Applicants v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, 2015 CFSRB 44

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

Applicants

v.

Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: October 2, 2015

Citation: 2015 CFSRB 44

Indexed as: Applicants v. Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region (CFSA s.68)

1This is an application by a father and step mother under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (Act or CFSA). The Applicants made several referrals and calls to the Society about numerous issues involving the father’s children and feel that they were not heard or provided with explanations by the Society.

2The Board must determine whether the Applicants were heard and provided with reasons for decision as required by s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5. The Applicants alleged that the mother was engaging in parental alienation and that this was negatively impacting the children, that there were drugs/domestic violence in the home, that the children needed counselling and glasses and that they missed extensive amounts of school. The Applicants’ position is that the Society did not engage in meaningful follow up or provide meaningful explanations about its involvement, nor did it respond to service concerns. The Society’s position is that it followed up, took the concerns seriously and communicated with the Applicants throughout.

3The Board finds that the Society did not meet its obligations at the time of the initial referral in August/September 2015 and subsequent service concerns; however, it met some of its obligations to hear the Applicants and provide reasons in January of 2015. The Society met its obligations in February and March of 2015 when it developed a service plan. The Board could not conclude that the Society did not meet its obligations in the following months.

4There are ongoing concerns regarding the mother’s compliance with the service plan. The Board urges the parties to work together moving forward, in the interests of the children.

Background

5The Applicant father cared for the children under a custody order from 2006 to 2009, after the children were removed from the mother for drug use. The children returned to live with their mother in early 2010. The children spent summers with the Applicant father and later, he and the Applicant step-mother. The children (son and daughter) have an older brother in the mother’s home and two step sisters in the Applicants’ home. In the summer of 2014, the Applicant father became concerned about several things including:

• The possibility of the mother’s boyfriend doing/dealing drugs /having a Taser/engaging in domestic violence
• The children had missed many days of school and were often late and both children have individual education plans
• The mother was making access hand offs difficult and volatile
• He found out from the school that the son needed glass but didn’t have them and that he had been assessed as having psychological needs
• He saw changes in the children’s behaviour and he wanted them in counselling: he attributed the changes to the mother influencing the children against the Applicants

6The Applicant decided he would keep the children as he had a custody order that had never been changed. When he told the mother, the situation escalated and she obtained an ex-parte custody order; the children were returned to her care. The Applicant got an order for access and issues continued with respect to access arrangements.

7In August, 2014 a particular incident involving the mother’s contact with the children during access motivated the Respondent step mother to call the Society. She reported the series of concerns to the intake worker who told her that they could not get involved in custody and access issues but would follow up on the child protection concerns.

8Over the course of the next 11 months there was contact between the Applicants and the Society about the ongoing concerns and incidents. The Society had concerns about both the mother and the Applicant father and the father’s local Society became involved briefly. The Society entered into a family service plan with both parents in March of 2015 and the Applicants continued to call the Society with concerns that the service plan was not being followed.

9The Applicants commenced their Application with the Board on April 16, 2015. After some discussion during the hearing, it was agreed that the Board would hear up to date evidence in order to deal with the issues as comprehensively as possible and to avoid a further application about more recent events. This decision deals with events up to the end of July, 2015 and with emails up to early August 2015.

ANALYSIS

10The Board has determined that the Society did not meet its obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 initially but that it met some obligations in early winter 2015 and met its obligations when it followed up and made the service plan. The Board could not conclude that after the service plan the Society did not meet its obligations.

11The relevant legislative provisions under the Act are:

68.1(4). Matters for Board Review

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

(4) Allegations that the society 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.

2(2). Duties of Service Providers

Service providers shall ensure,

(a) That children and their parents have an opportunity where appropriate to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.

12In P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38, 2012-09-21 at paras. 13-14, the Board described the purpose of s.68.1 (4) and (5) and addressed s. 68.1 (4) 4 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.

