CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
K.O.
v.
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
REASONS FOR DECISION: WRITTEN REVIEW
Indexed as: K.O. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto
(CFSA s.68)
1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from the Applicant on April 17, 2015 regarding a complaint against the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto ( “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11 , as amended (the “Act”).
2The Board has determined that an oral hearing is not required in this case as the Board has sufficient information before it to make its decision based on the written material filed. The Board initially offered to the Applicant to proceed by way of oral hearing and, to this end, attempted to schedule a pre-hearing conference on multiple occasions. Each attempt was met with a refusal from the Applicant. Finally, on October 1, 2015, the Applicant also refused to participate in an oral hearing.
3On April 22, 2015, the Board determined that the application was eligible to proceed to the next stage of the Board’s process: the receipt of the Society’s response. The application was found eligible under section 68.1 (4) 4 which relates to the Applicants’ right to be heard by the Society and section 68.1 (4) 5 which relates to Applicants’ right to be given reasons for decisions that affect their interests.
4The eligibility decision stated:
“Kindly note the Board will not deal with custody and access or with return of the children. For your information, the Board cannot deal with any complaints about inaccurate recordings in a society file at this time. You must contact the Society with a written complaint about file inaccuracies, asking for an internal complaint review panel”. The eligible part of the Application related to the Applicants’ concerns about the care and safety of their children in foster care.”
5The eligible part of the Application relates to the Applicant’s allegations that the Society did not hear her or provide her with reasons regarding the Society’s demand that she participate in a psychiatric assessment and that the Society ignored her concern that her ex-partner was lying about her to the Society in order to solidify his custody and access position with the court.
6The Board received the Society’s response dated April 30, 2015. It is the Society’s position that it has offered the Applicant ample opportunities to be heard about her concerns and that it has provided her with reasons for all decisions made.
7Based on its review of the application and the Society’s response, the Board has determined that the Society has complied with its obligations pursuant to section 2(2)(a) of the Act and that the Society has provided the Applicant with reasons for its decisions as appropriate. The reasons for this decision follow.
BACKGROUND
8The Applicant is the mother of a 7 years old child. The father and she separated in 2013. The Society first became involved with the family in January 2014 after an anonymous community referral reporting concerns about the Applicant’s mental health. The file was closed at intake after the assigned worker determined that there were no identified child protection concerns.
9The second and current opening commenced on January 21, 2015 as a result of a referral from the child’s father. The father stated that he and the mother shared custody of the child on an informal basis.
10The investigation was assigned to intake worker [ ]. On January 28, 2015, she met privately with the father and the child. The father reported a deterioration of the Applicant’s mental health status over the previous two years. He indicated that the Applicant refused to obtain an assessment or enter treatment. He indicated that his decision to contact the Society was based on his concern for the child’s safety while in her mother’s care and because she had started asking questions about her mother and appeared concerned about her. The father requested assistance from the Society in obtaining custody of the child and also requested assistance to support the Applicant getting mental health treatment.
11[The intake worker] then contacted the Applicant by phone and explained the reasons for the Society’s involvement, namely to investigate allegations related to the stability of the Applicant’s mental health and its effect on her parenting of her child.
12During this initial contact, the Applicant stated to [the intake worker] that the Society’s involvement was a form of “institutional interference” and explained to [the intake worker] that, due to her controversial academic work, she had been “targeted” by the United Nations and that she was followed and harassed.
13[The intake worker] and another Society worker [ ] then met in person with the Applicant on January 30, 2015 to further assess the risk associated with the Applicant’s contact with her child and to provide the Applicant an opportunity to present her perspective on the issues raised in the referral. The Applicant spent much of the meeting reviewing the reasons why she believed she was being harassed by the United Nations. The Applicant also advised she had been seen by a mental health therapist twice and that the therapist had believed her experiences as described. The Applicant indicated to the workers she was willing to see a doctor but would not provide her consent for the Society to speak to the doctor. She stated she would speak to the doctor about being followed. Finally, she denied other involvement with the mental health system and said she had never taken medication.
14During that meeting, [the intake worker] repeatedly tried to explain to the Applicant the reasons for the Society’s involvement and that, in order to be able to fully investigate the allegations made about her mental status, it was necessary that the worker speak to a doctor who could provide her with information about the Applicant’s mental health functioning.
