SM v. Brant Family and Children’s Services, 2020 CFSRB 54

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SM Applicant

-and-

Brant Family and Children’s Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: June 04, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 54 Indexed As: SM v Brant Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

SM, Applicant Self-Represented Karen Hill, Band Representative Lenora Gilbert, Ganohkwrasra

Brant Family and Children’s Services, Respondent Inge Packul, CFSRB Coordinator, Representative Kim Fraser, Service Manager Sarah Robertson, Service Manager Amanda Hatton, Children’s Service Worker Caroline Gordon, Intake/Family Service Worker

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant and Brant Family and Children’s Services (the Respondent) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on December 9, 2019, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in the Application, received on October 1, 2019, by the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The Agreement contained 24 Terms which contained questions which the Society agreed to answer. The Settlement Agreement had an implementation date of January 14, 2020, and a non-compliance date of January 21, 2020.

3The Society sent the Applicant a letter on January 14, 2020 with its responses to the Terms outlined in the Agreement. The Applicant responded with an e-mail dated January 20, 2020 in which she alleged that the Respondent had been non-compliant. The Applicant indicated that she was not satisfied with the reasons given by the Society and provided comments on specific terms. In this e-mail, the Applicant also indicated that she had requested to withdraw her consent to the Settlement within 24 hours of signing it. She was also under the understanding that she could add additional Terms from her application. She indicated that she was informed by the facilitator that she could not add any additional items because of the time of the day. The Applicant indicated that she felt pressured to sign the agreement as she would be deemed uncooperative. She also requested assistance with her Human Rights Code-related needs. Finally, she requested that information be corrected in her file and that a letter of disagreement be attached.

4In subsequent communications with the CFSRB, the Applicant also alleged that the facilitator’s writing was difficult to read and that she thought that questions included were taken out and rephrased. The Applicant also wanted to withdraw from the mediation process and move to a hearing. She wanted access to a formal appeal process. The Applicant was also concerned that she was informed by the CFSRB that she would have 3 hours for the Compliance Teleconference and that she may want to review the Terms and focus on those which were most important to her. The Applicant also wanted to raise new or additional issues that were not included in the initial complaint. Finally, she was concerned that she had been denied access to the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process by the Respondent.

5The CFSRB indicated to the Applicant in several communications that she would have 20 minutes at the beginning of the Compliance Teleconference to state her concerns. The CFSRB member would then consider her concerns and address them in the written decision.

6In accordance with the CFSRB’s procedures, when there is an allegation of non-compliance, the CFSRB will hold a hearing by teleconference (the “Teleconference”) to determine whether the Society has complied with the Agreement. This Teleconference occurred on June 2, 2020.

DECISION

7After reviewing the materials submitted by the parties, and hearing their arguments, I find that the Respondent has met its commitments and obligations as set out in the Agreement and as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”) for Terms: 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20 and 21. The Respondent was partially compliant in is responses for Terms 3, 7, 9, 10, 13 and 22 . The Respondent is directed to provide additional responses for these terms as outlined below. I found that I did not have sufficient information before me to decide on compliance issues related to Term 12. The Applicant did not raise any non-compliance allegations with Terms 16, 19, 23 and 24.

8The reasons for my findings are as follows.

ANALYSIS

The Law

9The CFSRB found the Application to be eligible for review under section 120 of the Act. The Act outlines the rights of Applicants, the duties and obligations of Children’s Aid Societies, and the mandate of the CFSRB.

10Section 120(4) of the Act reads as follows:

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2).
2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
3. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2).
5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
6. Such other matters as may be prescribed.

Subsection 120(7) indicates that: After reviewing the complaint, the Board may,

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant (e) dismiss the complaint

11The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or validity of a decision made by a Society in any given situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.

12In an allegation of non-compliance, an Applicant’s statement of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society does not negate or invalidate those reasons.