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

13The “right to reasons” under the Act, means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, (CFSA s. 68) 2012 CFSRB 25 2012-07-11 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

14The Society did not call evidence but the Applicants sought to admit Society case notes into evidence. The Society agreed. The Applicant adopted his chronology as part of his evidence and the Board also admitted the Application and attachments and the Society’s Reply. These documents were given weight only to the extent they were not contradicted by the oral testimony of the Applicants.

15The Society is obliged to carry out its investigations in accordance with the mandatory Child Protection Standards in Ontario (Standards). It also uses a specific tool, the Eligibility Spectrum (“Spectrum”) for “coding” referrals into categories that dictate the length of response time. Whether or not the Society complied with the Standards and the Spectrum can be evidence of whether the Society met its obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5. The Board took the Standards and the Spectrum into account in its analysis and in particular, the provisions discussed below.

16Standard #1 provides that all information received by a Society is to be treated as a potential referral. The intent is to establish the validity of information. In addition, the “worker’s ability to gather and assess detailed information about the incident or condition and comprehensive information about the child and the family will inform subsequent decisions and set the direction for all other child protection or community services offered by the Children’s Aid Society” (p. 8 ).

17All referrals are to be screened for domestic violence as it impacts the children. Under Standard #2, the screening tool is the primary decision making aid (the Spectrum) and a 7 day response is appropriate when no immediate safety threat exists. The Society must develop an investigation plan.

18Under Standard # 3, the purpose of an investigation is to thoroughly gather and assess the information, assess immediate and long term safety, determine if the original or new child protection concerns are verified, engage a child and family in a way that will facilitate understanding the needs and develop a relationship that will facilitate their use of community services. All family members should be interviewed privately and individually; the society should interview children and siblings and “non- offending” adults living in the home.

19Standard # 4 sets out the steps of an investigation which includes face to face contact with children, interviewing the alleged perpetrator, interviewing or direct observation of the children being cared for in the home, direct observation of the referred child and caregiver, interviewing the non-abusing caregiver and witness interviews. The desired outcome of an investigation is credible evidence and information or the use of all reasonable efforts to collect the information.

20Standard # 5 deals with the safety assessment and plan. It describes the safety assessment as a process and a document, done at the point of first face to face contact, within the response time. If a safety threat is identified, a safety plan is developed with the family immediately following the assessment of the threat. Where possible, the family is to be actively involved as is the community and extended family. A safety plan must be approved by supervisor before it is implemented. The Standards require ongoing collaborative review of the effectiveness of safety plans with the family to monitor things like insight, follow through and level of participation.

21Standard # 9 addresses the initiation of ongoing service:

“The focus of the first moth of ongoing child protection services is on:

• Managing and reviewing the safety plan
• Engaging the child and family in child protection service
• Assessing the child and family’s strengths and needs
• Developing a service plan” (p 61)

22Under the Standards, a service plan involves a “family centred conference”. The participants are all family members, including the child where age appropriate. The service plan should set out goals, objectives, tasks and the level of contact between the worker and caregivers (p.63).

23The intent of a service plan is:

collaborative, respectful assessment of underlying individual and family needs that are associated with safety threats or longer-term risk of maltreatment is balanced with an assessment of strengths and protective capacities that mitigate against risk. The resulting service plan guides all subsequent interventions that are designed to change the conditions or behaviours that cause risk to the child. The service plan is managed and reviewed continuously throughout the process of ongoing service provision. Family-centred conferencing is intended to engage the family and its support system in service planning and decision making (p. 63).

August and September 2014

24The Applicant’s first call to the Society was on August 26, 2014. The Applicant step mother spoke to an intake screener about the full array of concerns including suspicion that the mother and her boyfriend sell drugs, the mother fighting with her boyfriend and a report by the son that there was a Taser gun in the boyfriend’s car, taken by police. The Applicant step mother asked for counselling because the children are confused. According to her un-contradicted evidence, she told the intake screener that they had recordings of the mother’s behaviour. The intake screener advised her that the Society would not deal with custody and access issues but would follow up with the concerns about the children in the mother’s home. The Applicant step mother testified that she said it wasn’t about custody and access, but about safety.

