D.B. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2016 CFSRB 25

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

D.B.

v.

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: July 11, 2016

Citation: 2016 CFSRB 25

Indexed as: D.B. v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

(CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1D. B. (the “Applicant”) filed two applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) pursuant to subsection 68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11, as amended (the “Act”), against the Toronto Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”). The applications were heard together on June 15, 2016. Both parties are to be commended for their willingness to work constructively together to achieve a meaningful resolution of their dispute.

2The Applicant complained that the Society had not heard his service concerns or heard him when decisions were made and had not provided him with reasons for decisions that affected his interests regarding allegations that:

1. The Society was negligent in its duty to protect his child from emotional harm inflicted by the mother;

2. The Society conducted its investigation in a biased manner;

3. The Society did not conduct a proper investigation in a timely manner regarding concerns raised by the Applicant in 2014 regarding the mother’s attempt to alienate the child from him.”

3The Applicant raised a further concern about an inaccuracy in the file. A Contact Log entry reads “Dr. [doctor 1] father says that Mr. B has been waking up the child for years”. The parties agreed the word “father” does not belong in the quoted entry. The Applicant also contends that Dr. [doctor 1] never included that quote in her report or alleged that the Applicant would wake his Child for no reason.

4Given that inaccuracies in a file need to be reviewed at an I.C.R.P. (Internal Complaint Review Panel) before coming to the Board this complaint could not be considered in this hearing. However, the Society acknowledged the error of the quoted sentence, and offered to make an appropriate entry in the file, to invalidate the quote. The Society agreed to send the Applicant a copy of its correcting entry in the file. The Society offered to do this to save the Applicant and the Society the burden of having an I.C.R.P. for this one correction. The Applicant accepted the Society’s voluntary offer, and that issue thus was withdrawn from the hearing.

5At the hearing the Applicant was provided with the opportunity to better define and articulate the issues about which he had not been given reasons. In view of the Applicant’s high level of stress and anxiety during the hearing, the Society offered to respond to the Applicant’s questions in writing rather than through verbal testimony of its staff who was present at the hearing. The Applicant agreed with this approach. Before closing the hearing, the Board urged the Applicant to take a few minutes and think if there were any other areas of concern that he might have overlooked so far in the hearing. The Applicant did take some time for this, and informed the Board there were no other issues for which he seeks reasons.

6A major issue for the Applicant was a psychological report (the “Report”) prepared at the request of the Child’s parents. This was a lengthy report (46 pages), dated April 4, 2011 when the Child was [ ] years and [ ] months old. The Report was authored by Dr. [doctor 2] a registered psychologist. Dr. [doctor 1]. did not attend the hearing. The Applicant contends that the Society erred in not considering the Report earlier than it did.

7Dr. [doctor 3], a registered psychologist, testified in support of the Applicant. Dr. [doctor 3]’s practice focusses on separating and divorcing families, with an emphasis on those situations involving disputed access and custody. Dr. [doctor 3] acknowledged never having met any of the persons referred to in the Report, and thus was not able to comment on any specific clinical matters pertaining to the Applicant and his family. She clarified that, other than having met the Applicant when the Applicant retained her to attend the hearing as his witness, she had not met with either of the parents involved, nor had she met the Child, nor had she met with any personnel of the Children’s Aid Society. She also told the Board that she was not able to offer any opinion on what the Society had done or not done with regards to the Report and the Society’s role in planning for the Child. She did, however, speak in broad terms about the issue of parental alienation. She was of the opinion that, in a high parental conflict situation, the method for conducting a sound assessment of a child would involve the child being brought to an interview by one parent, with the other parent bringing the child for a second interview. That way, a psychologist would be able to get some idea of the influence each parent exercises over the child prior to meeting with the psychologist.

8Dr. [doctor 3] explained that in any situation, absent strong factors to the contrary, an extensive psychological report, such as the Report by Dr. [doctor 1] should be taken into consideration when agencies are trying to understand certain family dynamics and should be part of the information that goes into case planning. If high conflict was present in the Applicant’s family situation, the Report could give some insight into what a young child is feeling about the events in her family’s life, and could help in designing a plan to assist the Child in resolving her feelings about it. Based on her extensive practice experience, she stressed that any service agency working with the Child would need to obtain as much relevant information as possible on the Child, and that the voice of the Child is important to be heard by the agency in any situation involving parental conflict. As well, she indicated that, based on her experience, a child’s level of performance at school is not necessarily a good indicator as to what stresses the child may be experiencing at home. Sometimes home stresses result in poor school performance, while other times they result in very good school performance, with the child over-achieving at school to compensate for the stressful home situation.

9Dr. [doctor 3] stated that she could not imagine why such a report would not have been taken into consideration by any agency planning for the Child, as the father is alleging that the Society failed to take the report into consideration until much later than they ought to have.

ORDER

10Having heard the evidence and having regard to the agreement of the parties the Board makes the following order:

The Society is directed to provide written responses to the Applicant on the following 10 issues:

1. Why did the Society Worker give to the Child his business card on two separate occasions (i.e. December 10, 2015 and February 2, 2016)?

2. Why were various court orders and endorsements not reviewed and acted upon by the Society?

3. Why was the report of Dr. [doctor 1] not reviewed and acted upon by the Society?

4. Why did the Society wait until April 2016 to speak to Dr. [doctor 1] when the Applicant asked the Worker in January 2014 to call Dr. [doctor 1]?

5. The Applicant has sole custody over the Child’s medical issues; why did the Society do any mental health evaluations on the Child since 2015.

6. Despite Dr. [doctor 1]’s April 4, 2011 report which suggested that the Child’s mother has made false allegations in the past, why did the Society investigate the 2015 complaints by the Child’s mother?

7. After the Child’s mother brought the Child to a pediatrician in late 2015, did the Society contact the pediatrician for a follow-up to the Child’s emotional state during the Child’s visit with the doctor, and if so, when did such follow-up occur and what was the result?

8. What follow-up was done by the Society when the Child is alleged by her mother to have said that the Child wanted to commit physical violence against the Child’s father?

9. What emphasis did the Society place on the Child’s performance at school and on the feedback the Society received from school personnel?

10. The Applicant understands from the Society that only one file exists, which covers all members of his family; would the Society advise the Applicant of the current status of the Society’s file on his family?

11In view of summer vacations already planned, there was agreement from both parties that the time for responding by the Society will be extended. The Society’s communication to the Applicant will be issued by the Society on or before August 8, 2016, and will be sent to the Applicant by registered mail, with the addressee’s signature required upon receipt.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

12The hearing was conducted in private and was not open to the public. Pursuant 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.

JOHN F. SPEKKENS _____________________

John F. Spekkens

Presiding Board Member