G.L. and D.L. v. Children's Aid Society of Simcoe County, 2014 CFSRB 67

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

G.L. and D.L

v.

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF SIMCOE COUNTY

ORDER

Date: November 26, 2014

Citation: 2014 CFSRB 67

Indexed as: G.L. and D.L. v. CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF SIMCOE COUNTY (CFSA s.61)

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicants filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) on October 3, 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 decision by the Children’s Aid Society of Simcoe County (the “Society”) to remove a foster child (the Child) from their care.

2The Society took the position that the Child‘s evolving needs were not being met in the Applicant’s foster home because he had special needs as a victim of trauma. Specifically, in his new placement, his sleeping issues were improved, he was performing better at school and he was behaving in a more independent manner therefore, the Society’s position was that the Child could not be returned to the Applicants’ care.

3The Applicants’ position is that their experience in working with victims of abuse and their caring stable family environment allowed them to help the Child to feel secure in their family. They believe that their parenting style contributed to his growing trust of them as his parents and he would regress if this bond is broken.

4The Child was represented by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL). The OCL’s position was that the Child was ambivalent with regards to his placement preference and he had not clearly indicated in which home he would like to reside. In view of the Child’s lack of firm direction, the OCL’s position was that the Child’s behaviours had improved in his new foster home therefore he supported the Society’s decision not to return the Child to the Applicants’ home.

5An oral hearing was held on October 28 and 30, 2014. The Board reserved its decision. In accordance with section 61(8.6) of the Act, the Board must determine what action is in the Child’s best interests and either confirm the Society’s decision to remove him from the Applicants’ home or direct the Society to return him to their care.

6After considering the Child’s best interests the Board rescinds the decision of the Society to remove him from the Applicants’ foster home and orders the Child returned to the foster care of the Applicants.

BACKGROUND

7The Child is a Crown Ward who is nine years old. He experienced trauma and abuse in the past and was diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Developmental Disorder, Learning Disability, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Insecure Attachment. He was placed in the Applicants’ home in August 2011. The Child lived alone in the Applicants’ home because of his high needs and challenging behaviour.

8The Society removed the Child from the Applicants’ home for two days respite care on August 1, 2014. At that time an investigation was also launched by the Society as a result of a complaint against the Applicant Father dating from twenty five years ago. The complaint was not verified. The Society advised the Applicants in a letter dated September 22, 2014 that the Child would not be returned to their care, although he had lived in their foster home for three years. The Applicants are experienced foster parents who have opened their home since 1977 to foster children in need of care.

ANALYSIS

9The Board considered the legislative provisions in section 37(3) of the Act as it relates to the best interests of the Child, particularly the following considerations in arriving at its decision.

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

2. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.

3. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.

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

5. The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.

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

The Child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs and the Child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.

10In her testimony the Society’s Child and Youth Service Worker (Society Worker) testified that the Child had a learning disability, ADHD, Post-Traumatic Stress disorder and Insecure Attachment. She noted that the Child distrusts adults because his needs were not met when he was young and he was unable to establish healthy relationships. She reported that he required a lot of attention, had ongoing sleep issues and needed cuddling. He was often tired as a result of lack of sleep and was sometimes late getting to school. The Society’s letter of September 22, 2014 commends the Applicants for their care, support and commitment to the Child and the Society Worker confirmed that there were no concerns with the placement.

11The Consulting Child Life Specialist, Social Worker (“Child Life Specialist ”) who assessed the Child twice monthly between October 2012 and June 2013 (18 sessions) reported that her impression was that the Applicants “were highly committed to [the child] and that they were motivated to help him recover from so much trauma, developmental and attachment disruptions and distress”. The Child had experienced early neglect, abuse and sexual trauma which the Child Life Specialist believed could account for his erratic and disregulated behaviour. While in the Applicants’ home the Child had difficulties sleeping and was given Melatonin as an aid to sleep. Despite this he was unable to sleep in his bed and frequently would sleep on the floor of the Applicants’ room. He also had nightmares.

