KH v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2020 CFSRB 117

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

KH

Benjamin Kihara

Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services Niagara

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: December 22, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 117

Indexed As: KH v Family and Children’s Services Niagara (CYFSA s.120)

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 section 120(4)4 of the Act: The Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made. In addition, it was found eligible under section 120(4)(5) of the Act: The society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affects his interests.

3The Applicant is the father of two girls (the “Children”). The Applicant was concerned with the following:

1. The Respondent failed to investigate the Applicant’s concerns related to the health and safety of the Children while in the care of their mother and step-father;

2. The Respondent did not provide the Applicant with sufficient reasons as to the its verification decision (risk of mental/emotional harm due to partner conflict) and its decision to close the file;

3. The Respondent did not consider the Applicant’s concerns regarding the Children’s attendance at counselling/therapy; and

4. The Applicant wants the investigation reopened and the Children to be placed with him.

4The Respondent provided a Summary Reply which provided an overview of its interaction with the Applicant as well as its responses to the Applicant’s concerns. In addition, the Respondent provided a copy of a letter which was sent to the Applicant on December 11, 2020 addressing the verification decision and the reasons for closing the file.

THE LAW

5Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure (the “Rules”) indicates that within 20 days of determining eligibly, the CFSRB will:

a) make its decision based on the application and the response; or

b) decide to hold a hearing.

6Rule 24.2 indicates that the hearing: “may proceed in person, by telephone or other form of electronic technology, in writing or by any combination of those forms the CFSRB considers appropriate, unless a party satisfies the CFSRB that there is good reason not to proceed in writing or that proceeding by telephone or other electronic technology will cause significant prejudice”.

7Rule 8.1 indicates that the CFSRB has discretion to conduct hearings in writing after considering several factors which include: fairness and accessibility; efficiency in the process; convenience of the parties; and whether oral testimony is likely to be needed.

ANALYSIS

8In analyzing the claim, I focused on issues:

1. Whether the CRSRB had jurisdiction to proceed with a written hearing;

2. Whether the Applicant’s concerns were heard by the Respondent; and

3. Whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with sufficient reasons for its decisions.

Written Hearing

9The complaint was found eligible on December 3, 2020. As such, a written review falls within the 22.1 of the Rules.

10The Applicant resides in Alberta. The issues involved in the Application are sufficiently narrow and are fact based. The Respondent provided a detailed response to the Applicant’s allegations. Additional oral testimony is not required to decide the Application.

11Bearing in mind issues of efficiency and convenience, and the provisions of Rules 8.1; 22.1, and 24.2, I have decided that a written review in this case would be most appropriate.

Were the Applicant’s Concerns Heard

12The Applicant alleged that the Respondent did not hear his concerns regarding the health and safety of the Children; and his concerns regarding their attendance in counselling/therapy.

13After reviewing the evidence before me, I find that the Summary Reply to the complaint, the letter sent to the Applicant on December 11, 2020; and the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process afforded the Applicant with multiple opportunities to have his concerns heard by frontline and management staff.

14The Applicant expressed his concerns to the Respondent on several occasions:

• Telephone call to the Respondent on July 29, 2020 outlining concerns related to the Children being in the care of their mother

• E-mail dated August 28, 2020 including allegations of physical and psychological abuse

• Telephone call on September 2, 2020 including allegations of the Children’s step-father’s drinking and marijuana use, and threats of abuse to the Children

• Telephone conversation on October 9. 2020 relating to the Applicant’s interactions and communication with one daughter; and the Worker’s explanation of the verification decision (exposure to adult conflict) and closing of the file

• Closing letter advising of the outcome of the investigation and encouraging the Applicant to contact the Screening Department sent on October 20, 2020

• Call to the Society Director of Investigation and Ongoing Services on November 16, 2020 wherein the Applicant voiced his concerns about historic abuse

• Call from the Director on November 24, 2020 informing the Applicant that the Children’s file had been reviewed and that it would not be re-opened

• ICRP Complaint submitted by the Applicant on November 26, 2020 and ICRP meeting on December 11, 2020

15The Respondent verified that the Children were exposed to parental conflict, but they were not exposed to a risk of harm or neglect while in the home of their mother and step-father.

16The Applicant expressed concerns regarding the attendance of the Children at counselling/therapy. The Summary Response indicated that these concerns were heard and investigated by the Respondent. The Summary Response indicated that the Children attended The Play Clinic which provides therapeutic services for children. One daughter, (K) attended 3 sessions with the Play Clinic and the counsellor indicated that she would continue working with K. The other daughter’s (M) counsellor did not note any immediate concerns. The family has also agreed to enter family counselling with an emphasis on the relationship between the Children and their step-father. Respondent workers discussed the impact of conflict and negative parenting behaviours on the mental health of the Children with both parents. The Children’s counsellors and school were also interviewed regarding the Children’s mental health.

17I find that the Applicant was given multiple opportunities to express his concerns to the Respondent, and that the Respondent’s frontline staff and management were open to hearing the Applicant’s concerns.

18This is a case where the Applicant simply disagrees with the verification finding. I note that the CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to overturn a children’s aid society’s verification finding as per section 120(7) of the Act and to have the children returned to his custody. I also note that the Applicant’s ex-partner attended Court in Alberta to have the Children returned to her. Presumably, if the Applicant had concerns about the health and safety of the Children, he would have had the opportunity to raise these concerns at Court.

19For the reasons outlined above, I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns.

Was the Applicant Provided Reasons

20The documents provided by the Respondent indicate that the Applicant was provided reasons for its verification decision as follows:

• Telephone call explaining the rationale for closing the investigation on October 9, 2020;

• Closing Letter mailed to the Applicant on October 20, 2020 advising of the outcome of the investigation

• Conversation between the Applicant and the Director of Investigation and Ongoing services on November 26, 2020 and follow-up on November 24, 2020 regarding the outcome of the investigation

• A letter dated December 11, 2020 outlining the reasons for closing the file

21I find that the Applicant was provided with the Respondent’s rationale for its verification decision on several occasions, both orally and in writing. The Summary Response and attachment also provide the Applicant with additional information explain the rationale for the Respondent’s decision. While, I do not have the Respondent’s written response to the ICRP complaint, I presume that it will also summarize the Applicant’s concerns and provide the Respondent’s rationale for its decisions.

22I find that the Applicant was provided with sufficient information in writing to help him understand the Respondent’s rationale for its verification decision. The Applicant also had the opportunity to hear from frontline and management staff during conversations regarding the rationale for its verification decision and its decision to close the file.

SUMMARY

23Based on the information before me I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard by the Respondent and that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for its verification finding and its decision to close the file. The Applicant’s desire to have the decision reopened and have the Children placed with him was not within the jurisdiction of the CFSRB.

ORDER

24The Application is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

25Pursuant 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.