15On February 2, 2015, the father applied for and was granted an interim ex parte custody order. The Court also ordered that there be no access between the Applicant and her child until further order of the Court. The Society was not involved in the custody and access proceeding and did not present any evidence to the Court.
16The Applicant asserts that she complained to [the intake worker] that her ex-partner was lying about her and provided “sufficient paperwork” to prove this. She states that [the intake worker] ignored her concerns and did not “halt” the case. The Applicant states that she was then referred to [the intake worker]’s supervisor, [ ], when she indicated she wished to file a complaint. The Applicant alleges that [the intake worker’s supervisor] ignored her complaint, refused to address her specific concerns and also kept the case going. Finally, the Applicant asked that her child be returned to her as it is clear that her ex-partner has lied and the Society has permitted this.
ANALYSIS
17The Board has no jurisdiction to hear complaints if they involve matters that are before the Court or have been decided by the Court.
18Section 68. 1 (8) (a) of the Act provides that:
68.1 (8) The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,
(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.
19Clearly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to order the return of the Applicant’s child to her care; this is a matter for the Court to decide and that in fact was decided on February 2, 2015. Any subsequent orders on this matter will also need to be decided by the Court.
20The rest of the Applicant’s complaints relate to services she received from the Society and are properly reviewable by the Board.
21The Board has determined that the Society did meet its obligations under s. 68.1 (4) 4 and 5.
22The 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.
23In 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.
24The “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.
25In this case, the Society took a number of steps to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard and to engage her so she could feel she had a level of influence over the process and so she could understand the reasons for the Society’s actions.
26The Society’s record shows that it was in frequent contact with the Applicant. Most of these contacts were made by e-mail at the Applicant’s request. On February 4, 2015, [the intake worker] wrote to the Applicant and encouraged her to present evidence that would support her position with the Society, but also before the Court. She encouraged the Applicant to attend for a mental health assessment with a psychiatrist and told the Applicant that it would be important for her to obtain legal representation for the Family Court process.
27After the Applicant indicated that she wished to file a complaint, she was referred to [the intake worker’s] supervisor [ ]. On April 2, 2015, [the intake worker’s supervisor] wrote to the Applicant that she was sorry she felt unhappy with the services received from the Society. She asked if she could speak to the Applicant further regarding her concerns. She invited the Applicant to call her or to meet in person to discuss her concerns. On the same day, the Applicant responded by email as follow: “I will outline some of my concerns in an email to you tonight. I am trying to keep my conversations in writing.”
28[The intake worker’s supervisor] emailed the Applicant again on April 10, 2015 and told her “I am writing to acknowledge your concerns regarding the services you have received from the Society and your belief that the Society was not acting in a fair manner and unbiased manner. I am sorry your experience has not been more positive and I would be willing to meet with you to discuss your concerns further.”
29The Applicant did not accept [the intake worker’s supervisor’s] invitation to meet. In fact she never met with any Society representative after her initial meeting with [the intake worker] on January 30, 2015.
30[The intake worker] then forwarded copies of the Applicant’s email communication to the Society’s Client Services who manage formal client complaints. [ ], manager, wrote to the Applicant on April 17, 2015 to offer a meeting with the Internal Complaint Review Panel and to provide information about the process. In this letter, [the intake worker’s supervisor] confirmed that the Society’s file was maintained in compliance with Child Protection Standards and that the Applicant had the right to request disclosure of her file.
31The Board is satisfied that the Society made sufficient efforts to engage the Applicant in a meaningful discussion and gave the Applicant many opportunities to have input into decision making and to have enough information to make informed responses to, or accept decisions.
32Unfortunately, either because of the effect of the alleged mental health difficulties of the Applicant of by her choice, she did not respond to the invitations of the Society to engage in the conversation. The Applicant cannot expect the Society to “hear” her about issues that affect her interests if she does not engage in the conversation.
33It is clear from the Applicant’s documentation that she expected the Society to change its “position” or opinion of her once she told the worker that her ex-partner was lying about her and that, as a result, her child would be returned to her care. It is not in the Society’s power to do so, just as it is not that of this Board. That matter is before the court and this is where the Applicant should direct her efforts.
CONCLUSION
34The Board finds that the Society met its obligations under sections 68.1(4) 4 and 5 and the Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
35Pursuant 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.
NATHALIE FORTIER _____________________
Nathalie Fortier
Vice-Chair
Dated at Toronto, Ontario on this 23rd day of October, 2015.