25On August 29, the Applicants received the mother’s ex parte custody order and again called the Society. According to the Applicant father, he begged the Society to take the children until their investigation was complete but they did not listen. On September 5, 2015, the father left a message that the children were missing school again and asked the Society to talk to the principal. The Applicants faxed the Society a package of documents that included school records and a psychological assessment of the son.

26On September 8, 2014 the Applicant father left a voice mail that he had called last week and not heard back. The investigating worker called him back and spoke with him. He spoke to her about the full range of concerns. He told them about the mother blocking access as well as all of his other concerns and requested that the children be put in counselling. He mentioned that the children had missed 30 days of school last year according to school records. The investigating worker notes in her case note “discussed with him that some of these concerns are not child protection and that I will follow up and do my job but cannot share specifics with him. Requested he give me a week to follow up with school and [the mother] and that he keep me in the loop regarding court issues.”

27On September 11, the Applicant father left a voice mail regarding an incident in which he had been talking to his daughter on the phone. His daughter told him she was upset with him for what he did to the mother; the mother took the phone and was swearing and yelling at him with the daughter there. His voice message stated that no one was getting back to him or listening to him and he knew they couldn’t share details but he needs feedback.

28He and the investigating worker spoke on September 12 about an incident on September 10 and his ongoing concerns about not being able to speak to the children. On September 16, the investigating worker spoke to the Applicant father. She had left a message on September 15 and called him again on the 16. She told him she was going out to see the children soon. According to her case notes, she also told him she had spoken with the school and the police. There is nothing to indicate that she gave him any details at this time or later about the calls to the school and police. The case notes indicate that the school advised the investigating worker (among other things) that the children had missed 4 days of school the past year. (This is in conflict with the information the Applicant received and faxed to the Society which indicates 29.5 absences and 38 lates). According to the case notes, the police advised the investigating worker that they had no information about the boyfriend, including drugs or Tasers.

29On September 19, the investigating worker met with the mother and the children separately in the mother’s home. The son told the investigating worker that he had a zapper toy that was a joke and it had nothing to do with the mother or her boyfriend. The mother told the investigating worker that she had gotten glasses in the past but they “disappear” at the Applicants’ house but she would get new glasses. The investigating worker called the Applicant father and according to him, told him the children did not want to see him and that the Society had concerns about him also. According to the September 19, 2015 case note, the investigating worker advised the Applicant that the parties would deal with the custody and access issues through the courts and the Society would close the file. He does not recall her saying the file would be closed but agreed it was possible. He remembers feeling dissatisfied with the call.

30The Applicant father left a voice mail for the investigating worker on September 29 stating he would be in town and could they meet on October 1, 2014.

31The investigating worker spoke to him by phone on September 30. She spoke to him about the meeting with the mother and the children the previous week. According to her notes, she told him she had reviewed all of the child protection concerns and she had decided she had none at this time. She advised him on strategies for leaving messages for and speaking to the children. She told him that when she met with the children they were upset with him and did not want to talk to him “right now”. According to him the investigating worker told him they did not want to see him. She told him she was concerned about the level of adult conflict the children were exposed to and that both parents needed to keep a child focus. Her notes indicated that she “directed him to deal with custody access issues in court”. He told the worker he is asking for an “OCL” for the children to have a neutral voice. The investigating worker told him there were some concerns about him raised by the children when she met with them. She did not tell them what they were but told him his local CAS would be in contact with him. According to her notes, he said that was fine and she told him she would be closing his file.

32In this case, according to the case notes, the initial intake was “coded” as 5-3-B and 3-3-H, with a 7 day response time. 5-3-B relates to a caregiver having a problem such as substance abuse that puts the child at risk. 3-3-H relates to exposure to domestic violence. The Applicants had mentioned exposure to domestic violence and drugs but they had also mentioned the mother exposing the children to emotional harm by involving them in custody and access issues. The referral was not “coded” in this manner.

