JS v. Brant Family and Children's Services, 2018 CFSRB 42

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JS Applicant

-and-

Brant Family and Children's Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens Date: September 27, 2018 Citation: 2018 CFSRB 42 Indexed as: JS v. Brant Family and Children's Services

APPEARANCES

JS, Applicant Self-represented

Brant Family and Children’s Services, Respondent Marilee Sherry, Representative

1The Applicant and the Respondent, Brant Family and Children’s Services (the “Society”), entered into a Settlement Agreement (Agreement) during a mediation held on May 30, 2018. The Agreement provided for a full settlement of all issues raised in the application filed on March 12, 2018 with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The Agreement contained two Terms, expressed as questions to the Society, seeking reasons and/or explanations from the Society.

3The Society sent the Applicant its Response on May 30, 2018.

4The Applicant alleged non-compliance with Term 2 of the Agreement. In response, the Society sent a second letter to the Applicant providing more detail on Term 2.

5In accordance with the CFSRB’s procedures when there is an allegation of non-compliance, the CFSRB held a hearing by teleconference on August 30, 2018 to determine whether the Society had complied with the Agreement.

6After reviewing the materials filed on the issue of compliance and considering the parties' submissions I am satisfied the Society has complied with the Agreement. The reasons for this decision follow.

ANALYSIS

7Term 2 of the Agreement states:

Regarding the apprehension of the child from the Applicant’s house, which occurred around June 6, 2008:

a) Was it right to separate the child from the rest of the family?

b) Why was it right, and why was it necessary?

8The Applicant is the child's grandfather. In its Response the Society explained the circumstances of the apprehension and the rationale for the apprehension resulting from an ongoing police investigation about the child being left alone and it was proving difficult to determine the truth. Until the investigation could be completed and greater clarity gained around what happened, the child was placed in foster care.

9The Society clarified that the child was apprehended from her biological father who had legal custody of her at the time. Although the apprehension occurred while the child was staying with the Applicant, she was not apprehended from the Applicant because he was not then her legal caregiver.

10As to part b) of Term 2, the Society explained that the apprehension was necessary because of the serious concerns about the care of the child while with her father, the lack of supervision of the two-year old child, smoking in her presence, and an ongoing police investigation.

11The Response then notes that the Applicant’s home was subsequently assessed, and was found to be a suitable home for the child. The Society placed the child in the home of the Applicant and his wife in October 2008 under a supervision order. The Applicant and his wife gained custody of the child in June of 2009.

DECISION

12After hearing the parties and considering their submissions I am satisfied that the Society heard the applicant's concerns on the issues raised in Term 2, and provided a meaningful response to them. Therefore, the CFSRB finds that the Society has complied with the Settlement Agreement. The Applicant’s complaint of non-compliance is dismissed, and the CFSRB's file is closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

13Pursuant to Rules 9.1 and 9.2 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.