The Teleconference

13At the start of the teleconference, I asked if there were any preliminary matters to discuss. The Applicant expressed her concerns with the Settlement Agreement process. I explained that there was no statutory appeal of the CFSRB’s non-compliance decisions and that the Applicant’s agreement to a full settlement on December 9, 2019 meant that she did not have access to move to a hearing on the merits of her Application. If the Applicant had any additional concerns, she could include them in a new application to the CFSRB or in the ICRP complaint.

PRELIMINARY/PROCEDURAL ISSUES

14The Applicant was provided an opportunity to put forward her concerns with the Settlement Agreement Process outlined in paragraphs 2 and 3 above.

15At the onset of the Compliance Teleconference, I made a ruling that the Applicant could not opt out of the Settlement Agreement as the Agreement was binding once she signed it. The CFSRB does not provide for a “cooling-off” period for Settlement Agreements.

16The Applicant indicated at the onset of the Compliance Teleconference that there had been a discussion with the parties at the hearing regarding the use of the words “parental assessment” versus the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program (CAAP). She alleged that all parties agreed to the use of the words “parental assessment” as a prerequisite for her participation in the Settlement Facilitation. A review of the notes of the Settlement Facilitation and the Pre-Hearing/Mediation Report dated December 10, 2019 do not reflect this discussion or agreement. The Settlement Agreement addresses the issue of an assessment in Term 8.

17I considered the Applicant’s remaining concerns and have found the following:

• The Applicant was not rushed through the Settlement Facilitation Process. She was provided ample opportunity to review all drafts of the Settlement Agreement before signing it. The Settlement Agreement was lengthy with 24 questions, and 15 sub-questions totalling 39 items. The number of items in the Agreement, on their face, is evidence that the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to have her concerns heard. In addition, after having drafted a Settlement Agreement with 39 questions, it is nonsensical that the 2 members would rush or force the Applicant into signing an Agreement as they had invested significant time and energy in ensuring that the Agreement represented the Applicant’s concerns. At no time were the members asked by the Applicant and/or her support person to go beyond the allotted time for the mediation. In fact, given the time already invested, the members would have extended the time until all parties were comfortable with the Terms. For these reasons, I find that the Applicant has not demonstrated that she was denied an opportunity to include all of her concerns in the Settlement Agreement.
• The Settlement process was facilitated by 2 CFSRB members. Under no circumstances would 2 members indicate that the Settlement Agreement was anything other than a final resolution to the issues in the complaint, and that the Applicant could modify the signed agreement (add new issues) after it was signed. In addition, there are no provisions in the Compliance process for proceedings to move from a mediated settlement to a hearing.
• The Applicant had the assistance of a Band Representative for the morning of the Settlement Facilitation, and the assistance of a representative from the Brant Regional Indigenous Support Centre (BRISC). BRISC provides indigenous families with assistance to navigate family law proceedings. The BRISC representative introduced herself as a Court Worker. At the Compliance Teleconference, the Applicant indicated that the Court Worker was not her legal representative. While the Court Worker was acting in a supportive capacity, she took an active role in supporting the Applicant throughout the Settlement Facilitation Proceedings and was present at the time that the Applicant signed the Settlement Agreement. As such, I find that the Applicant had the support and assistance from a legal worker whose knowledge base of law is presumably greater than the average bystander throughout the Settlement Agreement Process on December 9, 2019.
• The Applicant failed to provide any examples of discrepancies, omissions, or significant omissions between the handwritten Settlement Agreement and the typed version distributed the next day. The Applicant had an opportunity to review and ask questions of clarification on the handwritten Agreement at the mediation session. She failed to do so. Given the lack of evidence of any discrepancies between the handwritten and typed Agreement, I cannot find that the Applicant was unable to read the handwritten agreement and that she agreed to a Settlement that changed.
• The Applicant indicated that she feared being labelled as uncooperative and therefore, she felt forced to sign the Settlement. At no point did the Applicant indicate to the 2 members that she felt pressure to sign the Agreement. As such, the Applicant’s undisclosed feelings were not relevant to determining whether or not she signed a binding agreement.
• The CYFSA does not provide for an internal appeal of section 119 and 120 complaints under the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”). The compliance process is one that has been developed by the CFSRB and is not covered in the Act or regulations.
• The Applicant’s concerns related to the ICRP process are premature. The Applicant was encouraged to submit an ICRP on the form specified in the Regulations. If the Respondent fails to adhere to the process outlined in section 119 of the Act, the Applicant can then submit a complaint to the CFSRB. Issues of corrections and disagreements related to the content of her file must be raised with the Respondent and can be appealed to the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.
• The CFSRB does not provide assistance or advice to Applicants regarding applications to court or other tribunals.