33The Society is required to assess the safety of the children and to do a “safety assessment”. The Society did not meet with the children in the home of their mother as required by the Standards and the Spectrum within 7 days. They met with the children and mother 24 days later. This is not indicative of having heard the Applicants’ given how the Society itself characterized the investigation. The Safety assessment was done on September 22-- clearly not within 7 days and the children were living with one of the persons the Society was investigating. The Society did speak with the police and school as is appropriate under the Standards in terms of contacting collateral sources of information. However, they did not contact the school until September 16. Further, the Society did not send anyone in person to interview the Applicants and did not give them the chance to respond to the mother’s counter allegations. The Society did not tell them what the school had said or give them a chance to respond or clarify the school information. The Society had spoken to the police who told them there was no information about the mother’s boyfriend and drugs and no record of a Taser at the household. The Society was told that the boyfriend does not live at the house. The Society did not explore this information further with the Applicants.

34Had the Society taken the Applicants concerns seriously at this time, they could have asked for and potentially been given more concrete examples of the concerning behaviours. The Society could have asked for the recordings. As will be seen later, once the Society had audio recordings of and emails from the mother to the Applicant father, they did agree there were concerns. However, this was not until 6 months later, in February of 2015. Instead, in August and September 2014, the Society dismissed the concerns as “custody and access” related. The Eligibility Spectrum clearly recognizes the type of behaviour that the Applicants complained about under 3-I A, B and/or 3-3 D, I. The concern was minimized and the file was closed without a full investigation.

35The Society’s explanations to the Applicants were lacking during this initial investigation. The Society did advise of some next steps and ask for more time. However, it did not give explanations for carrying out its work outside of the mandated time lines or explain why it wasn’t meeting with the children in the Applicants’ home or with the Applicants in person.

36The Society told the Applicants that it concluded there were no child protection concerns but did not say why. It did not tell the Applicants what the school or police had said about the Taser, drugs and domestic violence. Nor did it explain its verification/non-verification process and the standard it uses to determine whether there are child protection concerns. Pat comments about dealing with custody in court do not offer a meaningful explanation to parents concerned about the conduct of another parent that they feel could be emotionally harming the children. The Society did not explain the coding in the Spectrum to the Applicants or why it had not coded the intervention as involving exposure to emotional harm. The Society did not provide sufficient information to the Applicants to enable them to understand what factors it took into account and why.

37The Society did not meet its obligations to hear the Applicants and provide them with reasons relating to the August 26, 2014 referral in August and September 2014.

October, 2014

38The Applicants called the Society on October 1 to advise of an incident of blocked access in which the police were involved. The Applicants called the Society again on October 2 and spoke to the investigating worker’s supervisor to complain about the investigation. They felt the Society allowed too much time, thus giving the mother the opportunity to coach the children. In her notes, the investigating worker’s supervisor indicates that she told the Applicant father that she would look at whether the investigation was done properly and get back to him.

39The Applicant step mother called the supervisor’s manager on October 6. She reiterated the concerns about the care of the children, the mother using them against the father and the investigation. The manager’s notes indicate that she spoke to her about dealing with custody and access through legal channels. The Applicant step mother wanted the manager to call the father. The manager said that she did not have the family history so the Applicants needed to speak to the investigating worker or supervisor about continued worries. She told her she would pass this on to them and would tell them that the Applicants want a call back as they are still worried.

40There is no record that she passed on the concerns or that anyone called the Applicants back about the investigation and the concern of the mother coaching the children.

41The Society did not respond to the service concerns about the investigation or to the Applicants’ ongoing concerns. Although the supervisor and manager listened to the Applicant step mother, by not following up, the Society did not hear the Applicants. Further, the Society offered no explanation for not following up.

42The Society failed to meet its obligations for this time frame.

November/December 2014

43The Applicant father spoke to a male worker in November who listened to his full array of concerns and said he would look into them. He believes he never spoke to that worker again. He also spoke to an intake worker about an access issue where the mother was not at the drop off point and he and his daughter were waiting. The intake worker told him “there is not much we can do”.

44According to the Applicant father, the mother called him in November or December 2014 and told him that their daughter had threatened to kill herself and the mother was going to get her help. When the father emailed her back to ask her to take her to the hospital right away, the mother denied the suicide threat. The Applicant testified that he called the Society and he spoke to another male worker.

