I.P. v. Peel Children’s Aid Society, 2016 CFSRB 29

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

I.P.

v.

Peel Children’s Aid Society

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: July 18, 2016

Citation: 2016 CFSRB 29

Indexed as: I.P. v. Peel Children’s Aid Society

(CFSA s.68)

INTRODUCTION

1I.P. (“the Applicant”) filed an application 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 Peel Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) on February 16, 2016.

2The application consisted of the following complaints under s.68.1(4) 4 and 5 of the Act, as summarized in the Pre-Hearing Report dated June 13, 2016.

That the Society has not heard the Applicant’s service concerns or heard her when decisions were made and has not provided her with reasons for decisions that affected her interests, regarding the following:

1. Failure to provide information regarding her son’s health following the meeting of December [date], 2015 and prior to the meeting regarding a broken hand and twice a broken leg;

2. Failure to invite the Applicant to the plan of care meetings;

3. The behavior of the worker [ ] at the December [date], 2015 meeting. This includes issues related to the son’s health and the manner he was dressed;

4. Failure to include the Applicant in the choice of the school, the decision to stop piano and guitar lessons;

5. The scheduling, frequency and duration of the access visits. Failure to take action to maintain a good relationship between the Applicant and her son;

6. The decision to not assign a new family service worker;

7. Concerns regarding her son’s psychological health;

8. Failure to help with identifying appropriate courses to help her parenting skills.

3The Board must decide whether or not the Applicant’s concerns were heard by the Society and whether or not the Society gave the Applicant reasons for its decisions. The hearing on the merits was held on June 28, 2016. The Board heard testimony from the Applicant and from a Society child protection worker (the “Worker”). An interpreter was present at the request of the Applicant.

4For the reasons set out below the Board finds that the Society did hear the Applicant’s concerns as required by section 2(2)a of the Act, and that the Society did provide her with reasons for the decisions made in response to those concerns as required by section 68.1(4) 5 of the Act.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicant is the mother of [ ] (the “Child”) who was [ ] years old at the time the application was made. The Society had brief involvement with the Applicant, the Child and the father of the Child in 2008 and 2009 due to parental conflict. It became involved again in May 2015 in order to support the Applicant, Child and father. Although the Applicant and the father separated in 2010, in May 2015, she resided in the same home with the father and the Child. During this time the Child was expressing symptoms of anxiety and depression due to parental conflict. He also reported physical abuse and being subjected to inappropriate sexual comments by his mother.

6The Society was unsuccessful in attempting to support the Applicant and the father in addressing the needs of the Child. Due to the Society’s ongoing protection concerns, the Child was apprehended on November [ ] 2015, and placed in the Society’s care. The Society became aware on November [ ] 2015 that the Applicant had moved from the family home. The father presented a plan of care for the Child and the Child retuned to the father’s home on the same date under a temporary order. The order included several terms and conditions including prohibiting the Applicant from attending any location such as the school or extracurricular activities where the Child might be present and from residing at any address where the Child may reside. There was a further order for the Applicant’s access to the Child to be at the discretion of the Society and in consideration of the Child’s wishes.

7This application relates to the Applicant’s involvement with the Society between May 2015 and the date of the application to the Board in February 2016.

ANALYSIS

8The relevant provisions of the Act are as follows:

2(2) 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;

68.1(1) If a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may,

(a) decide not to make the complaint to the society under section 68 and make the complaint directly to the Board under this section;

68.1(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 68(1) as required under subsection 68(2).

2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.

3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with clause 2 (2) (a).

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

6. Such other matters as may be prescribed.

68.1(5) Upon receipt of a complaint under this section, the Board shall conduct a review of the matter.

68.1(7) After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation or with any other requirements under this Act;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant;

(e) dismiss the complaint; or

(f) make such other order as may be prescribed.

9In P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33 at paragraphs 13-14, the Board described the purpose of s.68.1(4) and (5) 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.

10To meet the statutory obligation reasons must be timely and detailed and the Applicant must be given sufficient information to understand what factors were considered in making a decision and why.

11The Board examined in detail the issues identified in the Pre-Hearing Report, as follows.

Issue #1: Failure to provide information regarding her son’s health following the meeting of December [date], 2015 and prior to the meeting regarding a broken hand and twice a broken leg, and

Issue #3: The behavior of the worker [ ] at the December [date], 2015 meeting. This includes issues related to the son’s health and the manner he was dressed

12The Applicant testified that she met for a planned supervised visit with the Child at the Society’s offices on December [date], 2015. She stated that she had a conversation with the Worker, who she alleged was rude, about the need for the Child to be taken to hospital for a puffer for asthma. She stated that the Worker left the room and went to another area and insulted the Applicant. She stated that she had mentioned the other concerns about a broken hand and leg to the Worker on two occasions and also shared these concerns with her lawyer. She had a conversation on December [date], 2015 with the Worker about these concerns. She testified that she never received any information from the Society about these expressed concerns.

