Applicant A & Applicant B v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2016 CFSRB 41

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

Applicant A and Applicant B v. CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO

REASONS FOR DECISION

Date: September 20, 2016 File Number: CA16-0131 Citation: 2016 CFSRB 41 Related to: 2016 CFSRB 36 Indexed as: Applicant A & Applicant B v. Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CFSA s. 144)

Introduction

1This is an application made under s. 144 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C11, as amended, (the “CFSA”). The Applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “Board”) for a review of the Respondent Society’s refusal of their application to adopt [ ] born [date] (the “Child”).

2A home study dated [date], completed in advance of the Applicants’ adoption of another child through the Respondent Society, was updated by the Society on [date] in preparation for the Applicants adopting a second child. The Applicants were then matched with the Child. Plans, including a timetable of visits, had been made to transition the Child from the foster home to the Applicants’ home and the visits with the Child had begun. It was anticipated by both parties that the Child would be placed with the Applicants by [date].

3On [date], during the period leading up to the placement, one of the Applicants (Applicant A), a health care professional, reported that he had been criminally charged on [date] with a single count of sexual assault relating to an allegation of non-consensual touching, dating back six years and concerning an adult client with whom he had a therapeutic relationship. He indicated that he denied the allegation.

4Upon reviewing this information internally and meeting with the Applicants on [date] the Society made and communicated its decision that it would not place the Child with the Applicants by way of a letter dated [date] received by the Applicants on [date]. The Applicants sought a review of the [date] decision.

5A hearing into this matter was held on August 17 and 18, 2016, during which [ ] an Adoption Worker, and [ ] an Adoption Supervisor, testified on behalf of the Respondent Society. The Board then heard from [ ], a former co-worker of Applicant A. The Applicants both gave evidence in support of their case.

6On August 26, 2016, the Board released the following decision:

The Board determines that it is in the best interests of the Child, [ ] to be placed for adoption with the Applicants and that the decision of the Respondent Society refusing the Applicants’ application to adopt the Child is rescinded under subsection 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”). The Child shall be placed for adoption with the Applicants on or before October 15, 2016.

7The decision indicated that the Board would remain seized for sixty days from the date of the decision to address any issues arising with respect to implementation and that reasons for the decision would follow within thirty days of the last day of hearing.

8These are the Board’s reasons for its decision.

the law:

9The relevant sections of the CFSA are set out below:

s.136(2) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:

1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.

2. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.

3. The child’s cultural background.

4. The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.

5. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.

6. The child’s relationships by blood or through an adoption order.

7. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.

8. The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.

9. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.

10. Any other relevant circumstance.

s.144(11) The Board shall, in accordance with its determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, confirm or rescind the decision under review and shall give written reasons for its decision.

the evidence

The Adoption Worker

10The evidence of the Adoption Worker was that she has been in her role since 1986. She described her job as a complex role that included court work, attending branch conferences on behalf of children, working with adoptive parents, completing home studies, presenting prospective matches at conferences and providing post adoption support to those adoptive families.

11She first met the Applicants in July 2011 when completing a SAFE home study after their PRIDE training. During the home study process, she met with them on a number of occasions. Her opinion of them, which she expressed, both in the home study as well as during her testimony before the Board, is overwhelmingly positive.

12She described them as warm, caring, intelligent and sensitive men, who are both gainfully and steadily employed, with a beautiful home. She explained that they have close relationships with their own biological and adoptive parents.

13During the first adoption process, the Applicants had expressed that they were flexible as to the type of child they would adopt and were open to many types of children and biological parents. She told them about a particular child, presented them at the conference where they were selected, drew up a pre-placement schedule, attended a series of supervisory visits and, finally, completed paperwork to finalize the adoption. All of this happened approximately two years ago.

14Since that adoption was finalized, they have kept in touch with her and with the foster mother and continued to send her pictures of their son. They called when they were ready to adopt a second child.

15The Adoption Worker described the second process as somewhat shorter. There are fewer interviews done but updated medicals, financial, child welfare and police checks are completed as well as an updated home safety check.

16She confirmed that she was the author of the second home study entered as evidence before the Board. Her view was that the results were even better. She described the applicants as “the same fine people, now with a successful track record’. She noted that the applicants had reduced their hours of work in order to be available to their son, who she observed to be a secure well-loved child.

