CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES
REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
RF
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens
Indexed As: RF v Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay (CYFSA
s.120)
APPEARANCES
RF, Applicant
Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay, Respondent
Mary Catherine Chambers, Counsel
INTRODUCTION
1RF (“the Applicant”) filed an application on October 31, 2018 with the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”) pursuant to section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, C. 14, Sched. 1 (the “Act”), against the Children’s Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay (“the Society”).
2The application consisted of the following complaints, as summarized in the Pre-Hearing Report dated December 17, 2018.
That the Society has allegedly failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision affecting his interests, specifically:
Communication issues with Society workers and Managers; and
Access suspension, location and scheduling issues.
3The CFSRB must decide whether or not the Society gave the Applicant reasons for its decisions, as required by the Act.
BACKGROUND
4The Applicant and his spouse are the grandparents of the Child K (“the Child”). The Child was admitted to the care of the Society in 2013, and was subsequently made a Crown ward in October 2013.
5The Child has been placed by the Society as follows: initially, with the M.O. foster home, then with the Applicant and his spouse from June 2013 to June 2014, and then back to the M.O. foster home when the placement with the Applicant broke down.
6The Applicant and his spouse live in a small community, just over an hour’s drive from Thunder Bay.
7The Society has granted access to the Child’s biological father, and to the Applicant and his spouse.
8The Child is diagnosed with autism. The Child started displaying behavioral and emotional problems around the age of eight years. These problems started to manifest themselves just before, and especially during, the placement with the Grandparents. When the problems escalated significantly, especially at school, the placement with the Grandparents broke down, and the Society placed the Child back with the M.O. Foster home.
9The contentious issue between the Society and the Grandparents evolves around their access visits, and the Society’s position on the impact of these visits on the Child.
the law
10The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 defines the rights of Applicants, the duties and obligations of Children’s Aid Societies, and the mandate of the CFSRB.
11The CFSRB deemed the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4) 5 of the Act, which provides as follows:
120(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
- Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
120(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;
12The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or the validity of a decision made by the Society in the situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.
13An Applicant’s expressed disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society does not negate or invalidate those reasons when given by the Society.
PRELIMINARY MATTER
14At the opening of the hearing, the Society offered to discuss with the Applicant certain measures that would satisfy some of the Applicant’s current requests of the Society.
15Save for one brief visit with the Child just before Christmas 2018, the Applicant and his spouse have had no access visits with the Child since October 2017. The reasons for this situation will be elaborated later in these Reasons.
16The Society proposal to the Applicant and his spouse was limited access, subject to certain conditions. The proposal was that the Applicant and his spouse would have one access visit per month, in Thunder Bay, with a support person for the Child present during the visit. As well, regular school reports, school pictures, and medical reports would be made available to the Applicant. The Society did not include overnight visits nor visits to the Applicant’s home in its proposal for access.
17The Applicant stated that he would only accept the Society’s proposal if access visits included overnight stays at his home. This home is where the Child lived for a year, before that placement broke down.
18The Society’s proposal was rejected by the Applicant because overnight visits at his home were not included.
ANALYSIS
19The CFSRB held a hearing on March 28, 2019. At the hearing, I heard the oral testimony of the Applicant, his spouse, and the Director of Services of the Society. In addition, I received a number of documents submitted as evidence.
20Given that the two complaints in the Application are intrinsically linked, both parties agreed to deal with the communication and the access visits complaints as one.
21The Applicant’s position is that he disagrees with all of the decisions of the Society, and that he disagrees with any reasons that the Society gave for its decisions. He requests that I facilitate access visits with the Child, including overnight visits at his home.
The “Safety Reasons” issue
22The Applicant alleges that one of the early calls from the Society was to inform him that access visits had been reduced, and shortly thereafter they stopped altogether. He stated that the reason given for this decision was “safety reasons”, but that in subsequent calls the Society refused to acknowledge that safety reasons were seen as the reason for the change in access. He asked the Society on a number of occasions to document for him what the safety issues were, but he stated that the Society never responded in writing to these requests.
23The Society submitted as evidence a letter, dated April 13, 2018, in which the Society explained the Society’s use of the words “safety reasons”. The letter and the Society’s testimony clarified the meaning of the Society’s use of the word “safety”. The word “safety” was not used to convey safety concerns about the Grandparents or their home. The word “safety” was used by the Society to refer to the safety of the Child when he engaged in increasingly escalating aggression and emotional dysregulation. The Child was deemed to be a serious risk of harm to others at school and to himself. The letter also gave a clear explanation of the impact of the Child’s autism on his behaviour and on his emotional needs:
K has autism and as such has special and specific needs. A child with autism can become very attached to familiar routines and if there is a change in routine this can have a very negative effect on the child’s behaviors. These extreme reactions are due to the increased stress, fear and anxiety that arises due to changes in familiar routine. As outlined in the letter of November 2017 (attached) decisions were made because of this as he was not managing the significant change in his routine.
24The Applicant acknowledged having received the letter referred to above.
The changes in access arrangements
25The Society put forth its position on the changes it made to the access visits, principally through the testimony of D.M., the Society’s Manager of Services, and through various documents such as letters and through telephone contacts, documented in case notes.
26The Society wrote three letters addressed to the Applicant and his spouse, dealing with the gradual reduction and elimination of overnight home access visits. The letters, dated June 23, August 16, November 2, 2017 document two significant issues: the escalating difficulties the Child was having at school, subsequent to each access visit, and the related plan of the Society to reduce access to try to stem the Child’s escalating behaviours.