45The Society has file notes indicating that they received a referral on December 8 2014, coded as 3-3-I. There is no indication in the materials provided to the Board as to what that was about. Under the Spectrum, code 3-3-I relates to children who are experiencing some symptoms and are at risk of mental or emotional harm including serious anxiety, depression or aggressive behaviours due to significant conflict over custody, the risk continues because the circumstances are unchanged and the child is without services to address the harm (p.65).

46The case notes indicate that a male worker and the person who later became the ongoing worker (“worker”) met with the mother and the children on December 31, 2014. The worker advised the mother that she should encourage a relationship with the Applicant father and that she should not be “so quick” to “let” the children out of contact with their father. There was nothing in the notes about the alleged suicidal threat.

47A safety assessment was done on January 6, 2015, under the referral that was “coded” as “33 I”. There is evidence that a worker left a voice mail message with the Applicant between January 6 and 13.

48The Society has a file entry that indicates a call with the Applicant father and the worker on January 13. The Applicant father advised that the last access exchange had gone well. He said his main concern was the threat by his daughter and that he had spoken to the male worker about that. The worker told him they had no concerns about the daughter’s mental health and they had “safety planned” for her. She told him not to talk negatively about the mother with the step mother and that they had encouraged the mother to encourage visits with him and not to be so quick to let the children out of visits.

49In January 2015 there was also an incident during an access visit in which the son allegedly pulled down his pants in front of his siblings/step siblings and acted out sexually including pulling down one of the sibling’s pants. The Applicants took him to the hospital because they wanted referrals for counselling. The children were still not in counselling at the mother’s home.

50The Society case notes indicate that there was a “sub-referral” regarding the Applicant on January 19, 2015. The nature of the sub-referral is redacted from the notes.

51On January 21, the worker met with the children and the mother. She encouraged the mother to put the children in counselling. On January 29, she spoke to the Applicant father. He spoke to her about taking his son to the hospital, his son’s acting out, aggression and exposing himself. She asked him about his grabbing his son’s shirt and told him he should not use violence to demonstrate against violence as this sent mixed messages. According to her notes, he agreed and said he regretted it. His testimony confirmed this. She gave him advice regarding his parenting: that the children not be left alone and have more supervision. During this conversation, she advised him that the children denied the exposure allegation regarding the son. He advised her that the children told him they had seen it and he was concerned the mother had coached the children. He asked the worker to interview the step siblings in his home. He explained the history, that he had recordings of the mother coaching the daughter and he talked about the suicidal threat. She told him the Society had concerns about the son and that the mother had agreed to counselling. The worker asked for the recordings.

52During this time frame, the Society started to demonstrate that it was hearing the Applicants about the son. It interviewed the children and got the mother to agree to counselling for the children. This is responsive to the concerns about the son’s behaviour and the emotional impact on him and to some extent, the daughter. The Society told the Applicant it had concerns about his son. The worker asked for a copy of the recordings which was significant. The Society did not respond however, to his request to interview the other children (step sisters) who were present when his son was acting out sexually and the concern about the mother coaching the children. This left him feeling that the issue was unresolved despite counselling being agreed upon. The level of emotional harm his son was experiencing was not fully investigated from the Applicants’ perspective.

53In addition, the Society did not engage in full genuine communication with respect to the daughter. The only evidence specific to the referral about suicidal threats by the daughter not being dealt with by the mother, that the Board has is that of the Applicants and the January 13 case note. While the Applicant father acknowledged that the worker “got back to him” about the suicide threat, she did not involve him in the safety planning as required by the Standards. There was no dialogue with him about what he could or should do when his daughter was with him or what the plan was to keep her safe at her mother’s. The Standards are very clear about the importance of involving family in the safety plan. This was not done and the Society did not hear the Applicant. It dismissed his concern about his daughter’s mental health without engaging him further. The Board had no evidence that the Society explored whether she made the threat or why with the daughter.

