RC v. Halton Children’s Aid Society, 2019 CFSRB 30

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RC

Applicant

-and-

Halton Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Brenda Bowlby

Date: June 06, 2019

Citation: 2019 CFSRB 30

Indexed As: RC v Halton Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

RC, Applicant

GE, Representative

Halton Children’s Aid Society , Respondent

Diane Skrow, Counsel

Jennifer Binnington, Director, Protection Services

Introduction

1RC (“the Applicant”) filed an application on March 20, 2019, under section 120(4)4 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched.1 (“the Act”) against the Halton’s Children’s Aid Society (“the Respondent”).

2A pre-hearing in this matter was held on April 30, 2019 in which it was determined that a hearing would be heard with respect to the following issues:

a. The Respondent’s communication with the Applicant’s daughter’s school and with the police on December 1, 2016 without the Applicant’s knowledge or consent;

b. The Respondent’s communication with the Applicant’s daughter’s school and with the police on December 23, 2016 without the Applicant’s knowledge or consent; and

c. The Respondent’s requirement that the Applicant present to a hospital a list of concerns about her daughter.

3Prior to the hearing, the Applicant notified the CFSRB that she wished to add s. 120(4)5 as a ground to her application. The Respondent indicated its objection to this amendment prior to the hearing. At the outset of the hearing, the Applicant confirmed that she was requesting the addition of s. 120(4)5 as a ground, but also confirmed that she was not making any new allegations. In this circumstance, the Respondent agreed that there was no prejudice in adding s. 120(4)5 as a ground and that doing so would avert a further application dealing with that ground based on the same facts. I ordered that the application be amended to add s. 120(4)5 as a ground.

4The hearing was held on May 24, 2019. I heard evidence from the Applicant and, on behalf of the Respondent, I heard from Child Protection Supervisor MC (“the CPC”) and Child Protection Worker EF (“the case worker”). The Applicant was represented by “GE” who is the father of the Applicant’s daughter. GE did not testify.

5For the reasons that follow, the application is dismissed.

The Law

6The relevant sections of the Act are as follows:

119 (1) A person may make a complaint to a society relating to a service sought or received by that person from the society in accordance with the regulations.

(5) If a complaint relates to one of the following matters, the complainant may apply to the Board in accordance with the regulations for a review of the decision made by the society upon completion of the complaint review procedure:

1. A matter described in subsection 120 (4).

120 (4) The following matters 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.

7Section 15(2) provides:

Service providers shall ensure 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.

8The Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Respondent and for which the Respondent is giving reasons under s. 120(4)5.

background

9The complaint concerns events in late 2016 and early 2017.

10On November 30, 2016, the Applicant’s daughter, “S”, then 13 years old and in Grade 8, left school during the lunch period without speaking with the school office or signing out; she did not return to school. The principal called the Applicant to advise her that S was no longer at school and she would be calling the police if S did not arrive home within the next 5 minutes. The Applicant told the principal that S had stayed home the day before because she had had stomach cramps and was probably on her way home for that reason.

11The Applicant, who was working at home that day, got into her car and set off to look for her daughter. She subsequently received a call from the police who said they had received a missing person’s report from the school and they had found S walking towards home. They asked the Applicant to meet them in front of the school where they were waiting with S. Upon the Applicant’s arrival at the school, S told the Applicant she had decided to go home because she had a math test and became stressed out.

12The principal called the Applicant later that day and told her that there were a few concerning things including that one of S’s peers had advised that S said she was hearing voices. The Applicant was not concerned about this information because S had told the Applicant about hearing voices.

13The Applicant told the principal that she would speak with S about leaving school without notifying the office. A meeting with the principal was set up for the next morning.

14At the meeting in the principal’s office the next morning at which both the Applicant and S were present, the principal told the Applicant that in addition to S hearing voices, she had heard from S’s peers that S had been “Googling” knives on a school computer, to which S reacted by giggling and then explaining that she needed an image of a knife for a school project – a slide show on Oliver Twist. The principal also said that she had heard that S was hearing, voices that S said that she had stayed home from school because she was afraid she might hurt someone and that S had been cutting herself. S denied cutting herself or staying home because she might hurt someone. The Applicant told the principal that S had stayed home because she had stomach cramps.

