to her care. She also understood that she could contact the children’s services worker or his supervisor for further information but she did not do so. She stated that she was aware that prior to the decision that she understood that the Child could be removed if the parents were found to be in the home and that this had been discussed in the course of the SOI.

54The Applicant testified that neither of the Child’s parents is undertaking treatment to deal with their addictions but are trying to do it on their own. She described the Child in similar terms as the foster mother had; however, she refuted that the child had any eating problems and had not noticed any cavities and that the Child brushed her teeth twice a day. She stated that she was unsure about the impact of the Child seeing her father injecting drugs but that she talks a lot about her dad and has a bond with him.

55She confirmed that the Child’s father is native but that she doesn’t know any details about his background and did not take any steps to provide the Child with any exposure to or information about her cultural heritage. She admitted that both she and her older son smoke in the house and that she knows that second hand smoke is harmful to the Child and that the Society consistently reminded her of this.

56The Applicant admitted that the parents were sometimes in the home in the morning when the Child woke up and she knew that this was against the direction of the Society but she felt sorry for them since they had nowhere to go and no money. She described the care she provides for her older son, which is significant.

57She confirmed her medication regimen which is significant and of a long duration as the result of injuries, a rough childhood, and mental health issues. She also stated that she had left school at an early age and that her two sons did as well. When asked what her hopes for the Child were, she stated that she hopes that she will continue her education.

58Although the Applicant attempted to readily answer the questions posed by the Board, at times she was evasive in providing answers and some of her testimony relating to the Child’s eating patterns and dental care was not credible.

59The Board believes that the Child’s physical, mental and emotional needs and the appropriate care or treatment to meet these needs cannot be met by the Applicant and that the removal was the result of the risk the Child would face should she remain in the care of the Applicant.

60The Applicant’s behavior suggests that she was unaware that the parents’ drug use in the presence of the Child could have a negative impact on her mentally and emotionally and that it was her responsibility to ensure that the parents were not present in the home while the Child was there. This was one of the reasons why the Child was removed from the care of the parents in the first place and the Applicant failed to protect her from their negative impact and risks to her safety.

61The Board questions as well the Applicant’s capacity to meet the physical needs of the Child based upon the testimony of the foster mother regarding the Child’s weight, eating patterns and dental care. In addition, the presence of drugs and drug paraphernalia pose a question regarding the Applicant’s capacity to ensure the physical safety of the Child at all times.

62It is not in the best interests of the Child to live in an unstable and potentially dangerous situation with adults who suffer from addictions of one kind or another as suggested by the evidence, who have significant mental and physical conditions requiring long term if not lifelong interventions, whose ability to change is questionable and who face significant difficulties caring for themselves. The Applicant, along with her older son, suffers a number of disabilities that in themselves do not necessarily make her incapable of caring for the Child. However, the challenges the Applicant faces in dealing with her own and her son’s disabilities in combination with addictions, financial pressures and significant competing demands do. It is very difficult to envision that any Child growing up in such an environment could expect to have her needs understood, made a priority and met.

63It is in the best interest of the Child to live in a stable environment with capable parents who can make her physical, emotional and mental needs a priority and protect her. The Applicant stated her own conflict in being able to do this given the conflicting demands being made upon her by the Child’s father. It is essential that a permanent secure placement be sought, as planned, by the Society as soon as possible for the Child. It is also essential that in placing her consideration be given to her native background and that she come to know about this background in ways that are appropriate to her age.

64The Society and the foster mother both spoke consistently and repeatedly about the strong loving bond between the Child and the Applicant. The Society indicated its intention in involving the Applicant in future planning for the Child and maintaining contact between them. The Board questions whether this is in the best interests of the Child given the Applicant’s failure to meet the Child’s needs and protect her and the incapacity of the Applicant to make the needs of the Child a priority.

65The Board confirms the decision of the Society to permanently remove the Child from the care of the Applicant.

Section 68 Application

66The Board has authority to determine if the Applicant received reasons for decisions made that affect her interests.

67The Board’s authority and the Society’s obligations are found in the following sections of the Act:

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.

68With respect to section 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. An applicant 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.

69In her s.68 application, the Applicant alleged that the Society did not provide her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests regarding the investigation and the decision regarding the placement of the Child.

70The preceding paragraphs make it clear that the Applicant was informed of the reasons for the investigation initiated in January 2014 into the referral received by the police and the investigation in April of 2014 as a result of the Child’s statements during an interview that suggested that she had witnessed her father using drugs and that her parents were residing in the Applicant’s home. The Applicant did not refute any of the testimony given by the Society witnesses who described both investigations in detail.

71Similarly, the Society met with the Applicant on June 2, 2014 and informed her of its decision to permanently remove the child as a result of its investigation including the interviews conducted, police reports and discussions related to the police reports. She was informed in the meeting and a previous meeting on May 29, 2014 that the reasons for the removal were that the Child witnessed her father using drugs, the Child was present on occasions when the Applicant was shoplifting and the Applicant had allowed the Child to have unauthorized contact with her parents.

72The Applicant did not refute any of the Society’s testimony related to the Society providing reasons for the removal. In her own testimony, she acknowledged that she had been given reasons for the removal and that she understood the reasons.

73The Board finds that the Society did provide the Applicant with reasons for both of the investigations and for the permanent removal of the Child from her care and therefore dismisses this application.

CONCLUSION

74The Board concludes that it is not in the Child’s best interest to be returned to the care of the Applicant for the reasons outlined; and, therefore, confirms the decision of the Society to permanently remove the Child from the Applicant’s care since the placement was problematic from the outset and continued to be so.

75The Board also finds in favour of the Society with respect to the s.68 application and dismisses that application.

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 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. The Board allows the use of these amended reasons in the current child protection proceedings involving the Applicant and the Society.