Terms of the Agreement

Term 1: Please provide Ms. M with an explanation for the Society’s handling of the events of June 18 and 28, 2019 regarding Ms. M’s concerns about K’s alleged suicidal threats. In particular, please address:

a) Why the June 18, 2019 appointment with Ms. G was cancelled? b) Why Ms. M was not provided with copies of texts from K? c) Why Ms. G did not remain at the meeting on June 28, 2019? d) Why Ms. M was not allowed to place K in the Youth Lodge? e) Why was K asked if he wanted to move with D?

18The Applicant alleged that the Respondent was not compliant in relation to Items c, d, and e. She indicated that the Respondent’s response to Item c was false. With respect to Item d, the Applicant indicated that she was not able to take her son to the Youth Lodge as this required 5 days’ notice to the CAS. Her son wanted to go but was impeded by respondent staff who indicated that the Youth Lodge was like a juvenile detention centre. With respect to Item e, the Applicant indicated that the Respondent had placed in her son’s head the idea that he could go to his aunt’s home.

19The Respondent indicated that Ms G was present for the entire meeting on June 28, 2019. In addition, the Applicant was able to bring her son to the Youth Lodge; however, he went to his aunt’s home on his own accord. The Applicant’s son has a right to participate in decisions about his care. He did not want to stay at the Youth Lodge. The Applicant’s son also did not want to have any contact with the Applicant.

20I find that there are substantive differences in the recollection of both parties around the meeting of June 28, 2019. I do not have to decide on the content of the differences, rather, I have to comment on whether the Applicant was provided with an adequate explanation by the Respondent (sufficient information to understand why and how a decision was made).

21In this case, I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with an explanation for the events around the relocation of the Applicant’s son. As such, I find that the Respondent complied with Term 1 of the Settlement Agreement.

Term 2: Why was K informed by the Society that the Youth Lodge program proposed by Ms. M was like a juvenile detention centre?

22The Respondent indicated that the Applicant’s son was not informed by its staff that the Youth Lodge was like a juvenile detention centre. The Applicant indicated that this was not true. Again, I find that there is a fundamental disagreement related to facts. The Applicant was provided with the Respondent’s response to the question. As such, I find that the Respondent complied with Term 2 of the Settlement Agreement.

Term 3: What supports can Ms. M receive from the Society to help her build a relationship with K?

23The Applicant indicated that the response did not address the supports that she could receive to help build a relationship with her son. The Respondent’s comments related to the counselling her son received are irrelevant as they do not address the core of the question. The Respondent has been unwilling to discuss counselling or services for the Applicant.

24The Respondent indicated that staff discussed counselling supports with the Applicant on several occasions. The Applicant informed staff that she received counselling through Charlene Ninham. The Applicant’s son refused counselling with his mother since June of 2016. The Band Representative recently offered counselling for the Applicant and her son. The Respondent indicated that the Applicant’s son has a choice in whether or not he wants to participate in counselling.

25The question directly refers to the supports that the Respondent can provide the Applicant at present. I find the response addressed the Applicant’s past history of counselling as well as comments on potential future counselling through the Band. I find that the response was not fulsome in relation to what supports it can provide the Applicant at present to help build her relationship with her son. While the Applicant’s son may not wish to be involved in counselling, it is conceivable that interventions aimed at improving the relationship could be implemented with the Applicant alone.

26Given the response focused on past efforts, and efforts of third parties, and not what the Respondent can do at present, I find that the Respondent was not fully compliant in respect of Term 3.

Term 4: What has the Society done to follow-up on Ms. M’s expressed concerns that K was exposed to possible sexual assault and marijuana while he was living at D’s home between October 2018 and January 2019?