15Immediately following this meeting, the Applicant took S to meet with a social worker. The Applicant remained with S during this meeting. After speaking with S, the social worker said that S had some anxiety with high school coming up. The Applicant mentioned the voices, which S said were like background mumbling, and the social worker said that this could occur with anxiety and was just the result of S’s insecurities.

16When the Applicant returned S to school following the meeting with the social worker, the principal asked the Applicant to meet with the school social worker. The Applicant agreed to this meeting because she wanted to find out what the school social worker had to offer. A meeting was set up for that afternoon, attended by the Applicant, the school social worker and other school staff members. The Applicant testified that she found the comments made by the school social worker to be “a little over the top”. The school social worker said that S needed more than just talking to the social worker who S had seen that morning, that S needed testing and that the school social worker would go into S’s class once a week. The Applicant stated that it appeared that plans already had been laid out by the school social worker and that she did not know where the school social worker got her information from since the school social worker had never previously met the Applicant. After the meeting ended, the Applicant told the school social worker that S was “good with the stuff outside the school” for her mental health.

17That night, S came home from school and told her parents that her bags and locker had been searched by the school. The Applicant testified that she pulled S from school on December 2, 2016 and home schooled her from that point until after March break. It appears, however, that the school was not told at that point that S would not be returning to school.

18In addition, on December 1st, a meeting (“VTRA meeting”) was convened by the school under the school board’s Violence Threat Risk Assessment (“VTRA”) procedure. The Applicant found out about this meeting only long after the fact. She received no notice that the meeting was to take place from the school, the Respondent or anyone else. The Applicant also learned that the Respondent’s case worker attended this meeting, although the case worker never mentioned this to the Applicant.

19The VTRA procedure provides for the establishment of School Violence Risk Assessment Teams under the Halton Community Violence Threat Assessment Protocol. The case worker testified that schools will call a meeting if they have concerns about children at risk to themselves or others in the community and that community partners”, like the police or the Respondent, can be invited to such meetings as resources. She said that typically there will be a group of community partners at the meeting and that they will review the concern that is the catalyst for the calling of the meeting.

20The case worker testified that she is one of the VTRA trained workers at the CAS and was asked by the school to attend the meeting on December 1, 2016. Also at the meeting were representatives from the school board and police.

21The case worked recalled that there was discussion at the VTRA meeting about searching S’s bags at the meeting, that this was a safety plan put in place by the school to ensure the safety of the school. The case worker stated that she had no input into this and that it was not part of her investigation.

22On the day before the VTRA meeting, the principal had called the Respondent to express concerns about S’s mental health and the parent’s response to the school’s expressed concerns. The principal told the Respondent that S was indicating to peers that she did not want to attend school because she was worried that she would hurt someone, that S told a peer that she was hearing voices, that S was searching weapons on a computer and that S was self-harming. The case worker testified that the principal said that she had spoken directly to S who confirmed these allegations. Further, the principal advised that the parents were not taking the concerns seriously.

23On December 5, 2016, the case worker attended at the school with the intention of interviewing S, who was not at the school. While at the school, the case worker was advised that S’s father [“GE”] was co-operating and she decided to give the parents a chance to co-operate. She left the school and attended at the parent’s home. She did not give them advance notice that she would be coming to talk with them. She explained at the hearing that when doing investigations, it is a practice on occasion for child protection workers to attend at schools to speak with children or at homes to speak with parents or children without giving notice.

24When the case worker and a colleague arrived at the Applicant’s home on December 5th, GE answered the door. While standing at the door, the case worker introduced herself and said that she was there to follow up on concerns regarding his eldest daughter, that the police had been called in to look for her and the case worker wanted to make sure that supports were in place for S. GE responded that the case worker would have to speak with his lawyer and that he would not speak with her. He also asked for her supervisor’s phone number. The case worker said that she could answer any questions he had but the Applicant’s husband refused to talk with her.

25GE subsequently spoke with the CPS who explained the joint protocol with the police and the school regarding VTRA meetings. The CPS advised that due to the concerns about S’s mental health, the CAS wanted to ensure her mental health needs were being followed up on. GE responded that any involvement of the CAS with his family should be through the courts for purposes of accountability. The CPS advised that the Respondent preferred to work voluntarily and only if that does not happen do they consider going to court to obtain a supervision order.

