K.S. v. Huron - Perth Children’s Aid Society, 2016 CFSRB 31

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

K.S.

v.

Huron – Perth Children’s aiD SOCIETY

REASONS FOR DECISION ON WRITTEN REVIEW

Date: July 27, 2016

Citation: 2016 CFSRB 31

Indexed as: K.S. v. Huron - Perth Children’s Aid Society (CFSA s.68)

1The Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) received an application from the Applicant on March 3, 2016 regarding a complaint against Huron Perth Children’s Aid Society (the “Society”) pursuant to section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11 , as amended (the “Act”).

2On March 7, 2016, the application was found eligible under section 68.1(4)4 which relates to the Applicant’s right to be heard by the Society and section 68.1(4)5 which relates to the Applicant’s right to be given reasons for decisions that affect their interests.

3The Board received the Society’s response on April 5, 2016 and a pre-hearing teleconference was scheduled on April 28, 2016. The parties agreed to participate in settlement discussions on that date. The matter did not resolve and the Board determined that the application would proceed to a written review. The parties were informed of the Board’s decision in writing on May 31, 2016 and were invited to make any additional submissions to be considered in the review by June 29, 2016.

4The Application relates to the Applicant’s allegations that the Society did not hear her or provide her with reasons regarding her complaint that a Society worker breached her trust and invaded her privacy.

5The Board has determined that it does not have jurisdiction to proceed to a hearing on the merits and therefore dismisses the Application.

BACKGROUND

6The Applicant is the mother of four children. The Court made a finding on January [ ] 2016 that the Applicant’s children were in need of protection. They were placed in the Applicant’s care subject to the supervision of the Society on several terms. The order stipulated that the Applicant allow a worker from the Society access to her home and to the children on a scheduled and unscheduled basis. The order also stipulated that [ ] could be present in the home on weekends and that his contact with the children be supervised at all times and that there be no alcohol present in the home while [ ] was visiting. It further stipulated that [ ] should not consume or possess alcohol 24 hours before or during visits in the home.

7The Applicant’s complaint relates to an observation made by a worker in an affidavit sworn on December [ ] 2015 regarding the Applicant’s relationship with [ ] . The worker concluded that the Applicant and [ ] were still involved in a relationship based on her observations during a home visit. In the Applicant’s view, the information included in the affidavit constituted an invasion of her privacy.

ANALYSIS

8The 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.

9In P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 38 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.

10The “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, 2012 CFSRB 25 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.

11The Applicant’s submissions consisted of a completed application form and a number of brief statements to the effect that the Society had breached her privacy by referencing phone calls with [ ] in the court documents. In her view, these calls were private and did not concern the Society. She did not make a complaint to the Society about the matter but chose to make her complaint directly to the Board in accordance with section 68.1(1)(a) of the Act. Her complaint was deemed eligible to proceed under sections 68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Act.

12The Society’s response included statements made in the affidavit based on detailed notes made by the worker in which the worker speculated about the status of the relationship between the Applicant and [ ] and noted her own reasons for concluding that they remained involved in a relationship. Her reasons were based on comments about [ ] made by the Applicant during a home visit, the worker’s observations of the contact via phone between the Applicant and [ ] and her awareness of the Applicant texting [ ].

13The Society provided additional submissions that included a copy of the Court order. The Society had an interest in the involvement of [ ] in the lives of the children. The terms of the court order stipulated that the mother’s custody of the children was to be subject to the supervision of the Society giving the Society the right to access to the home to ensure that the Applicant was in compliance with the order. The terms also set out the limits of the contact between [ ] and the children. The Society had a clear interest in the protection of the children given the Court order. The matters under complaint relate specifically to factors that are relevant to the protection of the children. The role of the worker was to supervise the case through her observations and interactions with the Applicant and the children. The information included in the affidavit was gathered in the course of the worker’s supervision of the case and was relevant to the protection of the children.

14The Society also noted in its written submission that the Applicant raised the issue with the worker after she had submitted her complaint to the Board. This was not challenged by the Applicant nor was any information submitted by her within the timeframe provided for additional submissions to invalidate the Society’s claim.

15The Board recognizes that the Applicant may be unhappy with the level of the Society’s involvement in her personal life; however, its involvement is consistent with its mandate and the Court’s order and expectations to protect the children.

CONCLUSION

16The Board proceeded to a written review and invited additional submissions from the parties. Based on all of the submissions from both parties, the Board concludes that it does not have the jurisdiction to proceed to a hearing on the merits because the Applicant did not raise her concerns with the Society until after she had submitted her Application to the Board and therefore the Society was not given the opportunity to fulfill its obligations to hear the concern and to give the Applicant its reasons for its actions. The written review process confirmed that the Applicant’s complaint was not eligible to be heard and it also shed light on the reasons for the Society’s actions. The Board dismisses the Application.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

17Pursuant 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.