SL v. Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex, 2018 CFSRB 4

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SL

Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens

Date: February 26, 2018

Citation: 2018 CFSRB 4 (s.68 CFSA)

Indexed as: SL v Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex

APPEARANCES

SL, Applicant

Self-represented

The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex, Respondent

Jill Scrutton-Fulford, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under s.68.1(4)4 and 5 of the Child and Family Services Act, RSO 1990, c.C11, as amended (the “Act”) against the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (“the Society”) on March 28, 2017.

2The Applicant alleges that the Society failed to hear her concerns when decisions were made that affect her interests, and that the Society failed to give her reasons for its decisions that affect her interests.

3The 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 August 14, 2017:

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. Problems with the children’s feet.

2. An injury with one of the children’s feet while in care that was not explained.

3. Problems with one of the children’s eyes.

4. The wellbeing of one of the children (nails, complexion) observed during an access visit.

5. The lack of support provided by the Society to maintain a relationship between the children, their siblings and the parents.

6. The Society’s failure to ensure the children’s ongoing participation in religious activities.

7. The wellbeing of one of the children in foster care (stress, ventilation, shared bedroom, hygiene, sleep)

8. Outstanding assessments regarding the children’s potential diagnosis of autism.

9. Medical alerts needed for the children.

4For the reasons set out below, the Board finds that the Society did provide the Applicant with timely and detailed reasons for decisions that affected her interests on the issues listed above, as required by section 68.1(4)5 of the Act, and actively heard the Applicant’s thoughts and concerns through an open process of dialogue with her.

BACKGROUND

5The Applicant is the mother of two children, C and G.

6G was born in 2001. C was born in 2000. They were both admitted into the care of the Society in 2009, and were made Crown wards on July 11, 2011.

7The Crown wardship order for each of the two children was accompanied by an order that the Applicant “[…] shall have reasonable access to the child […] supervised by the Children’s Aid Society […]”. This access order was subsequently varied on February 18, 2016 by the addition of the following to the original access order:

The […] Society […] shall have the discretion to suspend the mother’s access in situations where the mother presents as mentally unstable or decompensating, such that she could pose a threat to the safety of the child and/or supervising Society staff until such time that she is able to produce valid documentation from her treating physician/psychiatrist that clearly confirms her compliance with medication and treatment recommendations, and she is able to exhibit a level of stability such that she no longer

poses a risk.

8This varied order remains in place.

9Both children have developmental difficulties, C more so than G. They were both home schooled by the Applicant. C is much more active, somewhat hyper-active, with a short attention span.

10G is placed in a foster home, and is doing well there. The Applicant described it as a good placement. C is placed in an adult group home setting, which is able to provide appropriate programming for him in view of developmental delays. He is doing well in this group setting.

THE LAW

11The relevant provisions of the Act are set out below:

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:

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,

(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.

12In 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.

ANALYSIS

13The Applicant was very clear on what she expected from the hearing. On three separate occasions, she told the Board that she was not seeking reasons from the Society. She was satisfied that the Society had generally been clear on what it was doing for her children, and on the reasons for its actions. Instead, she hoped to use the hearing to talk about her views on the needs of the two children, and hoped that the Society will listen and do something constructive in line with her suggestions, or at least take them under advisement. In these circumstances, these Reasons are documenting the parties’ exchanges during the hearing, and recognize that this will assist their continuing relationship for the future.

14The Society welcomed this approach, and actively listened to the various suggestions made by the Applicant. It committed to hearing her various issues, but indicated it may not be in a position to implement them all. The Society also committed to an ongoing dialogue with the Applicant.

15In looking at the 9 original complaints, the Applicant made suggestions as follows.

Issues 1 and 2: Foot problems

16In view of their similarities, these issues were dealt with together. Both parties agreed that the children have significant problems with their feet, and that these have been long-standing issues. The Applicant urged the Society to follow-up more aggressively with regard to the specialists that have been consulted on this medical issue. She also suggested that a neurological or a series of X-rays might be useful to refine the diagnoses further, and help determine whether the problems are with the feet, or whether possibly there are seizures that aggravate the current symptoms and problems with the children’s feet.

Issue 3: Eye Problems

17C has a problem with a detached retina in his right eye. The Applicant states that this is the result of his excessive rubbing of his eyes when he wakes up in the morning. She urged the Society to ensure that his group home staff be aware of his eye situation. She reminded the Society that C is not verbal, and that he needs a physician who is capable of factoring in his special needs.

18The Society presented information on its activities regarding both children’s eyes. They both have received regular eye examinations, G on a biennial basis, and C more frequently because of the issues with his eye.

19The Applicant was satisfied with the information that the Society provided and with its commitment to keeping her apprised of ongoing medical issues.

Issue 4: Concerns about G's wellbeing observed during access visits

20The Applicant expressed concerns about G observed during access visits in March 2017. She described what she saw as dark circles under his eye, that his skin was pasty and an unhealthy colour, and is convinced that this is caused by a number of factors. She stated these looks are the secondary effect of an underlying deficiency in nutrition and minerals, and that it is caused by something that is affecting his absorption ability. She also described his posture as not good. She wants the Society to enroll him in some sport activity, specifically swimming, because she also engaged in this activity when she was younger.