27The Respondent indicated that it had no specific information in relation to the allegations of sexual assault and marijuana use by the Applicant’s son while he lived at D’s home. The Applicant’s son had been interviewed on several occasions and did not disclose any sexual assault allegations while at D’s home. The Applicant maintained that D had admitted that the Applicant’s son had been provided marijuana by his cousin to bribe him to attend school. In addition, the Applicant maintained that her son was not asked about a sexual assault and therefore he would have nothing to disclose.

28Again, there is a disagreement about the facts related to the allegations. I find that the Society has provided an adequate response to the Applicant’s question in Term 4.

Term 5: What has the society done to follow-up on Ms. M’s and her grandmother’s expressed concerns regarding alleged sexual assault of M reported by Ms. M to Ms. G in July 2019 and September 2019?

29The Respondent indicated that the Applicant’s daughter had been interviewed by the Brantford Police and Respondent staff and did not disclose any sexual assault. The Applicant indicated that her daughter had not been interviewed by the police. In addition, she indicated that her children keep referring to “it” in relation to something that has happened; however, they do not define what “it” is.

30The Respondent clarified that the Item may refer to 2 different incidents. The children were not interviewed by police; however, attempts to have them interviewed by police were made. Both children were interviewed by Respondent staff and did not make any disclosures of sexual assault. Sexual assault incidents were not raised at the family circle.

31The Respondent has clarified the role of the Brantford Police in relation to interviews. The Respondent has interviewed both children and engaged in a family circle and no disclosures of sexual assault were made.

32I find that the Respondent has provided the Applicant with an explanation at the Compliance Teleconference as to what the Respondent has done to follow-up on reports of possible sexual assaults. While the Applicant believes that the Respondent should have gone further in its exploration of the allegations, the Respondent did provide a sufficient response to the question in Term 5.

Term 6: With regard to access, can the Society provide Ms. M with explanations for the following:

a) How it has used its discretion in relation to the frequency, nature, and timing of supervised access for Ms. M in relation to all her children? b) What Ms. M needs to do to satisfy the Society’s concerns regarding her access to all the children? c) Why Ms. M’s access visits have been shortened to 5:30 while her grandmother has access until 6:00 for L and S? d) Why has the Society allowed E, B, and C authority and discretion regarding supervised access visits by Ms. M as well as the supervisors of these visits? e) Why does Ms. M have 2 supervisors? f) What can Ms. M do to remove the condition of 2 supervisors?

33The Applicant indicated that the Respondent did not provide her with an answer to her questions and did not tell her how the Respondent used its discretion in relation to court ordered access, and why the Applicant has 2 supervisors. The Applicant also indicated that the response did not inform the Applicant what she could do to have increased, unsupervised access to her children.

34The Respondent outlined the court ordered access requirements. It indicated that the Applicant needed to demonstrate positive interactions with the children; mitigate conflict with other adults; demonstrate an ability to meet the needs of the children; and attend counselling to address mental health, relationships, coping, parenting supports; attend counseling to rebuild relationships with the children; mitigate concerns in relation to domestic violence and substance misuse; and provide structure and routine for the children. The response also discussed the current access visits and schedule. It reiterated that the Respondent discusses access issues to inform its decisions but that the Respondent makes the final decisions regarding supervised access based on the safety and well-being of the children. The response also provided a rationale for requiring 2 supervisors, including the issue of false allegations and the need to establish trust between the Applicant and Respondent staff. The Respondent also indicated that further details related to custody and access requirements are included in the Plan of Care which is before the Court and which is accessible to the Applicant.

35I find that the responses were sufficient to provide the Applicant with information regarding how and why access decisions were made. It clearly identified what the Respondent saw as concerns with the Applicant’s parenting; and its authority to decide access based on the safety and well-being of children. It addressed the rationale for having 2 supervisors. As such, I find the Respondent is compliant with Item 6.

