RM v. Brant Family and Children’s Services, 2019 CFSRB 41

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RM Applicant

-and-

Brant Family and Children’s Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Michele O'Connor Date: August 14, 2019 Citation: 2019 CFSRB 41 Indexed As: RM v Brant Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s. 120)

APPEARANCES

RM, Applicant Self-represented

Brant Family and Children’s Services, Respondent Sarah Robertson, Representative

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant and Brant Family and Children’s Services (the “Society) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during mediation on June 24, 2019 providing for full settlement of all issues raised by the Applicant in his application to the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) filed March 19, 2019.

2The Agreement between the parties provided for an implementation date of July 15, 2019 and a non-compliance date of July 22, 2019.

3On July 4, 2019, the Society sent the Applicant its Explanation Letter. On July 12, 2019 the Applicant filed his written complaint alleging that the Society failed to comply with terms of the Settlement Agreement.

4In accordance with the CFSRB’s mediation procedure, a teleconference meeting was held on August 7, 2019, to determine whether the Society had complied with the Settlement Agreement. The Applicant participated as did CFSRB Coordinator Sarah Robertson, Family Worker Becky Labadie and Manager Heather Norden on behalf of the Society. Both parties made submissions.

5The CFSRB has reviewed the materials filed by the Applicant on the issue of non-compliance and has taken into consideration the submissions of the parties at the teleconference. The CFSRB finds that the Society complied with the terms of the Agreement. The reasons for this decision follow.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

6This Application consists of the following complaints under section 120(4)4 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1: that the Applicant was not given an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made or to be heard when he raised concerns about services he received.

7The question for the CFSRB is whether the Society did what it was required to do under the Agreement with respect to any actions or time lines and whether any explanations provided sufficient detail to enable the Applicant to understand what factors the Society took into account in making decisions and why. The CFSRB’s sole focus at the teleconference is on the agreement itself.

8The parties’ settlement agreement included terms that the Society would provide a letter of explanation to the Applicant responding to the following questions:

• What was the nature of the Society’s investigation into the safety concerns the Applicant brought to its attention concerning inadequate supervision of his 2 children, (AM, 11yrs. old) and (RM, 8 yrs. old) while in the care of their mother, DB? Specifically this letter will include what steps were taken by the Society in the course of its investigation; what direct and collateral contacts did the Society have; what factors were considered in deciding when and where to meet with the children; what contact was had with the children; what were the conclusions of the investigation; and, what recommendations, if any, were made to the Applicant and/or to DB; and what informed the decision not to transfer the file for ongoing service?

• What steps were taken by the Society after updated concerns from the Applicant about his sons’ health and wellbeing? Specifically, what steps were taken by the Society in the course of its investigation; what other services were considered; what direct and collateral contacts did the Society have; what were the conclusions of the investigation; and, what recommendations, if any, were made to the Applicant and/or to DB?

• What is the contact information for the children’s respective doctors, dentists, optometrists, and other service providers so the Applicant can make his own enquiries, as needed, if concerns arise in the future?

• What steps would the Society recommend be taken by the Applicant if he has new safety concerns about his children in the future?

9As a general approach to an allegation of non-compliance, the CFSRB looks at the terms of the settlement and asks the Applicant why he/she believes that the Society did not meet its obligation. The Society is then given the opportunity to respond or elaborate on the contents of its letter.

The Society Letter of Explanation

10On July 4, 2019 the Society sent to the Applicant a Letter of Explanation (‘the letter”).

11The Applicant submits that the letter does not provide a factual basis for or against verification of inadequate supervision or medical neglect, and that it is not adequate in the following ways: it fails to explain what steps the Society took; there is no evidence that the Society attempted to corroborate his concerns about inadequate supervision of his children; there is no indication the child RM was interviewed; it does not provide a factual basis for the decision not to transfer the file for ongoing service; it lacks an appreciation of children’s needs and fails to verify the quality of existing/ongoing services to the children; it does not list contact information for the children’s service providers; and, it does not outline steps that should be taken by the Applicant if he has new safety concerns for his children.

12The Society submits that it did a thorough investigation as evidenced by the various steps and collateral contacts outlined in the letter.