17The Adoption Worker described the process undertaken by the Society with respect to the placement of the Child who is focus of this proceeding. She said that all of the work is child focussed. The client is the Child and the Society’s primary concern is the Child. Two conferences are held: a planning conference where all the professionals involved meet to discuss the Child’s short and long term needs and where birth relatives also attend sometimes, if appropriate, and a matching conference.

18In this case, it was agreed by those at the first conference that the potential adoptive parents would have to be people who were comfortable with all the issues that the Child presented with, given his pre-natal exposure to alcohol and other substances, the biological mother’s mental health history and an unknown birth father. Those participating in the planning conference agreed that the Child would do well in a family with other children and that he needed a calm home.

19The Adoption Worker was not part of the shortlisting process but she indicated that the Applicants were one of three families shortlisted in this case. She presented them as an option at the matching conference.

20She indicated that after all three potential families were presented to the conference, the Supervisor and Family Service Worker of the Child then discussed the options. She testified that the service team took a long time to decide. They were happy with all three families. When the Supervisor canvassed the service team for their decision, the Applicants were the first choice for all present.

21She agreed under cross-examination that one of the reasons the Applicants were considered a good fit for this Child was because of the strides they had made with their first adopted child, who also had a similar profile of pre-natal exposure to drugs and alcohol and a history of previous mental health issues in his biological family.

22After the placement conference, the Adoption Worker met with the Applicants because she wanted to present them with the Child’s full history in order to obtain informed consent, which she then received. Following this, she arranged their first visit with the Child, which took place on [date]. The foster mother was present during the visit and they were later joined by the resource worker. The visit went well as the Child was delightful and everyone present interacted appropriately.

23The second visit was scheduled to take place on [date]. The second visit usually includes children. Only Applicant B attended this visit, something she found out the following day when she spoke to the foster mother. Later that day she received a phone message from Applicant A, which led to a series of conversations in which he indicated that on [date] he had been arrested and released after being charged in an incident involving a client whom he had treated in a [ ] setting in [year]. He had very little information at that time and was understandably upset. He denied any wrongdoing.

24After meeting with her Supervisor, who in turn met with her Supervisor and legal counsel, the Adoption Worker and her Supervisor met with the Applicants on [date]. They said because they could not provide much information, given that Applicant A had not yet received advice on how much information he could provide regarding the complainant in this matter as he had previously been his client, the Society had decided not to proceed with the placement of the Child with them.

25She acknowledged that during the meeting Applicant A offered to leave the home temporarily until the charges had resolved and only attend on supervised visits as a possible solution so the placement could go ahead as planned. She and her Supervisor did not consider this a workable solution as it would involve a disruptive change in the family constellation.

26She also agreed that one of the factors in the Applicants’ favour is that they lead very calm lives. However, she says that she was not sure how the stress that the criminal charges present would affect them. She also said she was very sad to hear them express that the single greatest stressor for the Applicants was the Society’s decision to not place the Child with them.

27When questioned about the fact that the Society appears to have no concerns about the child already in the couple’s home as a result of the criminal charge, she indicated that the situation is not the same. He is already a child of that family and once an adoption has been finalized, it is like the child is your own. She is not aware of any protection concerns raised or investigations.

28She reiterated that it is not the nature of the charge that is the primary factor. It is the uncertainty of the process and what it means for the family that is the Society’s concern: the potential impact on the family’s finances, the stress, the possibility of family supports being impacted and perhaps suffering. She did not indicate that any of those concerns had been put to the Applicants during the time between [date] and [date].

29When asked how long the pre-placement and placement would ordinarily be, the Adoption Worker testified that the former would take about three weeks with successively longer visits both at the foster home and then at the adoptive family home and that the latter process would take about a year.

30She testified that she had presented the Applicants at five or six conferences. Sometimes they knew she was doing so and other times they did not. She says she knows how nerve racking and upsetting it can be for people. Once the charges have been dealt with, if the charges are dropped or Applicant A is found not guilty, she said she would be more than happy to work with them again as they are wonderful people.

The Adoption Supervisor

31The Adoption Supervisor involved in making the decision in question gave evidence that she had spent eighteen years in that role with the Respondent Society. She testified that she deals with several teams of people, supervises the intake function, works with her staff to develop adoptive families, match them and then supervise placement and finalize adoptions. There are an average of 80 placements per year; a third of them involving children under the age of one and half involving children under the age of three.

