KU v. Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex, 2020 CFSRB 112

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

KU

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: December 17, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 112

Indexed As: KU v Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

1This is an Application filed under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched.1, (the “Act”): the Applicant was not heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests were made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving.

2In the complaint the Applicant identified that he was “community kin” to MC and NC (“Children”). The Applicant is a police officer who was involved with the Children subsequent to the death of their mother. The Applicant submitted an application for the Children to be placed with him in a foster arrangement.

3The complaint outlined the following issues/concerns:

1. The Children were not provided with counselling and the Respondent failed to respond to the Applicant’s concerns regarding counselling in a timely manner;
2. The Children did not receive dental care that was required;
3. The Children were not provided information by the Respondent as to the whereabouts of their mother’s remains so that they could achieve some form of closure;
4. The Respondent has not been able to provide the Applicant with accurate information regarding the status of his plan to foster the Children as “community kin”, and the process of dealing with the proposed plan had dragged on;
5. The Respondent failed to consider the Applicant’s concerns regarding the plan put forward by the Children’s maternal aunt and her ability to care for the Children;
6. The Respondent found that the Applicant did not quality as community kin and should not be considered a placement option; and
7. The Respondent changed its position regarding the Applicant’s plan for the Children one week before the court date.

THE LAW

4The Applicant has submitted his complaint pursuant to Section 120 (4)(4) of the Act. This subsection read: “allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2)”.

5Subsection 15(2) of the Act reads: “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”.

6Section 120 (1) of the Act provides that, if a person has “a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society [and the complaint] relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may decide” to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.

7The Act defines “service” as follows:

a) a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family b) a mental health service for a child or the child’s family, c) a service related to residential care for a child, d) a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family, e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others, f) counselling for a child or the child’s family, g) a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community, h) a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purpose of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or i) a prescribed service; (‘service’).

8A parent is defined in section 2(2) of the Act as:

a) the person who has lawful custody of the child; or b) if more than one person has lawful custody of the child, all of the persons who have lawful custody of the child, excluding any person who is unavailable or unable to act, as the context requires.

9“Foster care” is defined in section 2(1) the Act as the provision of residential care to a child, by and in the home of a person who,

a) receives compensation for caring for the child, expect under the Ontario Works Act, 1997 or the Ontario Disability Support Program Act, 1997, and b) is not the child’s parent or person with whom the child has been placed for adoption under Part VIII (Adoption and Adoption Licensing).

ANALYSIS

10In analyzing this complaint, I focused on whether the CFSRB had the jurisdiction to review the Application pursuant to section 120 of the Act.

11As outlined above, section 120(4)(4) ensures that service providers hear children, young persons, and their parents. In this case, the Applicant does not have the status of a parent with respect to the Children and therefore the CFSRB is precluded from reviewing his complaint.

12I considered whether the CFSRB had jurisdiction to address the Applicant’s complaint as he had submitted an application to the Respondent to provide foster type care in a “community kin” arrangement. The Applicant stated that the Respondent found that he did not qualify as “community kin” and therefore should not be considered a placement option.

13Even if the Applicant were found to be community kin, he would be considered a provider of services to the Respondent, not a recipient of services similar to foster parents. Foster parents have been found not to be in receipt of services as defined by the Act and they are not subject to the right to be heard as they are not parents as defined in the Act. As such, the Applicant’s complaint is precluded from a review under section 120 of the Act.

SUMMARY

14In summary, the Applicant is not the parent of the Children and therefore the CFSRB is precluded from reviewing the Application as per section 15(2) of the Act. In addition, even if the Applicant were to be considered a foster or “community kin” provider, these groups have been found not to be parents and not to be in receipt of services and therefore their complaints are precluded from review under section 120 of the Act.

15In reviewing this complaint, I was struck by the open-heartedness and generosity shown by the Applicant and his wife toward the Children. These are qualities that are precious to caring for vulnerable children in our communities.

ORDER

16For the reasons outlined above, the Application is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

17Pursuant to Rules 9.3 and 9.4 of the Board’s Rules of Procedure parties and their representatives must not use, share, discuss or disclose any Board 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 Board prohibits the use of any of this information for any purpose outside of the Board’s proceedings, except with an order of the Court or the Board, as appropriate.