27The June 23, 2017 letter raises with the Applicant the struggles that the school had been experiencing over the last several months. The school report that “the behaviors significantly escalate after his biweekly access visits and that there is a direct connection between his behavior dysregulation and access weekends. The school has indicated it takes a long time for K to settle back to his baseline.” The letter continues by informing the Applicant that, as a result of the difficulties at school, the Society decided it would be in the Child’s best interest to decrease the access visits from bi-weekly to once a month. The letter acknowledges that this change will be upsetting to the Grandparents. It also informs them that a worker has been assigned to meet and work with them around access issues. Her contact information is given, along with that of her supervisor.
28The August 16, 2017 letter is a follow-up to the previous letter. It re-iterates the decision to reduce access visits at the Applicant’s home from bi-weekly visits to monthly access visits as of September, and re-iterates the reasons for the decision. It also pushes back the September access visit to the end of the month, to give the Child a better chance to start the new school year without any stressors that might aggravate his behaviours at the beginning of this school year. The letter draws a link between the escalation the Child’s behaviour and his bi-weekly visits with the Applicant and his spouse. This letter also ends with the name and contact points of his worker, and urges the Applicant to call her if there are any questions about the letter.
29On October 24, 2017, the Applicant was called by the Society worker and was informed that the access visits would be ended. This was elaborated upon in the Society’s letter of November 2, 2017.
30The November 2, 2017 letter from the Society to the Applicant informs him that “at this time, we need to put access visits to your home in […] on hold indefinitely. We encourage you to see K at his parent’s home however, when they have their monthly access.” The reason for this decision is that the school reported significant escalation in the Child’s behaviour after access visits at the Applicant’s home. The letter also points out that “[…] for a child with Autism, a change in environment and expectations from one home to the other can be very difficult and emotionally upsetting.” After the Child’s last access visit on October 2, 2017, the behaviors at school “were so severe that he had to be sent home. His significant increase in his aggression and emotional dysregulation was [sic] putting others at the school at risk.”
31The Applicant acknowledged having received all three letters referred to above.
32A number of case notes were submitted as evidence, providing more specific information about the access visits, and about the school’s concerns which led the Society to place restrictions on access.
33Subsequent to these exchanges between the Grandparents and the Society, which occurred between mid-August 2017 and mid-October 2017, there was no further communication between them until shortly before Christmas 2018, when one short access visit took place.
The Psychological Report
34The Society also submitted as evidence a psychological report completed on December 14, 2015. This report highlighted the historical perspective of the need for stability and continuity in the Child’s life, in view of his autism. It traces the beginnings of his school difficulties to grade 3, when he was relocated to a different school with little time to prepare. This change, led to significant anxiety for the Child. With his condition, he requires consistency, stability, and predictability. Near the end of grade 4, after a number of changes in staff and routines, he started becoming physically aggressive, which led to him being excluded from school. The provision of respite and support workers helped in keeping the Child’s behaviour in check. The report stresses the need to keep changes in his routines to a minimum, because such changes are very difficult for the Child. The report also stressed the need to minimize distractions, changes, and situations which might lead to anxiety for the Child.
35The Report states that the one-year placement of the Child with his Grandparents broke down when his aggressive behaviours required him to be moved. He was returned by the Society to the M.O. foster home, where he has lived continuously to this day.
36The specific recommendations of the Report included having consistent support staff available for the Child, a very careful approach to transitions to new settings and situations, and the availability of calm and quiet places and times which would lessen stress on the Child.
37A major consideration present in this case is that the Society has never taken the position that it wants to break off all access contact between the Applicant and the Child. The Society has continuously kept open the option of access visits, on a limited and planned basis, with the provision that these visits occur in Thunder Bay and that a support worker be present to assist the Child during access visits with his Grandparents. What the Society did phase out, as indicated in the three letters referred to above, is overnight and week-end visits at the Applicant’s home. The position of the Applicant is that no access visits will occur unless they are overnight visits and that these must occur at his home. That has been his position for a number of years, and remains his position to this day. The insistence on visits at the Applicant’s home is his reason for declining the proposal of the Society, described earlier in this Decision document. It remains the main reason to this day as to why there have not been access visits since October 2017.
38The communication between the Applicant and the Society also became contentious over the need for the Child to have a support worker present during access visits. In his testimony and in his questions to the Society, the Applicant frequently stated that the Child does not need protection from his Grandparents, and therefore a support worker is not needed. Relying in part on the December 2015 Psychology Report, the Society presented evidence focussed on the reason for having a support worker present, namely to help the Child cope with the changes and the anxiety associated with access visits.
FINDINGS
39I make the following findings on the two issues in the Application.
40The Society has made numerous attempts to improve the pattern of communication by means of explaining issues to the Applicant, such as the need for a support worker to be present, making access information available to the Applicant, and urging the Applicant to be in contact with the Society to dialogue about specific issues.
41The Society has communicated to the Applicant in numerous verbal and written processes what changes it was making to the frequency and the location of access visits, and the Society’s reasons for making such changes. These communications informed the Applicant of its decisions on the substance of the changes in access visits, and gave comprehensive reasons for such decisions. It also provided parallel information from the school, which described the Child’s escalating behaviour problems at school, and which led the Society to make the changes.
42My role is to determine whether adequate reasons were provided for decisions made. I find that adequate reasons were provided.
ORDER
43The Society has met its obligations under the Act by giving the Applicant both verbal and written reasons regarding its decisions regarding access suspension, location and scheduling issues.
44The Application is hereby dismissed.
confidentiality order
45Pursuant 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 online. 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.
Dated at Toronto, April 11, 2019.
John F. Spekkens
John F. Spekkens
Member