26The CPS said that GE appeared to relax at that point in the conversation and to share his perception of where things were at. He advised the CPS that the parents were aware of the concerns with S, that they had been to a doctor to address the concerns, that the doctor was referring her to a psychiatrist and that he had spoken to the vice principal about keeping lines of communication open and apprising the school about how things were going with S. GE also said that he was not comfortable with CAS involvement as he felt that it might overwhelm S, that she might feel judged and that something was “wrong with her.” GE stated that he felt that S would not harm herself but that he wanted to get services for S and err on the side of caution.

27The CPS explained that the case protection worker assigned in this case works primarily with adolescent mental health issues and said that next steps could be determined when the case worker contacted him. Based on their conversation, CPS felt that GE would be open to working with the case worker.

28On December 12th, the Applicant took S to the family doctor. The Applicant testified that the family doctor said she would make a referral to “the Phoenix Program and One link” where an assessment of S could be made to determine if everything was okay.

29On December 14th the case worker and the Applicant spoke on the phone. The Applicant states that she told the case worker that she had taken S to see the family doctor and that a referral was being made to the Phoenix Program and One link. The Applicant says that the case worker told her that if the Applicant provided a doctor’s note confirming the visit, that would be enough to close the file. The Applicant explained that the doctor was on vacation and that a note would be provided once the doctor returned.

30During this phone conversation the case worker asked if she could interview the Applicant’s 3 children (i.e. S and her two younger siblings). However, the Applicant and GE stated that they would not consent to having their children interviewed but would forward a note from the doctor confirming that S had been seen and was being referred to a psychiatrist. When asked about this in cross-examination, the Applicant said that she declined the caseworker’s request to interview the children because she felt it unnecessary and she was not comfortable with it.

31The case worker was consistent throughout her involvement with the Applicant that she needed to interview the Applicant’s children in the absence of their parents. The Applicant’s belief that the Respondent’s file would be closed if she produced the doctor’s letter was a misperception.

32The next contact between the case worker and the Applicant was on December 22nd when, the case worker called the Applicant and GE. Again, the Applicant and GE refused to agree to their children being interviewed by the case worker.

33During this conversation, the case worker spoke first with GE who asked what the CAS needed from them. The case worker told him that they needed to obtain proof from the school and from the doctor that S was receiving mental health treatment. GE advised that they were considering pulling S from school to home school her so they would not be receiving services from the school. GE further advised, again, that a letter from the family doctor would be provided that confirmed that a referral to a psychiatrist had been made.

34The case worker advised GE that the doctor’s letter had to include an acknowledgement from the doctor that the doctor was aware of S’s “homicidal ideation” insofar as she had been looking up knives on the internet and stated that she did not want to go to school because she was going to hurt someone. GE responded that he was not aware of this. The caseworker then asked GE why he thought S needed psychiatric treatment. GE was unclear about the reasons for obtaining psychiatric treatment for S and stated something about S running from school. At that point the Applicant took the phone. She stated that S had been looking up knives on a computer for a school assignment and denied that S said she did not want to go to school because she was going to hurt someone. The Applicant stated that her daughter was doing fine at home and asked why the Respondent was not taking her word and that her daughter was receiving help. The case worker replied that the referral received by the CAS was concerning in respect of S’s statements and her researching knives. The case worker told the Applicant that this needed to be addressed and that she wanted to speak with S. The Applicant responded that she did not want the case worker to see S as she did not want S exposed to the CAS and being interviewed. The Applicant again said that she would get a letter from her doctor but did not know how long that would take.

35The next day, December 23, 2016, the case worker received an email from the school social worker forwarding a copy of an e-mail sent that day from the school social worker to the Applicant. The case worker pasted a copy of this email into her contact log for December 23rd. This contact log was an attachment to the case worker’s Witness Statement which was made an exhibit at the hearing.

36In her email to the Applicant, the school social worker set out in considerable detail the concerns which she and the school had and the recommendations they were making, supported by a detailed explanation for those concerns and recommendations. Amongst the recommendations was what the school social worker described as, in capital letters, “THE MOST IMPORTANT RECOMMENDATION WE HAVE TO MAKE”. This recommendation was that S be evaluated as soon as possible by being taken to the emergency room at Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital where she could be seen by a child and adolescent psychiatrist. The letter included a promise to provide supports for S and to work with the family. The email also noted that the principal had spoken with S and that S “verified that she was hearing voices, cutting herself, and that she did not attend school on the previous Tuesday because she was worried that she would hurt someone.”