36I find, however, that both parties would benefit from continued discussion of the Respondent’s expectations regarding the Applicant’s parenting, mental health, and behaviour to provide her with specific, achievable benchmarks regarding the expectations, although this is outside of the purview of compliance.

Term 7: Why has the Society not defended the children’s rights to learn about and become involved in Indigenous culture e.g. in reference to comments by C and E J?

37The Applicant alleged that her request to have the children participate in Indigenous culture was not supported by the Respondent at a meeting with E. The Respondent has since changed its position.

38The Respondent indicated that it consistently reiterated the children’s right to learn about their culture and other cultures, including at the meeting with E. The Applicant indicated that the minutes of the meeting said otherwise.

39I find that the Respondent partially addressed the Applicant’s question regarding the Respondent’s role in promoting Indigenous culture among the children. The Respondent could have provided more details on its efforts such as through CPIN notes, correspondence with the fathers/caregivers etc. As such, I find that the Respondent has partially complied with Term 7.

Term 8: Why has the Society moved on with the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program (CAAP) process without considering the alternatives proposed by Ms. M?

40The Applicant wanted to understand why the Respondent is insisting on the CAAP and why it has not considered the alternative parenting capacity suggestions that are culturally appropriate presented by the Applicant.

41The Respondent explained that it was interested in the impact of maltreatment on children. The Applicant has not provided alternatives that would achieve this outcome. The Respondent has not proposed a parenting capacity assessment.

42The parties agreed that a meeting should be held between them, including with the Band and/or other supports to further discuss this issue. Despite this agreement, I find that the Respondent has explained the rationale for the involvement of the CAAP as well as why it has not addressed the alternatives presented by the Applicant. As such, the Respondent has complied with Item 8.

Term 9: Why have the children not been provided counselling and other services outside the Society after Ms. M refused to consent to their being provided services by the Society?

43The Applicant indicated that her other children (besides K) want counselling and have not been provided it. The Applicant has also suggested other services and has not been provided a reason as to why the requests have not been approved.

44The Respondent indicated that children are engaged in activities outside the Respondent and that counselling has been offered and the children have refused to attend.

45I find that the Respondent’s response to this Item was not specific. For example, the Respondent provided a blanket statement that the children have been offered and refused counselling. This does not provide the Applicant with sufficient information to understand what services her children have been provided and why.

Term 10: Why has Ms. M not been provided with supportive services by the Society e.g. parenting supports?

46The Applicant indicated that she has not been offered any supportive services by the Respondents. The Response does not indicate what efforts the Respondent has made.

47The Respondent indicated that the Applicant has been provided support through a family service worker and the Respondent has made efforts to work with the Applicant and external support services to address outstanding protection concerns.

48I find that the response to Term 10 could be enhanced by providing further detail on the nature and frequency of specific supports the Applicant can expect from the Society, especially as it relates to her parenting capacity. As such, I find that the Respondent has partially met Term 10.

Term 11: Why was the Band Representative not made aware of the child protection investigation related to M and K until one month after it began?

49The Applicant indicated that the Respondent did not answer her question. She indicated that the Respondent has inconsistently involved the Band in meetings and interviews with her and her children. The Respondent indicated that the Band was involved throughout the investigation, and child protection process.

50There seems to be a difference of opinion related to whether or not, and when the children were deemed members of the Six Nations Band and when the Band deemed that it would be involved in the child protection matters. The Respondent attempted to explain its position at the Compliance Teleconference. There Applicant did not accept the explanation.

51I find that there was not a meeting of the minds in relation to Term 11; however, the Respondent did provide the Applicant with an explanation for when and how it involved the Band in its child protection activities.

Term 12: Why was the Band Representative not given an opportunity to be with the children when they were interviewed (interviews since March of 2018)?

52The Respondent indicated that the children were not members of the Six Nations Band and that the Band initially advised that they did not have a role with the children. The Applicant indicated that the children were members of the Band and that the Band was not informed that the Respondent was interviewing the children.

53The Respondent asked for clarification regarding dates and particular interviews. The Applicant indicated that the interviews were between July 2 and August 31, 2019.