21The Applicant also stated that G is exhibiting nervous behaviour and nervous tics, and that he needs to be seen by a dietician and a nutritionist, and that his health issues need a “holistic approach”.

22The Applicant described that, when G comes home on an access visit, she does 15 minutes of calisthenics with him, and would like to see that expanded for him.

23The Society pointed out to the Applicant, by way of information-sharing, that G was regularly seen by the appropriate medical personnel to monitor and intervene when needed in his various areas that have been diagnosed. He is on medication for these conditions. There has been no medical suggestion that G suffers from any form of malnutrition.

24The Society further related that G saw a dietician in January 2016. G resisted the recommendation that he be involved in increased physical activity. In October 2016, he was seen by his pediatrician, and was noted to be healthy. This medical opinion was conveyed by the Society to the Applicant.

Issue 5: Relationship between the children, their siblings and the parents

25The Applicant’s comments were focussed on the value of the children having more contact with her, and other natural family members. Recently, the Society has removed some of the restrictions that had been placed on the visits. The Applicant recognises that this change has been in line with her behaviours and attitudes becoming more positive and stable. Currently, she has telephone contact with G twice a week. There is also a beginning of more contact with the children’s natural father, with the Society’s approval. The Applicant suggested that she does not want to do anything that would disrupt the current process of improving family contacts, which she describes as “going quite well” at this time.

Issue 6: Children’s ongoing participation in religious activities

26The Applicant emphasized that the children were born Roman Catholic, and that she wanted them raised in this religion. G's foster home is not Catholic. She wants all facets of the Catholic religion to be practiced by the children: daily rosary, daily attendance at mass, and belonging to the church choir. She wants to have the children reach all sacramental levels of the church at the appropriate age, namely first communion when in grade 2, first confession when in grade 3, and confirmation when in grade 4. Both children were baptized by the Applicant when they were living with her; the other sacramental levels have not been reached.

27The Applicant acknowledged that C's hyper-activity would make it difficult for him to sit through an entire mass.

28The Applicant is concerned that they are not participating in their religion, which she described as their rightful inheritance. She wondered if they could be enrolled in a R.C.I.A. program, namely one geared to instructing persons who want to become Catholic. With regards to C, living in the group setting, the Applicant wants the Society to talk to a priest, to develop a plan for him to become more knowledgeable about Catholicism.

29The Society asked the Applicant about the level of understanding required in order to qualify to receive the various sacramental levels she had identified. It also asked for some elaboration on the confirmation sacrament, specifically whether this requires a formal attestation from the person receiving the sacrament.

30Both parties agreed to continue the dialogue on this issue on an ongoing basis.

Issue 7: G's wellbeing in foster care

31The Applicant described G's foster home as a busy and dynamic household, with a foster mother who is outstanding in her love and support and understanding of G. She described him as interested in astro-physics and in space, and as exceptional in math. She complained that the school system has held him back in this area.

32She described an incident in the foster home where he had accessed some pornography site, when the “filter” that was to make those programs inaccessible had malfunctioned. As a consequence, the foster parents removed his access to the internet for a given period of time. The Applicant stated that this issue was well handled by the foster parents, and she agreed with their decision in this issue.

33There was no elaboration by the Applicant on any of the other aspects mentioned in this issue.

Issue 8: Autism assessments

34The Applicant believes that the two children are somewhere on the autism spectrum, and that the system has failed to recognize this. She described how both children had been at Child and Parent Resource Institute (“CPRI”), a children’s centre that provides services to children with complex mental health and/or developmental disabilities. They were admitted on November 5, 2009. G remained in residence until May 2010, and C left in June of 2010.

35The Applicant was critical of CPRI in that they did not consider that the children were on the autism spectrum. She believes that is was an oversight by CPRI.

36She was also very critical of one of the psychological assessment tools used at CPRI, namely the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (the “WISC”). She stated that the WISC takes a “very negative approach” to looking at children and their problems.

37As this issue seemed focussed mostly on the activities of CPRI, as opposed to the services delivered by the Society, this issue was not pursued further in the hearing.

Issue 9: Medical alert bracelets

38The Applicant conveyed to the Society that the children should wear “Medic Alert” bracelets or other such identifying tools that may be available. She believes that the children are at risk, should complications arise from the various medical or social conditions with which they have been diagnosed.

39The Society heard the Applicant’s request and her reason for it, and indicated that it will follow up and get bracelets for both children.

CONCLUSION

40The Applicant spoke to each of the 9 issues listed above, and gave her thoughts on what should happen, over and above what the Society has done in the past.

41The Board accepts the Applicant’s statements that the Society has given her reasons and explanations for the plans they have made for the children, since they were admitted into care and made Crown wards. The Board also finds that the Society was very open to the Applicant’s suggestions, and at times criticisms. The Society was actively listening to her, and committed to implementing many of the Applicant’s suggestions.

42The Board finds that the Society has met its obligations under section 68.1(4)4 and 5, in that it has given the Applicant reasons for its decisions, and that it is hearing the Applicant when she is making suggestions. The Board therefore dismisses the complaints in the application.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

43Pursuant 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.