37The case worker’s evidence was that the only communication which she had with the school on December 23rd was the email she received from the school social worker.

38On December 23rd, the case worker sent a letter (“the December 23rd letter”) to the Applicant. This letter set out the concerns that had come to the attention of the Respondent and had been discussed with the Applicant. These concerns, as set out in the letter, were as follows:

The Society has been advised that [S] has exhibited the following behaviours:

• She has stated that she is hearing voices;

• She has stated that she stayed home from school one day this month because she was scared she would hurt someone;

• She has self-harmed n the form of cutting herself;

• She has Googled information regarding knives;

• Her demeanor has changed and she no longer appears to be happy.

39The letter advised the Applicant that the Respondent expected S to be taken to the hospital’s Emergency Department by December 30th to be seen by a psychiatrist and an assessment made. Further, the Applicant was advised in the letter that the Society required a copy of the psychiatric report, consent for the Society to follow up with the psychiatrist and all referred providers to ensure that any recommendations from the psychiatrist made being followed. The letter also included the case worker’s request, again, to meet privately with S and her siblings.

40The letter set the following reasons why the Society was making these requests:

You and I spoke over the phone on December 22, 2016 where we discussed these concerns. You advised that you had taken [S] to the family doctor and that you were not sure when you would be able to get a letter to confirm that she would be receiving treatment. Further, and most concerning to me is that you did not appear overly concerned about her behaviour and symptomology and that [S’s] father, [GE], did not appear to be aware of all of the concerns regarding [S’s] behaviours listed above.

41The case worker confirmed at the hearing that these were her reasons for sending the letter of December 23rd to the Applicant.

42On January 4, 2017, the Respondent received a call from the hospital’s Emergency Department confirming that GE had taken S in to be seen and advising that GE said that had done so because the CAS had so directed him. The hospital reported that GE had not articulated any concerns related to S and that S did not report anything so the family left with the hospital reporting no concerns. Another of the Respondent’s supervisors called GE and told him he should have taken the letter of December 23rd with him to show the doctor in the hospital since the letter clearly outlined the mental health concerns. The Applicant was told to take S back to the Emergency Department and to show the doctor the letter. She did so on January 5, 2017.

43On January 6th, the Respondent finally received a copy of the report from the family doctor, attached to a CFSRB complaint (which was subsequently found to be ineligible).

44On January 10th, the CPS called the Applicant, having heard that GE had left a message asking about the Respondent’s internal complaint process. The CPS told the Applicant that she had heard about GE’s inquiry and offered to meet with the Applicant and GE along with the case worker. The Applicant made no commitment during that conversation and did not call back subsequently to arrange a meeting.

45On January 18, 2017, the Applicant submitted a request to the Respondent’s Executive Director requesting an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting. This prompted a letter from the CPS again offering to meet with the Applicant, this time with the Respondent’s Director of Protection Services. The Applicant accepted this invitation but when it was explained to her that CPS’s proposed meeting was not part of the ICRP process, the Applicant stated that she wished to proceed, instead, directly with the ICRP meeting.

46The ICRP met with the Applicant and GE on February 14th. In its letter of February 24th, the ICRP noted that the main concern of the Applicant and GE was the way in which S’s mental health was described in the December 23rd letter. In its letter of February 24, 2017 to the Applicant and GE, the ICRP explained that this documentation could not be changed since it was based on information received from the school. However, the ICRP did offer an opportunity to the Applicant and GE to provide alternate documentation to be attached to their file, and as part of this also offered an opportunity for GE and the Applicant to review the file. This offer was not taken up by the Applicant and GE.

47The ICRP’s letter also explained that the reason why the Respondent had become involved was because of the lack of medical follow-up by the Applicant and GE regarding S’s mental health. In this respect, the ICRP noted that it was not clear whether the December 23rd letter had been shown to the doctor when S was taken into the Emergency Department, and noted the Respondent had requested evidence that the December 23rd letter had been shown to the doctor. Finally, the letter noted the outstanding request of the case worker to interview the children.