54Further, telling the Applicant father after the fact about safety planning without any details is also not sufficient in terms of reasons. There was no meaningful explanation, but rather, a statement of conclusions.

55The Society heard the Applicant with respect to his side of the story in grabbing his son’s shirt. However, the case notes about the January 19 sub referral indicate that it was “verified”. There was nothing in the notes to indicate that the Society told the Applicant that they had confirmed a concern about his use of force. Thus, while the Society met its obligation to hear him, it did not provide him with an outcome, let alone reasons.

56To conclude with respect to this time frame, the Society met its obligations in some respects and not in others. The January 29 conversation does represent a turning point as one of the most significant steps for the Society was to ask for the recordings. Their response to the recordings is addressed below.

February – March 2015

57On Feb 3, 2015, the worker received the recordings that the Applicant dropped off at the Society. On February 10, the worker spoke to the son’s teacher. The teacher had concerns about the son. The worker also called the Applicant father on February 10. She told him she had listened to the recordings and had concerns about what she had heard and she was working to address it with the mother. She told him she had to take the recordings with a “grain of salt” as he knew he was being recorded and the mother didn’t, so he was motivated to be calm. She asked him if he would consider going for a conflict coaching course with the mother. He said it would be difficult given the distance but she advised that the program was flexible and she asked him to at least speak to them about the option. She spoke of the benefits of being proactive about the conflict. She asked if he was willing to meet to discuss goals and a service plan and she would meet with the mother also so he would be aware of what she discussed with the mother. She told him that they could not help him regarding custody and her notes indicate that “he understands”. They booked a date to meet about the service plan in March.

58On February 26, the Society made an unannounced visit to the mother. On March 3, 2015, the worker met with the mother. The mother denied exposing the children to conflict. The worker told her there was no doubt that the children were in the middle of conflict and she confronted her about the recordings. Her case notes of March 3 indicate a decision to transfer the file to ongoing services.

59Both Applicants attended and participated in a meeting with the worker on March 19, 2015 in which she presented a draft service plan. The service plan talked about the Societies worries which included school, parents not supporting the children’s relationship with each parent and exposure to adult conflict impacting the children emotionally. It talks about what needs to happen and who will do what including counselling, the mother staying inside for access exchanges and positive use of a communications book. The Applicants agreed that they had an opportunity to voice their concerns and to go over the suggested points in the service plan. They had input into the plan. The Applicant father expressed that it was the mother who was the real problem and not him. While he felt his inclusion was unfair, he did not speak out fully or raise any real objections. The Applicant step mother testified that it was her who suggested they get supports in the community for the son’s behaviour. The Society did not send the Applicants a copy of the final service plan.

60The Applicant father testified that after the meeting in March and the creation of the service plan, he felt hopeful and that something was actually being done.

61The Society engaged the Applicants in the service plan, consistent with the Standards. They involved them in developing the plan and took their input into account. They held a conference with them and one separately with the mother. For the first time, the Applicants felt the Society was genuinely following up and hearing them. Further, the Applicant father conceded that the Society explained the service plan and its purpose to them at the meeting. They should have been provided with a copy of the plan. This however does not negate the Society having met its obligations to hear the Applicant and provide reasons with the acknowledgment of concerns about the mother and the development of the service plan with the Applicants. The Society listened to the audio-recordings provided, took them seriously, responded and explained their response.

April - July 2015

62Starting in April, the Applicants contacted the Society to tell them there were problems with the service plan being broken by the mother. There was communication back and forth about blocked camp and the lack of counselling. The worker told the Applicant she was trying to encourage the mother to take the children to counselling. There were emails about incidents that occurred in May relating to the son not wanting to return to the mother’s home. The worker met with the children in May. The worker and the step mother spoke on May 26 about the interview with the children. The Applicant step mother talked about the ongoing parental alienation. The worker agreed the mother needed to work on the issues but that they could not apprehend the children for her behaviours. She told the step mother the children had a counselling appointment in June. The Applicant step mother made a facebook page for the Society and advised the worker it was so that she could see how things were with the children at their home as they had not come to see them there. The step mother followed up in an email in which she talked about the Applicants being aware there were custody and access issues but that the children had a right to be free from a toxic environment. This email included reference to the comment by the worker that she could not apprehend the children. The Applicants sent more examples of ongoing aggressive behaviour and swearing by the mother as well as articles. On June 1, the worker responded, acknowledging the Applicants’ frustration, saying there was a lot of information to review and asked if the Applicant father was he free to talk. They made a time to talk. She spoke with him on June 2 and advised that she would talk to the mother about the ongoing issues.