12The Child was referred to the Sleep Centre at [Mental Health Centre] in August 2014 while he was placed in the new foster home. The Society Worker testified that that the Child has started to sleep normally in his new placement without any sleep aid. The Society Worker also noted that the Child was grooming himself, getting on the bus to go to school where he was doing well, he was also participating in activities, doing chores and socializing well with two other children in his new home. According to the Society Worker he had been unable to accomplish these tasks successfully while he was living with the Applicants because he was frequently tired from lack of sleep.

13The Applicants testified that they had started the process of teaching the Child to groom himself, to socialize with other children in the neighbourhood as well as to participate in organized age appropriate activities at home, in the community and at church. The Child had clung to the Applicant Mother at home and did not want to share the home with other foster children. The Applicants believed that because they always provided care to children with complex needs the Child did not want to share so much of their time with other children in his home. He is now older and more mature and accepting of the two children in the new home. The Applicant Mother stated that this summer while the Child was out of school they had planned to increase his responsibilities and introduce chores and other tasks as recommended by his clinicians. Unfortunately the Child had hurt himself on the trampoline and the introduction of this new routine had to be pushed back and then came the investigation of the Applicant Father and the removal of the Child from their home.

14The Applicants’ son testified that his parents had thirty seven years of fostering experience. He observed that they loved their foster children and this love was evident when he saw them with the Child.

15The Society Worker stated that in the new placement the Child sleeps throughout the night and Melatonin was discontinued on August 8, 2014. Previously the Child had difficulties getting up for school because he was tired but now he gets himself ready for school, gets on the bus and participates in school and afterschool programs. He is also involved in a local boys group, baseball, hockey, YMCA drop in program and Karate. The Society believes that the Child is developing self-esteem because he is experiencing a sense of accomplishment.

16The Society Worker also stated that the Child had gained independence in the new home where he is active and although he needs prompting from time to time he can do chores, maintain good personal hygiene practices and participate at school. The Child still had meltdowns but he was learning to take deep breaths after behavioural issues. The two other children in the placement enabled the Child to be social and he has learned to be more patient and to compromise thus reducing the need for one to one support in the home.

17The Applicants stated that as a result of their experience and expertise along with their stable family and community bonds they have helped the Child to move forward with his issues of attachment and sexual trauma. They also instituted a schedule for the Child to participate in age appropriate activities such as a boys group on Monday, library activities in Tuesday, swimming/rec on Wednesday, fishing /outdoor activities with the Applicant Father on Thursday and playing with friends/family on weekends.

18The Applicants believed that their life experiences and their work with victims of abuse allow them to parent and counsel the Child and to understand his need to feel secure in the family. The Applicants believe that the Child trusts them as his parents and they fear that without the family bond which they have worked hard to establish, the Child will flounder and his behaviours and emotions will become dysregulated. They believe that the improvement in the Child’s behaviour is as a result of his age, improved maturity and the new method of teaching suggested by the psychiatrist. The Applicant Mother stated that she saw the Child’s increased maturity level and his readiness for chores and more responsibility this year and they had planned to institute a new routine in the summer to reflect these changes. The Applicants also strongly believe that the Child expects to be returned to his home, to the parents he loves and trusts as he has not been told otherwise.

19The Foster Home Resource Worker (Resource Worker) testified that one to one care for the Child was provided in the Applicant’s home as well as therapy, school supports and physical activities to keep the Child engaged. In the new home one on one hours were decreased to twelve hours a month from twenty four hours a week with therapy twice per week. The Resource Worker described the Child’s progress as “remarkable well” and noted that he was using techniques recommended by a psychologist, however she found it “difficult to say that he is better off “ in the new foster home.

20From the evidence presented the Board finds that the Applicants were aware of the Child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs and the Child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development. The Applicants had worked on the Child’s attachment issues as the foundation to ensure that he felt secure and loved. They had planned to institute a new routine under the guidance of his clinicians during the summer, to introduce the Child to chores and more personal responsibility because they believed that his maturity level had increased and he was ready for more independence. Due to circumstances beyond their control they were unable to do so. The Society did not contradict this evidence leading the Board to find that the Applicants provided a stable home environment which was beneficial for the Child who had lived in two previous foster placements and a chaotic home of origin, prior to being placed with the Applicants. The Board finds that the Child’s physical, cultural, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs were being met in his placement with the Applicants.