13During cross-examination, the Applicant clarified that during the December [date], 2015 visit the Worker had stated that the Child was okay. She confirmed that if he had been having an asthma attack it could develop into pneumonia but this did not happen. She also confirmed that the Child had broken his leg in 2014, at a time when the Society had no involvement and the Child was living with the Applicant and the father. She further confirmed that the Worker had attended her home in September 2015 and interviewed the Child about his arm.

14The Applicant gave further testimony that at the December visit the Child was not dressed appropriately for the weather. She complained to the Worker that the father had not provided him with winter boots and that the Worker didn’t follow-up on this.

15The Worker testified that a planned visit did take place on the date specified and that an interpreter was present during the visit. She stated that the Child had a cold recently and a medical centre record made on December [ ], 2015 confirmed this. The Child’s father had taken him to an urgent care facility on that date because he had had a cough, sore throat and was experiencing some dizziness that may have been related to the medication he had taken for a sore throat. The record noted he had a history of asthma. The Child explained to the Worker and the Applicant at the time that he was coming off a cold. His father confirmed that this was the case. The Child requested that the visit end because of comments made by the Applicant.

16The Worker stated that she was aware that the Child had had a broken hand. She attended the home in October 2015 and observed the Child to be wearing a cast. The Applicant, father and Child were present and the Worker enquired about the cast. She was informed that the Child had hit his hand on a chair while he was running. At that time, the Applicant provided no other information. She stated that she was not aware that the Child had suffered a broken leg.

17The Worker testified that the Child was never inappropriately dressed and that on the date of the planned visit in December the weather was warm. She provided a copy of the local weather report and the temperature on December [date], 2015 was 13.2 Celsius. She recalled that the Applicant stated that the Child should have winter boots. She spoke with the Child’s father about the matter and was told that they had been shopping for boots but the Child had not yet found anything he liked. The Worker shared this information with the Applicant and also informed her that she could purchase boots for the Child. The testimony of the Worker was clearly reflected in a detailed case note of the visit made on December [date], 2015.

18The Board concludes that the explanations and evidence provided by the Society during the proceeding satisfied the obligation on the part of the Society to provide detailed and sufficient reasons.

Issue #2: Failure to invite the Applicant to the plan of care meetings

19The Applicant’s testimony on this issue consisted of a statement that the Society did not involve her in plan of care meetings. She confirmed in cross-examination that she was not aware that plan of care meetings are only held when a child is in the care of a society. The Child was in the Society’s care from November [ ] – November [ ] 2015, a total of six days. The Act requires a plan of care to be done for a child in care within 30 days of placement. The Child was placed in the care of his father on November [ ] 2015. The Applicant stated that the Worker didn’t explain anything to her although she did attend a plan of service meeting in August 2015 with the Worker.

20The Worker testified that there had been a plan of service meeting in October 2015 as part of the usual process for communicating with clients in cases such as this one. The Child was still in the care of both parents at that time and the Society’s involvement was in a support role. The Worker also attended an earlier visit in August at which the Applicant, the father, and a previous worker were present. This was a transfer visit held on August [ ] 2015 for the purpose of the Worker who was now the new worker for the case to introduce herself, explain her role which was to help mitigate conflict and work on common goals. She met with the family again on August [ ] 2015 in her capacity as the assigned worker and as part of the voluntary agreement reiterated her role and continued the discussion that began on August [ ] 2015.

21The Applicant’s involvement in planning for the Child was subject to her relationship with the Child, the father of the Child and the direction of the court. The Society in this case was not a decision maker with regard to the scope of her involvement except with respect to exercising its discretion regarding access over which it did not have complete decision making authority given that the Child had a voice in this matter as ordered by the court. Furthermore, as the Society explained, given that the Child was not in the care of the Society except for the six days mentioned, there was no requirement for it to develop a plan of care for the Child. The Board concludes that the Society provided detailed reasons for its involvement regarding this issue.

Issue #4: Failure to include the Applicant in the choice of the school, the decision to stop piano and guitar lessons

22The Applicant testified that the Worker and the Child’s father pushed him to stop taking piano and guitar lessons sometime in June 2015. She alleged that the Worker made a statement in the Child’s presence to the effect that she would not push her child to take piano in what the Applicant believed to be an attempt to push her own cultural values on the Child. She also confirmed that there had not been a change in schools for the Child during the period May – February 2015.

23The Worker testified that she had no recollection of meeting with the Applicant and Child and offering her opinion regarding piano lessons. Furthermore, during the period in question, the Child was in the care of both the Applicant and the father and decisions such as those identified by the Applicant were up to the parents to make. Once the court order was made in November, the Child’s father had the authority to make such decisions. The Society was never a decision maker with regard to these matters. In addition, the Worker was not assigned to the case until August 2015 and had no involvement with the family at the time specified by the Applicant.

24The Board concludes that the Society provided detailed and sufficient reasons for its involvement regarding this issue given the scope of its decision-making authority in this case.