48Subsequently the Applicant provided evidence to the Respondent that the December 23rd letter was shown to the doctor when S was taken to the Emergency Department on a second occasion. Further, the Applicant took her children into the Respondent’s offices where the case worker interviewed them. The Respondent subsequently closed its file.

analysis

Issue 1: The Respondent’s communication with the Applicant’s daughter’s school and with the police on December 1, 2016 without the Applicant’s knowledge or consent

49First, s. 15(2) gives parents the right to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving or when decisions affecting their interests is made, and to be given reasons for those decisions. Section15(2) does not impose a requirement on children’s aid societies to notify parents and obtain their consent before communicating with community members regarding their children.

50The Applicant’s argument appears to be that the Respondent’s decision to attend the VTRA meeting and obtain information about their daughter at that meeting gave rise to their right under s. 15(2) to be heard and given reasons. Their argument appears to be that because they did not know about the meeting, they were denied their rights to do so.

51The attendance by the Respondent at the VTRA meeting on December 1, 2016 was at the invitation of S’s school. The case worker testified that at this meeting, she listened but did not say anything.

52It was clear from the case worker’s evidence that her attendance at the school’s VTRA meetings is as a resource and that when attending such meetings she may or may not receive information about children which raises child protection concerns. The VTRA meeting remains at all times the school’s meeting and the Respondent’s presence is as an invitee and a resource. The VTRA meeting December 1, 2019 was no different.

53The mere receipt by a children’s aid society of information as an invitee at a meeting such as the VTRA meeting does not gives rise to rights under s. 15(2). It is not until the Respondent turns its mind to making a decision that affects the interests of a parent or child that the right to be heard and be given reasons arise. This did not happen when the case worker attended the VTRA meeting and received information about S.

Issue 2: The Respondent’s communication with the Applicant’s daughter’s school and with the police on December 23, 2016 without the Applicant’s knowledge or consent

54First, as noted above, s. 15 (2) does not impose on children’s aid societies an obligation to notify parents and obtain their consent before communicating with members of the community about their children.

55The Applicant’s argument appears to be that when the Respondent’s case worker communicated with the police and the school, a decision was made that affected her interests and that she was denied an opportunity to be heard with respect to that decision to communicate with the police and the school. Further, she argues that she should have been given reasons for that decision.

56No evidence was presented at the hearing that any of the Respondent’s employees communicated with the police about the Applicant’s daughter or the Applicant on December 23, 2016.

57With respect to S’s school, the case worker’s evidence was that she did not contact the school on December 23rd. Rather, the “communication” that she had with the school consisted of receipt from the school social worker of a copy of an email which the school social worker had sent to the Applicant.

58The mere receipt of information by a children’s aid society does not constitute or involve a decision that affects a parent or child’s interests. Accordingly, the Applicant had no right to be heard or be given reasons when the case worker received an email from the school social worker.

Issue 3: The Respondent’s requirement that the Applicant present to a hospital a list of concerns about her daughter

59The Respondent’s requirement that the Applicant present the letter of December 23rd, outlining the concerns raised by the school, to a doctor in the Emergency Department of a hospital did involve a decision that affected the interests of the Applicant and S. Section 15(2) was therefore triggered.

60However, the evidence is clear that during the telephone call of December 22nd, between the case worker, the Applicant and GE, the case worker advised the Applicant and GE that she wanted the concerns raised by the school to be brought to the attention of a doctor who would assess S to determine whether there were mental health issues that needed to be addressed. It is also clear that both GE and the Applicant had an opportunity to respond to this. There is no suggestion that the case worker did not allow the Applicant to express her views, including the Applicant’s belief that the information that formed the basis of the school’s concerns was wrong. The December 23rd letter was notice to the Applicant that the Respondent had decided to proceed with the requirement the case worker had discussed with her on December 22nd.

61Providing a meaningful opportunity to respond – which I find was given in this case – does not mean that the children’s aid society must capitulate to the parent’s views. The society must make its decisions based on the best interests of the child.

62Further, I find that in both the telephone conversation of December 22, 2016, and in the letter of December 23rd, the case worker outlined the reasons for the requirement imposed in the letter of December 23rd.

63I also find that the ICRP decision provided reasons why the Respondent became involved with the Applicant and her family in this particular situation, why the Respondent required that S be assessed by a doctor who had been shown the December 23rd letter and what would be required to satisfy the Respondent that it could close its file.

Conclusion

64In the circumstances outlined above, I find that the Respondent did not fail to provide an opportunity for the Applicant to be heard in respect of a decision that affected her interests or to be given reasons for any such decision.

order

65The application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

66Pursuant 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.