54I find that the question was not specific enough and that some inconsistency in the parties’ understanding of when and how the Band is to be involved. As such, I am unable to find that the Respondent was not in compliance with Term 12.

Term 13: Can the Society provide an explanation for its treatment of Ms. M during the incident highlighted by Ms. M at the settlement conference. Ms. M is interested in:

a) Why she was told she always lies? b) Why she was told that the Society does not believe her? c) Why she was not allowed to leave the building?

55The Respondent indicated that it had a different account of the situation and that, at no time, was the Applicant not allowed to leave the building. The Applicant indicated that she had a recording of where she was told by Respondent staff that she always lies. In addition, while she was not prevented to leave the building, an access card was required to leave, and the Applicant needed a staff person to let her out of the building. Staff did not open the door despite several requests.

56In order to decide on this Term, I do not have to address the veracity of the allegations. I find that the Respondent did not provide sufficient explanation as to why staff did not immediately allow the Applicant to leave the building. In addition, the Respondent’s response relating to sub questions a and b was not sufficient. The Respondent’s position could have been supported by additional information such as CPIN or meeting notes etc. The Respondent has not complied with Term 13.

Term 14: What can the Society do to enable Ms. M to pick up her personal effects at her grandmother’s home?

a) Will the Society facilitate this?

57The Applicant indicated that the Band Representative was unable to help her obtain her personal effects from her grandmother’s home. The response did not indicate what the Respondent could do to facilitate the Applicant’s ability to pick up her personal effects. The Applicant felt that she could not get a police escort to obtain her effects as she feared that this would be interpreted by the Society as putting the children who reside in the home at risk of emotional harm.

58The Respondent indicated that the Band Representative offered and was available to use her truck. The Respondent indicated that it would not stand in the way of the Applicant arranging to obtain her effects through the Band or with the help of police.

59The Respondent clarified its position that it would not stand in the way of the Applicant arranging the pick-up of her personal effects. The Respondent was clear that there was no need for its involvement in the situation. As such, I find that the Respondent has complied with the provisions of Term 14.

Term 15: How can the Society support Ms. M in ensuring that her children are exposed to their Christian faith?

60The Applicant indicated that as of May 2019, the Respondent has been provided with information regarding her church. The Applicant indicated that the response did not indicate how the Respondent would support the Applicant in ensuring that her children were exposed to their Christian faith.

61The Respondent indicated that the Applicant was free to participate with the children in whatever church she chose. The Respondent is agreeable with the Applicant sharing her faith with the children during access time.

62Based on the response, I find that the Respondent has been clear that it supports the Applicant attending church with her children during her access time. The Respondent has been clear that it is agreeable with the Applicant sharing her faith with the children. As such, I find that the Respondent has complied with Term 15.

Term 17: Ms. M highlighted her concerns with the behaviours of Ms. G. She feels that the Society has responded to her concerns by regarding her to have 2 supervisors.

a) How could Ms. M have handled this situation differently? b) How can this situation be resolved in a way that does not result in Ms. M requiring 2 supervisors?

63The Applicant indicated that the response did not explain the steps she needs to take in relation to access and supervision. The Respondent indicated that this question has been addressed in their answer to Term 6.

64As outlined above, I find that the Respondent has provided sufficient information to the Applicant in response to Item 6. As such, I find that the Respondent has complied with Term 17 which overlaps with Term 6.

Term 18: How has the Society responded to Ms. M’s expressed concerns regarding her grandmother’s gambling addiction and the children being at the casino past 10 p.m. in July and August of 2019 (at least 1 – 2 times per week)?

65The Applicant indicated that there was no reason for her children to be at the casino. The Respondent indicted that it could not verify the grandmother’s gambling addiction and that the children were at the casino. The Children were interviewed and did not provide information to corroborate the allegation.

66I find that this is another situation where the parties disagree on the facts. Despite this, I find that the Respondent provided an adequate response to the Applicant as to its knowledge of the grandmother’s gambling addiction and the children’s experience with being at the casino. As such, the Respondent complied with Term 18.

Term 20: Under what circumstances and when can Ms. M and her children be provided with an Indigenous Worker before her file is moved to Ogwadeni:deo?