32She was the co-signatory to the home studies done on the Applicants. She said that she was familiar with the Child’s birth mother and her challenges as she had been involved with the placement and adoption of an older sibling. She agrees that the Child needs a calm home, that he may have medical challenges in the future and that he does well interacting with other children, so would benefit from a home with another child. She acknowledged the strength of the Applicants as a potential placement given their history of having adopted their son, the similarity of the issues facing their son and having done so well with him.

33Her perspective was that all the families being considered met the criteria to be considered and that, despite the decision to go ahead with the Applicants, such decisions are not necessary final, as things can change. For example, the Applicants could have decided not to proceed.

34When the Society discovered Applicant A had been [ ] charged, it tried to get more clarity. As there was not sufficient clarity as to when the matter would be resolved, it decided not to proceed. Having received more information since that time, she has reassessed the situation. Her decision remains the same.

35Although she acknowledged that the policy for addressing such situations implies discretion, her concerns were the time it would take to resolve, the stress on the family and whether their support systems would remain intact. She acknowledged that she did not ask the Applicants about the latter two concerns before making her decision.

36The Adoption Supervisor provided the Board with the policy used by the Society for assessing police reference checks. Although the policy clearly indicates that there are nine factors to be considered and the policy directs that the person dealing with the check prepare and submit a memo to the Manager of Client Services outlining details of the record and a recommendation about how to proceed, she did not prepare or submit such a memo. Her evidence was that she understood the policy to mean that she had to know the answers to all the questions asked with respect to the nine factors in order to prepare such a memo. As there was so much uncertainty as to how and when the criminal matter would resolve, she could not write a memo.

Applicant A

37Applicant A is [ ] years old. Among other qualifications, he holds a [ ] in [ ] and is a [ ] registered in the province of Ontario. He works at a medical institution as well as operating a private practice. He was initially employed as a [ ] and then as a staff [ ].

38He works in a unit that deals with patients injured [ ] and who have experienced [ ] trauma. He conducts assessments and provides treatment for patients, most of whom are addressing issues of [ ], referred to the unit by their insurer. He is also involved in supervision and training of students. He is presently on paid leave from his employment pending resolution of the criminal charges. He indicates his employer has been very supportive and helpful. He has continued with his private practice.

39He is close to his mother who is retired and speaks to her and sees her on a weekly basis. His father has passed away. He is also close to his siblings. He spoke very positively about his family life with Applicant B and their son, describing the former as “his rock” and a very “stable and grounding force”. He described their son as a very happy child who constantly has a smile on his face, is “empathetic, inquisitive, curious and generous”. He believes the members of their family complement each other very well. He spoke about the steps he and his partner have taken to ensure their son’s emotional development as it was important to them to that he has language to express what he is going through. He testified that they have taken care to provide him with physical and emotional structure. He hopes that they have been flexible and they have done research and spoken to their adoption worker to make sure their son thrives.

40He has never had a criminal record, child protection involvement or physical health issues. When he was coming out as a [ ] man in his mid-twenties, he briefly accessed some mental health services.

41He was criminally charged on [date] with one count of [ ]. The charge relates to an allegation that between [date] and [date], one of the unit’s clients claimed that during a [ ] session, Applicant A [ ]. He denies the allegation and has pled not guilty.

42He testified that he had spent some months treating this client as part of a team. He recalled that towards the end of the treatment relationship, he met with the client, along with an [ ], about [ ] information gathered by the patient’s insurer that led to the end of treatment and the client returning to work shortly thereafter.

43He acknowledged that this is an emotional time but the family is coping well. He knows adaptive coping strategies and describes his partner and himself as resilient. He testified that they have had adversity in their lives before and it has made them stronger. He says he has faith in the justice system and trusts that this will resolve in his favour. He has the full support of his employer, particularly his manager, the director and the legal team. He has no financial concerns as he is on paid leave and continues work in his private practice. He also has the support of his partner and their families and friends and says that “once this is done he will be fine”.

Applicant B

44Applicant B is almost [ ] years old. For the past [ ] years, he has been the [ ] of a community social service agency and spent the previous [ ] doing similar work. He is also a [ ] working in the area of organizational development, strategic planning, governance training [ ] and partnership training [ ]. He has a flexible work environment and has requested and been approved to work a reduced amount of time for better work life balance and to accommodate his [ ] work.

