DW v. Family & Children’s Services Niagara, 2020 CFSRB 48

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

DW Applicant

-and-

Family & Children’s Services Niagara Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: May 15, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 48 Indexed As: DW v Family & Children’s Services Niagara (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

DW, Applicant Self-represented

Family & Children’s Services Niagara, Respondent Maggie Scull, Counsel

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

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 s. 120(4)5 of the Act: The Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for decisions that affected her interests.

3The Applicant is the paternal grandmother of W (the “Child”). The Application outlined the following:

• Concerns regarding alleged physical abuse of the Child by her mother’s new boyfriend;
• Concerns that the Applicant’s explanation for not reporting suspected abuse to CAS was not heard by the worker;
• Concerns regarding the Society’s failure to broker access to the Child, including on Christmas and Family Day;
• Concerns regarding possible mediation given that the Applicant was threatened by the Child’s mother never to see the Child again, and the maternal grandmother deleted the Applicant from Messenger;
• Concerns that the Applicant’s attempts to communicate with the Respondent were not followed-up;
• Historical concerns regarding the apprehension of the Applicant’s own children in the past; requirement for supervised access; forced urine testing; failure to provide ongoing support for her parenting and family; failure to explore placement of the children with the Applicant’s parents; being told to hand over parental rights by Respondent staff; and how the Respondent dealt with evidence from the Applicant’s psychiatrist; and
• Concerns with the long-term impact of the Society’s treatment of her family on her children.

4In its Summary Reply, the Respondent argued that the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to review issues regarding access as these were issues that were before the Court or were decided by the Court (section 120.8(a)). The Applicant was not a parent and therefore did not receive services from the Respondent. In the event that the complaint was deemed eligible, the Respondent argued that it complied with its obligations towards the Applicant under section 120(4)(5). In addition, the Respondent indicated that the Applicant’s child protection concerns were investigated.

5In an Interim Decision dated March 3, 2020, the CFSRB found that the Applicant was not entitled to reasons from the Respondent regarding suspected concerns of abuse of her grand daughter as the Applicant was found to be a referent and not a recipient of service.

6In addition, the CFSRB found that issues of access to the grand daughter were before the Court or have been decided by the Court. As such, the CFSRB could not deal with any access or temporary care issues which were exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Court as per Section 120(8)(a) of the Act outlined in paragraph 4 (above).

7The CFSRB also found that the Respondent provided the Applicant with sufficient reasons for its decision-making around access to the Child.

8The CFSRB found; however, that the Applicant was not provided with an explanation as to why her Christmas 2019 access request was denied.

9The CFSRB also found that the CFSRB had jurisdiction to review the following historical aspects of the Applicant’s complaint:

1. Any concerns with the apprehension of her sons;
2. Concerns with the requirement for supervised access;
3. Concerns related to how the Respondent addressed alleged psychiatric concerns for the Applicant, the evidence provided by the psychiatrist, and the clean urine tests;
4. Concerns with the lack of supports provided by the Respondent to the Applicant and her family;
5. Concerns of how she was treated (told to give up her parental rights) by Respondent staff;
6. Concerns that her parents were not considered kin placements for her children; and
7. Concerns related to the long-term impact of the Respondent’s actions on her children.

10Following a pre-hearing teleconference on April 14, 2020, the parties were directed to provide written submissions on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the historical issues; whether the Applicant was provided with reasons for the denial of the Christmas 2019 visit with her grand daughter; and whether the Application should be addressed in writing, verbally, or any combination of methods.

11The Applicant’s submissions addressed what she viewed as inconsistencies or inaccuracies in the Respondent’s submissions and supporting evidence. In addition, the Applicant raised issues and concerns that were not included