Issue #5: The scheduling, frequency and duration of the access visits. Failure to take action to maintain a good relationship between the Applicant and her son

25The Applicant testified that she saw her son only twice between November 2015 and February 2016 and alleged that the Worker stopped the visits. She also informed the Worker that her son needed psychological help. She was supposed to have visits every two weeks but they were stopped. She stated that she asked the Society for visits between December and February but she only had one visit. She confirmed that the visit on December [date], 2015 ended early because the Child was sick. She refused to acknowledge that the visit ended at the Child’s request and that the Child made it clear that he did not wish to have any further visits or communication with the Applicant.

26The Worker testified that access was at the discretion of the Society and in accordance with the Child’s wishes as set out in the order made in November 2015. The first visit between the Applicant and the Child was on December [ ] 2015 and it went well. The visit on December [date], 2015 ended early and did not go well. The Child refused any other visits after this visit. The Child had been assigned a lawyer through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer who confirmed that this was the wish of the Child. The Worker raised the issue of visits with the Child repeatedly but the Child persisted in his position. The Worker also raised the issue of joint counseling with the Child in early February 2016 but the Child said that he was not interested.

27The Board concludes that the Society explained why the access visits hadn’t happened and satisfied its statutory requirements. Furthermore, the Society was not responsible for the quality of the relationship between the Applicant and the Child. The evidence submitted suggests that the Child had his own reasons for not wishing to have contact with the Applicant.

Issue #6: The decision to not assign a new family service worker

28The Applicant testified that she asked the Society for a change in workers but it did not do anything about it. She did confirm that the Society had informed her that the child had made a good connection with the Worker.

29The Worker confirmed that the Applicant had requested a new worker on December [date], 2015 after the planned visit described previously. She discussed the matter with her supervisor on the same date and a decision was made at the time not to change workers because it was not in the best interests of the Child to do so. The Applicant was informed of this at the time. A new worker was assigned in April 2016 to work with the Applicant. However, the Child’s worker remained the same.

30The Board concludes that the Society heard the Applicant on this matter and responded to her with reasons for its decision that satisfied its statutory requirement.

Issue #7: Concerns regarding her son’s psychological health

31The Applicant testified that the Child exhibited a number of concerning behaviors such as bed-wetting and self-harming and she thought that he might have Asperger’s Syndrome. She stated that she shared these concerns with the Worker in June 2015, asked her for services but she offered no information or help. The Applicant confirmed that she had sought help for her son during this period of time.

32The Worker testified that the Applicant had raised concerns such as she described during one of her family visits and that she believed the child might have autism or Asperger’s and wanted him to be assessed by a psychologist. The Applicant wanted to discuss this further after she moved from the family home but did not raise the issue again with the Worker. The Worker stated that the Child has a counselor and they are working on a number of issues such as managing emotions and trauma. The Child’s father arranged for counseling and the counselor has been in contact with the Applicant. The father has not expressed any concern regarding the need for psychological services.

33The Board concludes that the Applicant did express her concerns to the Society however she did not present any evidence to support the position that she requested services from them to deal with them other an assertion that she did so on one occasion. In addition, the Society heard that she was concerned as evidenced by the testimony of the Worker. Furthermore, the Child’s father, the custodial parent, had arranged for counseling for the Child.

Issue #8: Failure to help with identifying appropriate courses to help her parenting skills.

34The Applicant testified that she asked the Worker “15 times” for parenting courses but that she did not say anything and was always busy. She conceded that she was given information about one agency but that it was an agency that was located too far from her home. She stated that she found resources closer to home herself.

35The Worker testified that the court order made in November 2015 required that the Applicant complete a parenting course. The Applicant was provided with contact information for three partner agencies that provided such courses that were located in the Society’s catchment area. In the meantime, the Applicant had relocated to another area and the Society did not have partnerships with local agencies in her new area. The Applicant informed the Worker that she had found resources in her local area and did not raise any other concerns about this matter. The Worker’s case note dated December [date], 2015 substantiates this.

36The Society provided information to the Applicant to support her in her efforts to participate in a parenting course.

GENERAL COMMENT

37Hearings can be stressful on all parties and particularly on self-represented Applicants. However, it is important that all parties conduct themselves in a courteous and respectful manner during proceedings. This is particularly important in those cases where the parties will continue to work together to support the best interests of a child such as in this case. Rule A7.1 of the Social Justice Tribunals Ontario Common Rules, which form part of the Board’s Rules, states, the following:

All persons participating in proceedings before or communicating with the tribunal must act in good faith and in a manner that is courteous and respectful of the tribunal and other participants in the proceeding.

It was necessary to remind the Applicant of this expectation more than once during the course of the proceeding. In addition, her testimony was primarily limited to narrow statements, accusations and assertions despite efforts to obtain specific details regarding each of the issues under complaint.

CONCLUSION

38The Board finds that the Society, on the balance of probabilities, met its obligations to hear the concerns expressed by the Applicant and to give reasons for the decisions that it made in those instances where it had decision making authority and explanations for its actions in situations where it did not. The Society has met its obligations as required by the Act, and the Board dismisses the application.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

39Pursuant 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.

GAIL GONDA

_____________________

Gail Gonda

Board Member