The importance for the Child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family

21The Applicants told the Child when he was leaving their home that there was some “adult business” they had to take care of so he had to go to respite care and when the business was completed he could return home. Subsequently the Society made the decision not to return him to the Applicants’ home. The Applicants believe that the Child is securely attached to them as his parents and they have developed a relationship with him that is special. They testified that they had worked on building a strong emotional bond to ensure that the Child would develop emotionally and socially. The Applicants believe that the Child wants to come home but he is waiting on the “adult business” to be completed and he is very angry with them for the perceived abandonment of him. The Applicant Mother saw him in August and reported that he would not look her. She also reported that he has asked her if the “adult business” was over and in a phone conversation he asked if he would be home by Halloween.

22The Child Life Specialist testified that when she asked the Child what view he would like to see from his new window he replied that he wanted the Applicant Mother’s home. She believes that the Child thinks about his former home because there has been no closure.

23The Resource Worker sees the Child once weekly and she stated that the Child was ready to move on and that he had a “connection” with the Applicants. He had resisted new techniques in the new home for a month saying I don’t have to do this at the Applicant’s home but he “lit up” when he found that he could. She noted that he will always be attached to the Applicants but she did not know if he had to be returned to their care. She confirmed that the Society had not identified any concerns in the Applicants’ home.

24Counsel for the Child reported that in his meetings with the Child they did not discuss moving back to the Applicants’ home. The Child likes to socialize with the other children in the new home, he likes doing chores, likes his independence, he likes physical play with the father in the home and the activities, he is doing well in school, engaging and participating in activities and his appearance has improved however he loves the Applicants and it was hard for him to choose. The OCL was unable to surmise the Child’s wishes in this matter as the Child’s views were changeable, on one occasion he wanted to stay and on another occasion he wanted to return to the Applicant’s home.

25The Board finds that all the witnesses and the Child’s counsel confirmed that the Child has a positive loving relationship with the Applicants and he had a secure place as a member of their family. The Child told the Child Life Specialist that he wanted to see his former home from his window in the new home and the close connection between the Applicant Foster Parents and the Child was noted by all of his workers. Although the Child was learning new techniques, enjoying new responsibilities and chores he was still emotionally connected to his home with the Applicants as his parents. He had asked the Applicant Mother when he would be returning home, an indication that he believed his stay in the new placement was not permanent.

The importance of continuity in the Child’s care and the possible effect on the Child of disruption of that continuity, the Child’s views and wishes, and the effects on the Child of delay in the disposition of the case

26The Child Life Specialist testified that the primary presenting concerns of the Child were easily dysregulated, impulsivity; affect regulation, sexual remembrance, regressed easily, social skills, victim stance, attachment, boundary development, sleep disruption hyper-vigilance and immediate gratification. She utilized play and talk therapy as well as art and worked closely with the Applicant Mother to teach and support behavioural management. She testified that the Child was doing well in the Applicants’ home although he had difficulties separating initially from the Applicant Mother when they first started therapy.

27The Child Life Specialist did not see the Child in August 2014 and in September when she saw him the Child was “ambivalent” about the new home. She reported that he can be “chameleon” like because of his fear of disruption and he did not want to lose a home. She reported that the Child struggles with boundaries and he is a Child at risk who needs ongoing support. She believes that the Applicants have always been supportive of him and that his ongoing attachment issues make change difficult for him. She expressed concerns that the lack of closure might set him back with his attachment issues.

28The Applicant Mother testified that she had serious concerns regarding the Child’s attachment issues. She feels that the adults in his life have become unpredictable and she believes that the disruption could affect the Child negatively and lead to attachment avoidance and emotional and behavioural dysregulation.

29The Applicant’s son testified that his parents were affectionate and calm with the Child and their bond was obvious between them at home, in the community and at family gatherings. He noted that his father referred to the Child as his son.

30The Applicant Father’s sister confirmed that at family gatherings, she has heard her brother calling the Child “son” which led to her belief that the Child feels that he is the Applicant’s son and a member of their family.

31The Society was concerned that the Child might show regression if he was returned to the Applicants’ home and he might manipulate the Applicant Mother. The Society Worker believes that the Applicants gave the Child a great start and provided support for him; however, the next stage had plateaued.