67The Applicant indicated that the Respondent did not provide an answer to the question. She indicated that her current worker was not Indigenous and that her manager was. The Respondent confirmed that the current worker is not Indigenous. The Applicant has had Band Representative support in her dealings with the Respondent. The Respondent has attempted to have the Applicant work with the Indigenous Team and the Applicant asked to be transferred from the Team. The Respondent explained that the Applicant cannot be transferred to another team as she is currently involved in matters that are before the court. The Respondent is not prepared to transfer the Applicant’s file again before her file is transferred to Ogwadeni:deo.

68I find that the Respondent has provided an adequate explanation for why the Applicant cannot be transferred to an Indigenous worker as her matters are before the Court and based on the fact that she had previously been assigned to the Indigenous Team and she requested a transfer. As such, the Respondent has complied with Term 20.

Term 21: What can Ms. M do to?

a) Move from 2 supervisors to 1 b) Move to unsupervised visits c) Increase access time

69The Applicant indicated that she has not been told what she has to do, and that the response was vague. The Respondent indicated that the supervision issue has changed since the complaint. The Applicant has had unsupervised visits in the community. This situation has subsequently changed, and the Applicant is subject to supervised access which has been limited due to COVID-19. The Respondent also referred to its responses to Term 6.

70As above, the Applicant has been provided with an adequate response to access and supervision issues. The Respondent has complied with Term 21.

Term 22: Why did the Society decide to promote visits between A and the M family while at the same time preventing visits between the M’s and L and S?

71The Applicant alleged that the Respondent gave direction to E. The Respondent has not provided her with sufficient information regarding how and why it used its discretion regarding access. The Respondent did not indicate why it supported Mr. J.

72The Respondent indicated that it supported access visits between the M’s and L and S. EJ has indicated to the Respondent that he does not want the children to attend the Marshalls’ home. EJ has made his decision as to what access visits the children will be sent to.

73The issue of how the Respondent has exercised its duty to oversee access issues has not been clarified in this response. The Applicant wants to understand this as well as how and why some custodians have control over access issues.

74Given the lack of specificity and clarity, I find that the response did not comply with the concerns of the Applicant regarding the role of the Respondent in relation to access visits between siblings.

Term 23: A’s mother wishes her to become bilingual. Why does the Society opposed this based on her culture?

75The Applicant reported that this issue has been resolved as her daughter will attend bilingual school. As such, there are no compliance issues related to this Term.

Term 24: Ms. M made a written request for an ICRP in August of 2019.

a) What has the Society done in response to this request? b) If nothing has been done so far, when will the meeting be held?

76The Applicant has agreed to download and submit an official ICRP request to the Respondent. She indicated that this Term is no longer relevant.

ORDER

77For the reasons given, I find the Respondent has partially met its obligations to provide reasons and explanations for its decisions in accordance with the Agreement and as required under the Act.

78I direct the Respondent to provide the Applicant responses to the following 6 questions on or before July 6, 2020:

• Term 3: The Respondent provide the Applicant with a list of current, in-house supports that can be offered to support her relationship between her and her son.
• Term 7: The Respondent provide the Applicant with documentation attesting to its past efforts to promote Indigenous culture among the children, including communications to fathers/caregivers.
• Term 9: The Respondent provide additional detail about which services (counselling or otherwise) have been offered to each child, and the status of each child in relation to the services.
• Term 10: The Respondent provide the Applicant with a list of specific supports that it can provide the Applicant to address her parenting capacity.
• Term 13. The Respondent provide a more detailed explanation as to why the Applicant was not immediately allowed to leave the building. The Respondent provide more information to support its position that the Applicant was not told that she always lies, and that the Respondent’s staff do not believe her.
• Term 22: The Respondent is directed to provide the Applicant with more information to assist her understanding of its decisions regarding access between the siblings; and why and how the children’s current guardians have been afforded discretion to decide issues of access between the siblings.

79I will not close the file until I have received the Society’s responses to the questions identified above.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

80Pursuant 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.