SK v. Brant Family and Children’s Services, 2020 CFSRB 121

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SK Applicant

-and-

Brant Family and Children’s Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Catherine Bickley Date: December 31, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 121 Indexed As: SK v Brant Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

SK, Applicant Self-represented

Brant Family and Children’s Services, Respondent Vanessa Kaljaste, Counsel

Introduction

1These are three Applications filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

Background

2At a September 22, 2020 pre-hearing, the parties agreed to mediation and reached a settlement of all three Applications. The Settlement Agreement included an implementation date of October 21, 2020 and a non-compliance date of October 28, 2020.

3On October 15, 2020, the Respondent sent the CFSRB and the Applicant a letter pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

4On October 26, 2020, the Applicant notified the CFSRB by email that, in her view, the Respondent’s October 15, 2020 letter did not comply with some terms of the Settlement Agreement. The email also contained additional allegations and comments about the Respondent’s conduct.

5On November 25, 2020, the Respondent sent the CFSRB and the Applicant a letter which expanded upon the October 15, 2020 letter.

December 1, 2020 Teleconference

6The CFSRB scheduled a teleconference for 10 a.m. on December 1, 2020 to give the parties an opportunity to discuss, and potentially resolve, the Applicant’s allegations of non-compliance.

7The Respondent attended the teleconference. The Applicant did not. I waited until 10:15 a.m. in case the Applicant had been delayed.

8The Applicant later told the CFSRB that she had dialed in at 10 a.m. and heard a message stating the call had not yet started. She then hung up and when she dialed back in there was no-one on the line. As the teleconference continued from 10 a.m. (or a few seconds after) until 10:15 a.m., the Applicant’s second dial in was sometime after 10:15 a.m.

Hearing Format

9Rules 8.1 and 8.2 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure permit the CFSRB to conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or video-conference or through a combination of formats. Given the Applicant’s absence from the December 1, 2020 teleconference, and the detailed written material provided by both parties I find that it is appropriate to determine this matter on the basis of the parties’ written submissions.

Analysis

10The Applicant alleges the Respondent has not complied with terms 3b, 5 and 6. I will examine each in turn.

Term 3b

11Term 3b required the Respondent to respond to the Applicant’s concern that the service plan shared with her was “vague and non-specific”.

12In the October 15, 2020 letter, the Respondent stated the following:

The service plan would be seen as vague as the applicant received the initial copy and prior to review. In light of significant updates, this plan will be reviewed and changes made accordingly.

13In the November 25, 2020 letter, the Respondent provided a more detailed answer. The Respondent stated the service plan was vague because the Applicant does not have an open file with the Respondent. Further, “[a]lthough the plan does not specifically separate the parents by name, it is documented that the parents assist [the child] separately as there is a current no contact order”. The letter outlines the plan’s expectations for each parent “to ensure [the child’s] mental and emotional needs are met” and “to seek age appropriate programming in supporting [the child’s] needs in dealing with post separation conflict”.

14I find the Respondent has responded adequately, in the November 25, 2020 letter, to the Applicant’s concern that the service plan was “vague and non-specific”. As such, it has complied with Term 3b.

Term 5

15Term 5 required the Respondent to provide “a written outline of the reasons why the Society views that there is ongoing parental conflict”.

16In the October 15, 2020 letter, the Respondent stated the following regarding term 5:

The Society recognizes that the reported concerns do come from [the Applicant], as [the Applicant’s child] discloses them to her, and it’s these reported concerns for [the child’s father’s] ability to protect [the child] that constitutes the conflict in parenting.

17In the November 25, 2020 letter, the Respondent explained that “[t]he post separation parental conflict (3.1 C of the Eligibility Spectrum) mentioned in the response is the coding under which the file opened to ongoing services in addition to the ongoing conflict between [the Applicant] and [the child’s father].

18In my view, neither letter provides a clear explanation of the reasons why the Society views that there is ongoing parental conflict. The October 15, 2020 letter is unclear but seems to suggest that reports by the Applicant of disclosures from her child amount to parental conflict. The November 25, 2020 letter simply states there is ongoing conflict without providing the reasons for that conclusion.

19I find the Respondent has not provided “a written outline of the reasons why the Society views that there is ongoing parental conflict”. As such, it has not complied with Term 5.

Term 6

20Term 6 asked the Respondent to state what it “proposes as a communication model for regular contacts between the Applicant and the Society, absent a crisis situation”. The Term noted that the Applicant “would have a preference for such regular communication to be in writing, supplemented if needed by a subsequent discussion.”

21In the October 15, 2020 letter, the Respondent acknowledged the Applicant’s request to communicate in writing but stated “this is not an effective form of communication” and proposed “all communication, either phone call or virtually, have a band representative present”. The Respondent also stated “The written communication can be completed when acknowledging appointments”.

22In the November 25, 2020 letter, the Respondent agreed to communicate with the Applicant by letter.

23As the Respondent has now agreed to the communication format that the Applicant prefers, there is no basis for an allegation of non-compliance with respect to this term.

Other allegations

24The Applicant’s October 26, 2020 email contains comments about the Respondent’s conduct unrelated to the content of the Settlement Agreement. Those comments are not relevant to the determination of whether the Respondent has complied with the Settlement Agreement and will not be addressed in this decision.

Conclusion

25I find the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement with the exception of Term 5.

ORDER

26Within 14 days of the date of this decision, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with a written outline of the reasons why it views that there is ongoing parental conflict.

Confidentiality Order

27Pursuant 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 these Applications 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.