63On June 8, the Applicant father sent emails from the mother to the worker and told her about a visit in which they had to pull over on the highway because of the son’s acting out about access arrangements. On June 12, he sent an email asking for a referral to CAAP, a program at McMaster.

64In June the Applicants followed up with a supervisor [the supervisor] about their perspective that the service agreement was not working and advised that the mother’s behaviours continued. According to the un-contradicted evidence of the Applicant step mother, the supervisor advised her “we don’t use” “parental alienation” and she told the step mother that the Applicants have “anxiety.” On June 11, 2015, they followed up with a message to the manager, stating the supervisor seemed biased. On June 17, she spoke with the manager (the supervisor’s supervisor) who told them she would ask the worker and supervisor about it and re-directed her to speak to them. There were discussions between the worker and the Applicants about a meeting on June 23 and the manager referenced talking to the Applicants in more detail then. According to the Society, notes, the Applicants failed to show up for the meeting on June 23. The Applicants testified that it was never actually confirmed as in the past, so they didn’t realize it had been scheduled.

65On June 27, the Applicant father emailed about not having heard back from the worker or the supervisor and about the missed meeting on June 23. He also raised concerns about the children’s missed dental appointments. On July 3, he left a voice mail for the worker that his daughter was ill with scarlet fever and he hadn’t been made aware. The worker was not in so he called the on call worker who said she would pass it on to the worker. He called the next day and again on July 6 about his daughter being ill and about another incident of blocked access on July 4. He also emailed the worker some rude texts that the mother had sent to him. On July 13, he sent a further email that he was still unable to contact the children and the mother was not communicating with him.

66On July 14, there was a further incident that he emailed the worker about. On July 18, the son hit the daughter. The Applicant step mother called the worker and advised they had a recording as the children would probably deny the incident, not to tell the mother as she might retaliate and that this was an important request. On July 23, the Applicant father called the worker and said the service plan was not effective and that his daughter was still exposed to emotional harm.

67On July 24, the Applicant father emailed the worker that he wanted email contact and not phone contact and that the record “speaks for itself”, the Society doesn’t need more “input”. The worker emailed him back. She asked him to help her understand the request to have no more phone contact and advised that it is difficult to communicate by email. He emailed her again on July 26 about access and parental alienation. On August 5, he explained his request via email for email communication. On August 7, he asked CAS to do a home visit when the children were with the Applicants. On August 10, the worker emailed back that email is not the best way to communicate and she asked for a phone meeting.

68This was a time in which there was much communication back and forth. There was follow up but there were some gaps in communication. During this time, the Society sent the Applicant father the details of the conflict coaching contact and he did not follow up to see if it was viable (given his distance from the mother and the level of conflict). The Board sees the confusion over the June 23 meeting as miscommunication and does not lay it at the feet of either party. The Society was actively offering a forum for the Applicants to address their ongoing concerns including service concerns. When this did not happen, the parties did not rectify the situation by setting up a new meeting. The Applicant father made it clear the service plan wasn’t working. He testified that at some point, the worker told him she would go to court to enforce the service plan. It is not clear when that was and the Board has no evidence from her. On July 24, the father asked for email contact only and said the Society did not need any more input from him. The worker asked him why and then explained her position that some phone contact was needed and why.

69The Board is not able to conclude that the Society did not meet its obligations to hear the Applicants at this time or to provide them with reasons. There were genuine attempts at full communication which broke down and which at some point, the Applicants shut down to some extent. Moving forward there is an obvious need for the parties to resume full communication and to review the service plan as required by the Standards.