45He is one of three siblings, all of whom were adopted since birth. He is very close to his mother and siblings who are all very supportive. His father has passed away. He has met his birth parents and his half siblings and has developed friendships with some of them.

46He has no history of criminal behaviour and is in good physical and mental health. He dealt with depression some time ago as a side effect of medication for a chronic health condition. He switched medications and the issues resolved. He described his health as very good.

47He and Applicant A have been together for [ ] years. They have a very good relationship. He feels they complement each other. They are both outdoorsy and have a lot in common. They put a lot of effort into ensuring that they have good communication. They live in a great neighbourhood with parks, green space, young families, aquatic facilities and libraries. They live in a multi-level Victorian row house and have a playroom.

48Their son has just turned [ ]. He has been with them since he was [ ] months old in [date]. He describes their son as having “an amazing disposition, empathetic, social, generous and funny”. He enjoys hiking, canoeing and biking with them.

49Their son did have pre-natal exposure to drugs and perhaps alcohol. They were told that he may have issues with global delays in speech and language and that he had a history of family trauma. They knew of all of these issues and had discussed them with broader family. At the time he was placed, their son’s language was delayed. They worked with speech and language services and now he is fine. They also worked with a clinic specializing in [ ] as well as doing research on additional treatments and therapies on their own.

50Applicant B described their personal parenting style. Communication is very important to them. He tries to model good communication and create a nurturing environment. They like to encourage him to be inquisitive. They believe that consistency and caring behaviour is important; they use positive and negative consequences and don’t have delineated roles.

51They have a life book from their son’s foster mother. They encourage him to visit her and he calls her “grandma [ ]”. He has heard about adoption, knows he has two dads, has asked if his father has a womb and is generally quite inquisitive.

52In [date] they began the process of trying to adopt again. They had always wanted to have at least two kids because they both grew up with siblings. Both he and his partner know the value for kids in having sibling relationships, so they asked to be connected with their old adoption worker. Their extended family supports their application.

53They were sent a profile of the Child in mid-May and asked to confirm their interest. They did so and after the matching conference, they heard from the adoption worker who told them they had been matched and gave them a picture. They told their family. They felt they had found another son to join their family and everyone was very happy.

54They began exchanging planning emails with the Adoption Worker and set a date to meet with the Child at the foster mother’s house. They met and spent time with him, holding him and playing with him. The Adoption Worker said that she felt the Child and their son were a good match in terms of disposition. During that meeting they discussed next steps and timelines. The plan agreed to was that the Child would be placed with the Applicants before the end of June.

55Applicant B had already decided that he would take a full parental leave for 9 months and had told people at work and started transition planning. Specifically he had told the board of [ ] to whom he reports that he intended to take this leave the previous fall conditional on their application to adopt being successful.

56Although the police had contacted Applicant A’s workplace a few months earlier, they had never expected that he would be charged and it was a shock when he was charged on [date].

57They were concerned about taking their son to the meeting on [date] because they did not want the introduction to happen if there was a possibility that they may all be disappointed. It was the reason that Applicant B went to that visit on his own.

58When they met with the Society on [date] they were asked if they had an update. They did not and asked if any other options were available other than not proceeding with the placement such as Applicant A leaving the physical home while the charge remained unresolved.

59He understood the Adoption Supervisor to have said that “[ ] is always a risk to the child”. He also confirmed that there was no discussion of any impact on their support systems or the possible financial implications to the household. They would have reassured the Society about those issues had they been asked.

60They have shared information about the match with the Child as well as the charge with family and friends. Some friends know more details and others know less. He recalls that during the [date] meeting, they were still trying to figure out what information they could disclose about the situation, given that the complainant was Applicant A’s former client. They realized that information from the criminal lawyer about how long the process would take would be useful. He understood that they were told that they could not be considered as long as there is an outstanding charge against his partner.

61The criminal charge has not had a big impact on their family. They are frustrated that it has happened and that it will take some time to deal with it but they are confident that Applicant A will be exonerated. Applicant B hopes he is supporting his partner well through this process and feels they are in this whole thing together. He believes they could deal with things even if worst case scenarios came to pass. They each have the financial and physical capacity to operate on their own if necessary and extended family who would support them.

62He gave evidence that the Society’s decision not to proceed with the placement has been far more devastating for them.

63He testified if the Respondent Society wished to have arrangements in place for extra monitoring or instituting an extended supervisory or probationary period, they would be pleased to do whatever they are asked to do to satisfy the Society that they are able to parent the Child well.

