AD v The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, 2019 CFSRB 23

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AD

Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens

Date: May 7, 2019

Citation: 2019 CFSRB 23

Indexed As: AD v The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

AD, Applicant

Self-represented

The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton, Respondent

James Wood, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant and the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (the “Society”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on February 21, 2019, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in the application submitted on January 8, 2019 to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The Agreement contained four Terms, expressed as questions to the Society, which sought reasons and/or explanations from the Society. The parties agreed to a compliance date of March 21, 2019 and a non-compliance date of March 28, 2019.

3The Society sent a letter (the “Letter”), dated March 6, 2019, as its Response to the issues raised in the Agreement. The Letter was sent to the Applicant and to the CFSRB.

4The Applicant sent an e-mail, dated March 13, 2019, to the CFSRB, alleging 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 9, 2019 to determine whether the Society had complied with the Agreement.

DECISION

6After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, and hearing their arguments at the teleconference, I find that the Society met its commitments and obligations as set out in the Agreement, and as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”). The reasons for my findings follow.

ANALYSIS

The Law

7The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 outlines the Society’s obligations and the mandate of the CFSRB. Section 120 reads as follows:

(4) The following may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

4. Allegations that the Society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2)

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

Subsection 15(2) reads as follows:

Service providers shall that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity 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.

(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

8The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or 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.

9In an allegation of non-compliance, an applicant’s disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society in its response does not negate or invalidate the fact that the Society did give reasons for its decisions.

Terms of the Agreement

Term 1: Regarding the 2018 phone call from the School Board re the frequent & lengthy school absence of both children, did the Society open a protection application?

a) If yes, what were the results?

b) if no, what were the reasons?

10The Society’s Letter states that a child protection investigation was not opened. The reason for this decision was that no information was provided about the younger child’s attendance at school. The referral source described the school attendance problems of the older child, age 17. The School Board confirmed to the Society that a social worker from the School Board was involved with the older child and her mother to try to get the older child to attend school.

11The Society indicated that the referral source also informed the Society that the Applicant believed that the children were at risk of harm because their mother was not practicing their indigenous customs. The referral source stated its belief that the attendance problems of the older child were not a result of an omission of care on the part of the mother.

12Given that the referral source reported that they were in regular contact with the mother in trying to get the older child to school, it is clear to the Society that assistance is being given to the family through the delivery of a credible service. Therefore, the Society deemed that a protection investigation was not necessary. The family was provided with a community service link by the Society, should additional help be needed.

13I find that the Society gave a substantive and detailed answer to the question posed in Term 1, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 2: Recognizing the children’s indigenous heritage, did the Society at the time of the 2018 referral involve the local indigenous child protection agency? If not, why not?

14The Letter states as follows:

“[…] the Society did not involve the local indigenous child protection agency as we don’t have a local indigenous child protection (well-being) agency in this jurisdiction.”

15I find that the Society gave a clear and specific answer which clarified the issue raised in Term 2, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 3: Same question as Term 2 above, but specific to GD.

16By way of background, the person referred to in Term 3 is a community consultant, with recognised expertise in indigenous affairs, used by the Applicant a number of years ago.

17The Letter refers to the fact that the Society was last involved with GD in late 2011, and that the Society has no current knowledge of any active relationship between GD and the Applicant and/or between GD and the children’s mother. Thus, in the absence of the parties’ consent to share the information regarding the current referral and the current matter discussed between the Applicant or the children’s mother and GD., the Society was not in a position to initiate contact with GD.

18I find that the Society gave a clear and specific answer which clarified the question posed in Term 3, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

Term 4: Is the Society open to opening a child protection investigation, based on the information given by the Applicant who is willing to provide any further information should that be requested by the Society?

19The Letter states that, based on the current information made known to the Society, the Society does not have sufficient information to conduct a protection investigation at this time. Should the Applicant have additional information that he is willing to share with the Society, the Society will consider whether this additional information warrants opening a protection investigation.

20I find that the Society gave a clear answer to the question posed in Term 4, and thus met the Society’s obligations under the Agreement.

OBSERVATION

21A frequent comment made by the Applicant during the teleconference focussed on the family’s indigenous heritage, and his allegation that the children’s mother is not fully committed to this heritage, or is failing to pass it on to the two children. He also makes reference to the difficulties he has had with getting the children’s mother to consider and to act upon his input into her decisions relating to the upbringing of the children.

22The Applicant during the teleconference voiced his concerns about the lack of focus on the family’s indigenous heritage in past contacts with the Society. It was recognized by both parties that this is of great significance to the Applicant, and needs to be more fully considered in any future contacts between the parties.

23From many comments made during the teleconference, there appears to be a deep divide between the Applicant and the Society. He disagrees with many, if not most, of the actions the Society has implemented and the reasons for those actions. However, as stated earlier, an applicant’s disagreement with a decision of a Society does not lead to the conclusion that the Society has not given effect to section 120(4) 5 of the Act.

CONCLUSION

24The Society heard the concerns expressed by the Applicant in his application, and gave direct and comprehensive reasons for the Society’s decisions on the matters raised in the application. Thus, the Society has met its obligations under the Agreement and under the Act.

ORDER

25For the reasons given I find the Society met its obligations to provide reasons and explanations for its decisions in accordance with the Agreement and as required under the Act. Therefore, the allegation of non-compliance is dismissed, and the CFSRB's file is closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

27Pursuant 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.