70Because of the breakdown in having a meeting, there are a few unanswered questions for the Applicants and possibly, for the Society:

• what is the society’s action plan to the ongoing behaviours of the mother ? Is it to go to court and/or to review the service plan?
• Where does exposure to emotional conflict –regardless of whether you call it parental alienation lead to more intrusive intervention and if that is the case here, when was the line crossed in terms of the mother’s ongoing, clearly concerning behaviours?
• Will the Society arrange to thoroughly assess whether and to what extent the Applicants expose the children to conflict in a way that impacts them emotionally-either through the CAAP program or perhaps having the local society assess the children in the Applicants’ home. This would address the Society’s “grain of salt” comments about the father’s role.
• Did the children ever actually attend counselling and has the counsellor been apprised of the concern about a possible suicide threat by the daughter and the possible sexual acting out and the aggression of the son? How does the Society ensure that the children’s needs are fully assessed by the counsellor(s)?

Conclusion

71This case involved much communication about many concerning actions by the mother which the Society eventually agreed were concerning. Initially, the Society did not take the concerns seriously or thoroughly investigate them. They did not meet their obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5 to the Applicants. They did not hear the Applicants or provide them with reasons regarding service concerns about the investigation. As time progressed, the Society began to become more proactive and responsive and started hearing the Applicants and providing meaningful explanations to some extent. Finally, in February, 2015, the Society started engaging the Applicants and more fulsomely responding to their concerns by developing a service plan with them in March and moving the file to ongoing services. In April, it appeared to the Applicants that not much had changed and they had ongoing struggles in managing the mother’s reactions and behaviours. There was communication between April and August that ultimately broke down in terms of a meeting and follow up. The Board did not conclude that the Society did not meet its obligations at this time, given the communication issues on both sides.

72The cumulative effect of the situation is that there are some explanations still owing to the Applicants and a need for the parties to work together in future. In addition to the questions set out in paragraph 70 above, the following questions also remain unanswered from the perspective of the Society hearing the Applicants and providing them with reasons, based on the evidence.

• Why was the initial referral not coded for the mother exposing the children to emotional conflict?
• Why was the society reassured that the mother and boyfriend did not do or sell drugs or engage in domestic violence?
• With reference to the Spectrum, how does the Society deal with behaviours that might be termed parental alienation and what standard or threshold do they use to intervene? How does that apply to this case?
• An explanation of why the use of force by the father was “verified” and what this means for him in terms of child welfare records?
• Why weren’t the Applicants service concerns (about the investigation and later, bias) dealt with in accordance with the Internal Complaints process of the Society or otherwise responded to?

73The Society shall have until October 16, 2015 to provide meaningful written explanations to the questions at paragraphs 70 and 72 above. They shall refer to the Spectrum and Standards where applicable and shall provide sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow the Applicants to understand why and how the decision was made.

74The Society shall also develop a communication plan with the Applicants in terms of what type of information should be shared verbally and what may be shared by email. The communication plan shall be in place by October 16, 2015. The Applicants can provide their input via email or by phone or if there is a pending in person meeting about the service plan, in person-as the Applicants choose. The distance between the Applicants and the Society has posed a communication barrier to some extent. The parties need to look forward and find ways to communicate constructively in the interests of the children.

75The Board will stay seized for implementation purposes.

76If the Applicants believe that the Society has not complied with the order including that one or more of the Society’s response(s) are not meaningful (in other words the explanations do not help her to understand the reasons why the Society made the decisions that it did), they may bring this to the Board’s attention by delivering written submissions to the Society and filing them with the Board by October 30, 2015. The Applicants’ submissions must identify each aspect of the order that they allege is not complied with, including any response the Applicants allege is not meaningful and explain why they say it does not help them understand the Society’s decisions. If the Board does not hear from the Applicants by 4 p.m. on October 30, 2015, the file will be closed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

77Pursuant 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.

SHEENA SCOTT

__________________________

Sheena Scott

Vice Chair