TH v Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex, 2020 CFSRB 75

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

TH

Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens Date: July 23, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 75 Indexed As: TH v Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

TH, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex, Respondent Jill E. Scrutton-Fulford, Counsel

INTRODUCTION

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

BACKGROUND

2On June 8, 2020, a teleconference pre-hearing was held. At that teleconference, the parties gave their verbal assent to the Participation Agreement, and agreed to proceed with a mediation session.

3At the mediation session, the Applicant identified 5 questions, seeking answers from the Society as to its reasons for decisions it had made. As is the customary practice of the CFSRB in teleconference pre-hearing mediation sessions, these questions were listed in the Settlement Agreement attached as Appendix A to the Pre-Hearing Mediation Report dated June 12, 2020. These questions were based on the Applicant’s expressed consent to be so listed. The Pre-Hearing Report with the attached Settlement Agreement was e-mailed on June 12, 2020 by the CFSRB to the parties. The compliance date was set at July 7, 2020 and the non-compliance date was set at July 16, 2020.

4The child involved in this Application is the Applicant’s daughter (“the Child”), who will be 5 years old late this summer.

5Within three days of the CFSRB e-mailing the Settlement Agreement to the parties, and before the Society had submitted its response, the Applicant sent six emails to the CFSRB and/or to the Society objecting to the Settlement Agreement as circulated on June 12, 2020.

6The Applicant’s first email stated as follows:

Hello I [Applicant’s name] as well as [child’s mother name] do not agree with any settlement that doesn’t involve [child’s name] living full time with us the parents. Thank you.

7The five other e-mails from the Applicant were consistent with the above in their messaging.

8Another e-mail was sent by the Applicant, dated June 28, 2020. The Applicant wrote lengthy comments about wanting the Child to return home, and made a number of complaints about the Child being in foster care.

THE LAW

9The Act outlines the Society’s obligations, and the mandate of the CFSRB. Section 120 reads as follows:

120(4) The following may be reviewed by the Board under this section:

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.

120(7) 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.

10The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the merits of a decision made by the Society in the given situation for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.

11The Act does not provide for an applicant’s statement of disagreement or dissatisfaction with the reasons given by the Society to negate or invalidate that the Society did give written reasons as required by the Act.

THE CURRENT SITUATION

12At no point in the Applicant’s emails does he allege that the Society did not give responses to the questions posed in the Settlement Agreement, as the Society is required to do to meet its obligations under the Act and its undertakings in the Settlement Agreement. The six e-mails had been sent before the Society submitted its response to the Applicant. The Society’s response was submitted on June 23, well before the compliance date of July 7, 2020.

13As of the July 16 non-compliance date in the Settlement Agreement, the Applicant had not made any allegation of non-compliance by the Society relating to its response which gives its reasons for decisions made in this case.

14At the time of the Pre-Hearing on June 8, 2020, the Child was in the care of the Society. The Applicant was not in agreement with this situation, and he and the Child’s mother were trying to get the Child returned to them. The Settlement Agreement does not decide whether or not the Child is in the care of the Society or the parent – that is a decision made by the Court.

15Most of the questions in the Settlement Agreement focussed on what the Applicant believed to be shortcomings in the care his Child was receiving in the foster home where she was placed, including whether the Child was receiving the medical care that she required. Two questions also dealt with the future of the Child, and the Applicant’s awareness of the Society’s plans to ask for an extension of wardship at the next court hearing. Specifically, one question asked the Society what he and the Child’s mother would need to achieve, to get the Society to change its plans to ask the court for an extension of wardship. The last question focussed on the possibility of the Society not changing its recommendation to the court, and asking for the Society’s assistance in ensuring that access visits for the parents with the Child could occur in a way that would be most in line with the best interests of the Child.

16The CFSRB has no role in determining whether the Child will remain in the care of the Society for the immediate future or for the long-term. This decision is made solely by the Court and any such decisions are outside of the jurisdiction of the CFSRB. The Applicant may wish to review the extensive documentation about the past court hearing process that was submitted to him by the Society in its correspondence dated May 21, 2020.

FINDING

17Having reviewed the e-mails submitted by the Applicant, I find that he has not made an allegation of non-compliance. Given the absence of any allegation of non-compliance after the date for such allegations, I find that the Society has met its obligations under the Act and under the Settlement Agreement.

18The CFSRB file on this matter is now closed.

19As to the content of the referenced e-mails from the Applicant, I recognize that the Applicant may be confused about the role of the Court and the role of the CFSRB, and I trust that my comments have helped clarify the issue.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

20Pursuant 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.