64Applicant B gave evidence that their primary contact throughout has been the Adoption Worker, whom both Applicants think is wonderful. He described her as professional and supportive and said that they feel badly that she has to go through this with them. He says they both have full confidence in her integrity and that of the Society.

65His evidence was that they had given this a lot of thought to make sure the Child was top of mind. They believe it is in the Child’s best interest to be placed with them because the Society identified them as the best match, their experience in raising and advocating for care and services for their son whose early life experiences were similar to the Child’s, the disposition of both kids being a good match for each other, their openness to open adoptions, his own adoption experience and the fact that they both have skill and experience to respond to mental health challenges.

[ ] Former Co-Worker of Applicant A

66[ ] is an [ ] who is a former co-worker of Applicant A. She worked with him for a number of years at the [ ] trauma unit, where they shared clients or patients in what she described as a very collaborative and cooperative work environment. She described their physical work environment in some detail as a place with poor soundproofing and open sight lines.

67She testified that she had never been aware of any complaints about Applicant A made by clients or staff. She enjoyed working with him and described him as “sensitive, collaborative and something of a mentor”.

68She recalls the complainant involved in the criminal matter as he was a mutual client. She described him as man in his mid-[ ] who had experienced a workplace injury and was being treated by both Applicant A and her for [ ], [ ] and [ ]. She described the treatments attempted, the challenges and the occasion on which she and Applicant A had to watch the [ ] with their patient, following which the patient returned to work at modified duties and stopped attending sessions at the unit. She recalled that during their treatment history with this client, he never made a complaint about anyone on the team and never asked for a change in [ ].

analysis

Section 144

69In FCY Services of Muskoka v. D.D., 2010 O.J. No.5085, the Divisional Court described the approach to considering a s. 144 application as follows (at paras 20-22 emphasis in the original):

In this case, the pertinent provision is s.144(11) of the CFSA, which states: "The Board shall, in accordance with its determination of which action is in the best interests of the child, confirm or rescind the decision under review and shall give written reasons for its decision".

The language of this section expressly requires the Board to make a determination as to what action is in the best interests of the child. If the decision under review is a refusal of an adoption application, the action relates to the entire adoption application process, which involves a number of distinct steps. Although action must be interpreted in the context of the decision under review (adoption application or removal from placement), it gives the Board broad authority to determine what should be done in the child's best interests within the confines of the decision/action under review.

The Board does not have parens patriae jurisdiction to determine best interests in relation to any action. Rather, its determination is confined to the parameters of s.144. Put simply, the Board must determine whether the adoption application or placement is in the child's best interests having regard to the criteria set out in s. 136(2). If the adoption application or placement is in the child's best interests, the Board will rescind the Society's refusal decision. If it is not, the children's aid society's decision will be confirmed.

70The Board is required to make a substantive decision, in the best interests of the Child and, in doing so, is mandated to take into account any of the specifically enumerated best interest factors that are relevant.

Child’s Best Interests

71In this case, the best interest factors the Respondent Society focussed on in making its decision to reverse its original decision to place the Child with the Applicants were paragraphs 7 and 9 of s.136(2):

• The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity; and

• The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.

72In respect of those two factors, the Society argued that should the Child be placed for adoption, there is a possibility that he would have to be moved as there are too many risks and unknowns connected to Applicant A’s pending criminal charge. Also, the Society argues that the delay in disposition of the criminal case, anticipated to take at least a number of months to resolve, would have a negative impact on the Child.

Paragraph 7 – The importance of continuity in the Child’s care and the possible effect on the Child of disruption of that continuity

73The Board accepts the importance of continuity of care and that avoiding disruption of continuity of care is important in the life of this Child. However, it is not readily apparent to the Board that continuity of care is threatened by placing the Child in the Applicants’ home.

74Implicit in the Society’s argument is that if it places the Child with the Applicants the risk of having to disrupt the arrangement is unacceptably high. The Board is not persuaded that this is the case. Having regard to the factors contained in the Society’s own policy document relevant to assessing police record checks, the Board is of the view that the risk of disruption if placement proceeds is low.

