MD v. Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region, 2018 CFSRB 11

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MD

Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens

Date: May 30, 2018

Citation: 2018 CFSRB 11

Indexed as: MD v Family and Children’s Services of Waterloo Region (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

MD, Applicant

Britte Gratl, Counsel

Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region, Respondent

Cheryl Buehler and Sarah Subhan, Counsel

REASONS FOR DECISION ON COMPLIANCE

THE ISSUE

1MD (the “Applicant”) and Family and Children’s Services of the Waterloo Region (the “Society”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a settlement facilitation meeting held on December 20, 2017, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised by the Applicant in her application dated October 31, 2017 to the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFRSB).

2The Application focussed on the Child “N”, born in September 2012. The Child currently lives with her father and his partner. The Applicant has regular access visits.

3The signed Agreement contained five Terms, which are expressed as questions to the Society and which sought reasons and/or explanations from the Society.

4On January 19, 2018 the Society sent the Applicant its response to the issues raised in the Agreement. In a lengthy email dated January 24, 2018, the Applicant alleged non-compliance by the Society.

5In accordance with the CFSRB’s procedures when there is an allegation of non-compliance, the CFSRB held a hearing by teleconference (the “teleconference”) on April 11, 2018 to determine whether the Society had complied with the Terms of the Agreement.

6The CFSRB has reviewed all of the materials filed and has considered the parties' submissions at the teleconference. The CFSRB has determined that the Society has complied with the Terms of the Agreement. The reasons for this decision follow.

ANALYSIS

7The CFSRB reminded the parties that the subject for discussion at the teleconference was limited to the Terms of the Agreement. No new material would be considered. As well, the CFSRB reminded the parties of the Society's obligation to provide reasons for its decisions, as mandated by the Child and Family Services Act (the “Act”).

8At the teleconference, the Applicant indicated that she was no longer contesting the Society’s answer to Terms 3 and 4. The Decision will therefore address only the parties' submissions with respect to Terms 1, 2 and 5.

Term 1: The request for a new worker: why does the Society not assign a new worker who is fully in charge of this family and has no history with the Applicant or the Applicant’s biological family?

9Both the Applicant and the Society wrote extensively about the Applicant's history with the Society and specifically about the workers who had been involved with the family. The Society’s response was ultimately that, for the benefit of the Child, who has been diagnosed with autism, the worker who had been involved with the Child since July 2015 was going to remain involved with the family. The Child’s need for continuity and her comfort with her worker were the deciding factors in refusing to change workers for the Child. The Society noted that the worker assigned to the Applicant has been changed. There is now one worker for the Applicant and one long-term worker for the Child.

10The CFSRB finds the Society is in compliance with Term 1.

Term 2: Despite the incidents of August and December 5, 2017, there was one successful overnight visit; why did the Society revert back to access visits at the visiting centre?

11The response indicated in detail the events that led to the Society reverting back to supervised visits. The one unsupervised visit was permitted because the Society believed, despite the incidents in August and on December 5, that the situation in the Applicant’s home was improving. However, two further incidents occurred which caused it to revert back to supervised visits. Specifically, the Society wrote:

On December 14, 2007, [Applicant] and [partner] attended a meeting with the Society where the police report of December 5, 2017 was discussed. During this meeting the couple denied that police had ever been at their home and denied any conflict. This denial concerned the Society and therefore a follow up call was placed to police.

On December 15, 2017, the Society was informed about another domestic dispute that occurred on August 16, 2017 where [partner] reported to police that [Applicant] punched him in the face. With this additional information, and the concern that the couple was being dishonest with the Society about the December 5, 2017 incident, the Society did not feel comfortable allowing unsupervised access to occur. The Society’s concern was amplified by the fact that [Child] is diagnosed with autism, is nonverbal, and therefore would not be able to express any concerns she had about access to the Society.

12In addition, on January 10, 2018, the Society received a police report of another major altercation which included a domestic dispute, excessive drinking, physical aggression, the Applicant being prevented by her partner from escaping from the house, the partner driving while intoxicated to track down the Applicant, and his trying to break into the home where she sought refuge. The incident culminated in a serious encounter between the partner and the police, where the partner rammed his car into a police car and then assaulted a police officer. The partner was tasered, arrested, and jailed with 18 charges against him.

13The Applicant was told that this incident was another reason why unsupervised access visits were not going to be permitted.

14The CFSRB finds that the Society gave the Applicant reasons for its decision not to permit unsupervised access visits at this time and is in compliance with Term 2.

Term 5: The Applicant and her partner have accessed a number of resources in the community; what more does the Society expect from them in this area?

15The Society asked the Applicant to detail for it the community resources that she and her partner have accessed. Once the Society has this information, it will be able to refine the list of further resources or educational programs of most benefit to the Applicant and her partner. The Society also referred to the three most recent incidents and indicated that it would be advisable for the Applicant to enroll in a number of specific programs in the community that the Society listed in its response. As well, the Society offered to continue meeting with the Applicant and her partner.

16In her January 24, 2018 communication to the CFSRB, the Applicant outlined specific information about the resources she had accessed. The next step, in the dialogue between the Society and the Applicant will be for the Society to refine its view of what else might be beneficial in the way of community resources, recognizing both the specific resources the Applicant has accessed, and what else may be needed, in view of the incident of January 10, 2018.

17The CFSRB finds the Society is in compliance with Term 5.

DECISION

18For the reasons set out above, the CFSRB finds that the Society has complied with the Terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Applicant’s complaint of non-compliance is dismissed and the CFSRB's file is now closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

19Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any CFSRB 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 CFSRB prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the CFSRB’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the CFSRB, as appropriate.