13The Explanation Letter consists of 11 pages broken into the following categories: Determination of Investigation Plan, Supervision of the Children, Dental, Vision, Education, Medical, Counselling, Contact with (Applicant) and Response to his calls, Verification Decisions and Reasons for the Decisions, Service Provider Contact Information, and lastly, it urged the Applicant to attempt to communicate as much as possible with the children’s mother in the future but, if this is not successful or if he has concerns regarding imminent harm to the children, he should feel free to contact the local Society.

14The letter describes the Society’s internal process for decision-making regarding verification and whether to assign the matter for ongoing services. It also describes how it extended the investigation by some months to ensure receipt of reports from the collaterals (dental clinic, family doctor, vision clinic).

15The letter sets out the dates and nature of the Society’s contacts in the course of its investigation into the Applicant’s reported concerns about his children’s care including those with the Applicant, the children, the children’s mother (DB) and her partner, and the various collaterals including the children’s school teachers and principal, the babysitter, the family doctor, the children’s dental and vision care providers, and walk-in medical clinics which had treated the children.

16The letter describes various meetings during the investigation between the primary worker and her manager describing how and why verification and other decisions were made.

17The Applicant was upset by the apparent lack of an interview with his younger son, RM, who is 8. He asked “Did (RM) have an opportunity to explain what’s happening to me?” The worker described a brief meeting with RM at his mother’s home after which she concluded, based on her conversation with the child, that she would continue the investigation through other sources. During the teleconference the Society directed the Applicant to numerous specific references about RM under the various headings.

18The Applicant indicated he was satisfied regarding the Society’s engagement with his older son, AM, except for the lack of information about AM’s optometrist. The Society’s letter included its specific steps and follow-up with the University of Waterloo Optometry Clinic regarding RM’s treatment plan and follow-up. There was a delay obtaining this documentation and the investigation was extended expressly for this purpose. There was no information provided to the Society by either parent about a collateral optical appointment for AM. The Society said it had no information from either the school or medical care providers that AM had eye issues.

19The Applicant’s physical limitations interfere with his ability to actively manage the various resources involved with his children, but he is more than capable of expressing his concerns about his children in an organized and thoughtful way and of advocating on their behalf. It is not the Society’s mandate to act as his intermediary. He is a joint custodial parent and has a right to access the various services involved with his sons. For example, he complains about the qualifications of his elder son’s counsellor whom he believes is under-qualified. The Society explained that the counselling services were arranged via a referral for service through Contact Brant which is the “gateway” to children’s services for the region. AM’s counselling is provided through Woodview Children’s Services (WCS) which is the children’s mental health centre for the region. The Society has no ongoing role in AM’s therapy. The contact information and counsellor’s name was included in the Society’s letter.

20In the teleconference, the Applicant raised new issues which were not the subject of the original complaint, nor were they meant to be addressed by the settlement agreement. He said that his son, AM, is showing severe signs of depression and distress and that his brother, RM, is showing violent tendencies. While this was new information to the Society, based on information received during its investigation it is satisfied that these concerns can be addressed through the services already in place. Both children have special needs and IEP’s in place at school. AM was on a waitlist for several months but has been receiving counselling since February 22, 2019 at WCS. A psycho-educational assessment by the District School Board psychologist is already in process for RM. The Applicant has the necessary contact information to follow up directly with these service providers.

21The Applicant was upset that the Society relied on current health care providers rather than exploring historical issues. He asserted his belief that DB is “playing” the Society. “It’s not enough to go by a brand new collateral when it’s a historic problem.” The Society explained that it had investigated the Applicant’s current complaint, and it extended the investigation to ensure it had updated reports and confirmation from various sources to satisfy its assessment regarding risk to these children before closing the file. Historic problems were previously investigated by other agencies.

22The Society complied with the terms of the agreement. While the Applicant may be dissatisfied with the outcomes, the Society has met its obligations and its Letter of Explanation responds to the questions articulated in the Settlement agreement as outlined above.

DECISION

23For these reasons, I find that the Society has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and the allegation of non-compliance is dismissed. The file is now closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

24Pursuant 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.