75The Board has reviewed the following nine factors listed in the Respondent Society’s policy in arriving at its conclusion:

1. The nature and severity of any charge/offence/incident(s), particularly if it relates to children or involves aggressive behaviour

2. The individual’s acceptance of responsibility and appropriate level of remorse

3. The credibility of the explanation or denial

4. Any related behaviour subsequent to the incident/offence (for example if the offence was alcohol related, what are the individual’s current drinking habits)

5. Any relevant therapy or rehabilitation successfully completed

6. The length of time since the charge/offence/incident(s)

7. The age of the individual at the time of the charge/offence/incident(s)

8. Their level of stability since the charge/offence/incident(s) including employment history, relationships, support systems, coping skills

9. Any case related factors that should be considered

76The Board notes that while the charge is recent, the alleged offence giving rise to it relates to a therapeutic relationship that took place and ended over [ ] years ago and did not involve children or aggressive behaviour. Moreover, it predates the vetting by the Society of the couple prior to their successful adoption of their older son and his seamless integration into their family.

77The Board further notes that the criminal charge concerning an adult, former client of one of the Applicants relating to a [ ] year old historical allegation has not resulted in any concern for the child already in the home. The Society confirmed during the course of the hearing that it had no protection concerns about the Applicants’ son.

78Even assuming without finding that there is a serious possibility that Applicant A will experience the worst possible outcome, the Applicants appear to have a longstanding stable relationship with each other, supportive friends and a large extended family that is helpful and engaged. Removal of the Child under those circumstances is not a foregone conclusion.

Paragraph 9 – The effects on the Child of delay

79This concern of the Society is not shared by the Board. The Child is presently just under [ ] old. The adoption proceeding, even if delayed until the criminal matter is resolved, is unlikely to be unduly delayed. The Child would be under the age of [ ] which, according to the Adoption Supervisor’s evidence describes the age of half of the children being adopted in any given year.

Other Significant Factors

80In addition to the factors relied on by the Society the Board considered paragraphs 1 and 5 of s.136(2) as particularly significant to deciding this application.

Paragraph 1 - The Child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.

81The Board has considered the Child’s pre-natal history and his possible physical, mental and emotional needs. The Society has given evidence that there are risks relating to the pre-natal exposures, the history of mental health issues of the biological mother and the unknown history of the biological father.

82Given the Applicants’ training, knowledge and experience advocating for and successfully resolving issues with their son who came to them with similar concerns, it is the Board’s view that the Applicants are particularly well placed to care for and advocate for treatment and therapies for the Child. They are, as the Adoption Worker put it, “the same fine people, now with a successful track record”.

Paragraph 5 - The importance for the Child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.

83The Board finds that the presence of an older sibling in the home and Applicant B’s own history as an adoptive child are also likely to be of value to the Child and are factors that weigh in favour of the Applicants as adoptive parents.

Conclusion

84The Board was struck by the genuine and thoughtful concern expressed by all those involved in these proceedings for the welfare of the Child at the centre of this matter.

85The ability of the parties to maintain a positive working relationship despite the intervening difficulties, the stated willingness and openness of the Applicants and the Adoption Worker to continue to work with each other and their mutual acknowledgement of the positive qualities in each other and in their relationship bode well for the Child’s future wellbeing.

86The Board is persuaded by the overwhelmingly positive information contained in both SAFE Home Studies completed by the Respondent Society’s Adoption Worker and endorsed by her Supervisor. In addition, the successful adoption experience of their son by the Applicants and the strides the family has made in addressing his developmental and health issues are factors relevant to the applicants’ ability to meet the physical, emotional and mental needs of the Child that the Board has considered in arriving at its decision.

87The Board finds, therefore, upon consideration of all relevant best interest factors that the decision of the Respondent Society should be rescinded.

order

88On August 26, 2016, the Board made the following Order:

The Board determines that it is in the best interests of the Child, [ ], to be placed for adoption with the Applicants and that the decision of the Respondent Society refusing the Applicants’ application to adopt the Child is rescinded under subsection 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act. The Child shall be placed for adoption with the Applicants on or before October 15, 2016.

The Board will remain seized for 60 days from the date of this order to address any issues that may arise as to implementation.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

89Pursuant 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 media or on-line. The Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board's proceedings.

90The Board will permit the use of its decision and these reasons in any adoption proceedings involving the Child.

RICHARD LINLEY

Richard Linley

Presiding Member

GAIL GONDA

_________________ Gail Gonda

Board Member

JAY SENGUPTA

_________________ Jay Sengupta

Board Member