CB v. Dufferin Child and Family Services, 2020 CFSRB 113

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

CB

Applicant

-and-

Dufferin Child and Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Silvia Novak

Date: December 18, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 113

Indexed As: CB v Dufferin Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

CB, Applicant

Self-Represented

Dufferin Child & Family Services, Respondent

Kathleen O’Grady, Counsel

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2The Application was found eligible to proceed under sections 120(4) 4 of the Act: the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when she raised concerns about the services she is receiving.

3The Applicant is the mother of two children ages 4 and 3, who have both been diagnosed as being on the autism spectrum.

4As per her Application, the Applicant feels her concerns regarding the children’s access to their father have been ignored including:

a. naked pictures of her daughter being taken,

b. the father’s drug use,

c. repeated pinworm infections which she attributes to the father.

5Given the level of detail in the Application and Response, I find that this is an appropriate case in which to make a decision on the basis of the Application and the Response, as permitted by Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure.

background

6In her application, The Applicant provided the following chronology:

a. In March 2020 her local Society forwarded to the Respondent her concerns related to naked pictures taken of her daughter by the child’s father, as well as an issue related to her children having repeated pinworm infections as a result of being in their father’s care.

b. In April 2020 she contacted the Respondent with additional concerns regarding the father’s drug use. She advises during that call she also asked about the naked pictures, which the Respondent advised her they were unaware of.

c. In June 2020 she reports being told that the issue of pinworm infections is not a concern that warrants an investigation.

d. In October 2020 she met with her local Society worker and a supervisor and was told that the Respondent did not want “to touch the sexual abuse allegations”

7In their response to the Board’s Decision on Eligibility, the Respondent advised they commenced a child protection investigation on April 23th, 2020 which was closed on June 4th 2020. The Society did not verify the Applicant’s concerns regarding substance use or pinworms and advised they did not receive a referral regarding her concern of naked pictures being taken of her daughter. They also reported having no knowledge of the comment the Applicant attributes to staff from another Society.

8Regarding the allegation of not being heard, the Respondent outlined:

“…the Society’s essential position is that its representatives sincerely and diligently worked to investigate {the Applicant’s] allegations regarding the care of the children by their father; to maintain regular communication with [the Applicant]; to provide her with appropriate reasons for its actions and decisions; to hear the Applicant’s expressed concerns regarding the Society’s process in arriving at its conclusion; to respond to [the Applicant’s] questions, concerns, comments and all communications, on a regular basis, as promptly as possible; and to clearly confirm its final decision, and the reasons for it, in two (2) closing letters, dated June 4, 2020 and July 6, 2020, respectively. The fact that [the Applicant] was dissatisfied with the Society’s ultimate determination in the matter does not mean that her perspective was not considered or that her concerns were not heard and reviewed thoroughly.”

9The Respondent provided copies of the initial Investigation Referral, dated April 23, 2020, all of Society’s contact logs for this child protection investigation, a Police Occurrence Report and two closing letters dated June 4, 2020 and July 6th, 2020.

analysis

10The CFSRB has explained the right to be heard as follows:

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.

P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33 (para 14)

11In her Application to the CFSRB the Applicant notes she was not heard regarding the following concerns:

a. naked pictures of her daughter being taken

b. the father’s drug use, advising her belief that the Respondent relied on the father’s “statements”

c. repeated pinworm infections which she attributes to the children having access to their father

12Regarding concern (a), the Respondent submitted that this concern was never brought to their attention. The documentation the Respondent provided including the initial referral, contact logs and closing letters supports this position. Specific details regarding the Applicant’s concerns about substance use and pinworms were documented on a number of occasions by a number of different staff, however none of those staff documented concerns regarding naked pictures.

13Based on the submissions and a review of the contemporaneous notes made by multiple staff, I find the Applicant had not brought her concern regarding naked pictures to the Respondent’s attention prior to her Application to the Board.

14Regarding the latter two concerns (b & c), as noted earlier, there are multiple instances where various staff documented these concerns. Based on the multiple contacts with staff, as well as the actions taken by the Respondent staff in direct response to hearing from the Applicant, including but not limited to; reviewing the case history, attending the father’s home after hours; consulting with police, hearing the Applicant’s concern about a virtual interview and then taking steps to interview the child in person; cancelling plans for the in-person interview after the Applicant recanted her consent; providing the Applicant with the opportunity to speak with a manager and a Director of Service; and amending the closing letter to provide greater detail, I find the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the father’s substance use and the issue of pinworms.

15The Applicant may disagree with the reasons the Respondent relied on in making their verification decisions, nevertheless the Respondent provided her with an opportunity to be heard and took actions based on the information the Applicant shared during the investigation.

order

16The application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

17Pursuant 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.