32The Child’s Counsel advised that the Child was ambivalent regarding his current situation. On one occasion he told Counsel that he will stay at the new home and on another occasion he stated that he wants to go back to the Applicants’ home. He believed the Child was torn between the homes and he did not want to hurt anyone. He stated that the Child had made significant gains in the new home and since he does not handle changes well there would be a risk of regression if he was returned to the Applicants. He supported the new placement for the Child.

33The new home employs mantras to help the Child to figure out the appropriate action and also utilizes visual props in his room. These aids help him to stop, think and respond to talk. The Child is now responding to visual cues and he can select his own clothing, get dressed and get on the school bus independently. He continues to work on boundaries, self-respect and he needs help using therapeutic calming techniques. Previously, the Child needed the Applicant Mother to help with stress release, now he is using techniques recommended by the psychologist. The Resource Worker believed that if the Child is transitioned back to the Applicant’s home he would “regress a bit” and he needed supports in both homes.

34The Applicants fear that the effects on the Child of delay in the disposition of this case will be the loss of the three years’ work on his attachment issues during which they loved him unconditionally as a member of their family and he came to trust them as his parents who would always be there to help him and to provide stability for him.

35The Applicant Mother believes that the Child is angry because the adults in his life have become unstable and as a survivor he is playing it safe in his new environment. She believes that his attachment issues will surface again as there was no transition. The Applicants are prepared to play the role of grandparents in the Child’s life; however, they believe his return to their care would be in his best interest.

36The Applicants testified that they were willing to learn and apply the new training techniques used in the new home so that they can continue to use the same methods in their home to ensure the continued progress of the Child.

37The Society confirmed that the Applicants gave the Child a “great start” and the Child Life Specialist’s testimony was that the familiarity of returning to the Applicants would be manageable for the Child with the appropriate supports.

38The Child has confirmed attachment issues. He is nine years of age and he has developed a strong bond with the Applicants. The Child has not been told that his move is permanent; therefore, he expects to be returned to his home with the Applicants who have provided a loving home for him. The Applicants fear that the effects on the Child of delay in the disposition of this case will be the loss of three years’ work on his attachment issues during which they loved him unconditionally as a member of their family and he responded to them as their son. They know the Child well and they believe that he was learning to trust adults and regulate his feelings.

39The Board accepts the evidence of the Child Life Specialist and the Society and finds that the Applicants have always been supportive of the Child and his ongoing attachment issues make change difficult for him.

40The Child has a positive loving relationship with the Applicants and he has a secure place as a member of their family. The Society did not provide an expert witness to testify regarding the consequences of attachment disruption but from the evidence presented, the Board heard of the possible negative effects to the Child if his care is disrupted and he becomes emotionally dysregulated. From the evidence the Child was not regressing because he did not see his new home as permanent. He had been told that he would be away from his home on a temporary basis for respite care and his emotional health, as well as his trust and attachment issues were on hold because he did not know where his future placement would be. The Child was keeping his options open in both homes and although he was enjoying his independence and new learnings, his emotional health and his wellbeing were rooted with the Applicants.

41The Child’s healthy attachment to the adults in his life is the basis for his future relationships with others. As a traumatized Child, breaking the emotional bonds with the Applicants could jeopardize his future relationships and his removal from the Applicants’ home could place the Child at serious risk of losing all of his attachment gains. The Board, therefore, finds that it is in the Child’s best interests to restore his continuance of care with the Applicants where his trust and attachment issues can best be nurtured in the Applicant’s foster home.

DECISION

42The Board has determined that it is in the Child’s best interests to be placed in the Applicants’ foster care. The Board has decided that the Child should be returned to the Applicants’ care and rescinds the Society’s decision to remove him from their foster home.

43The Board therefore:

1. Rescinds the decision to remove the Child from the Applicants’ foster care and orders the Child back into the foster care of the Applicants.

2. The Board recommends that the Society provide:

A) Training as requested by the Applicants so they can employ the learning techniques with the Child that has proved successful in his new home.

B) Transportation to and from school for the Child to encourage his independence.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

44Pursuant 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, except with an order of the Court or the Board, as appropriate.