SD v. Kunuwanimano Child and Family Services, 2020 CFSRB 90

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SD Applicant

-and-

Kunuwanimano Child and Family Services Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Judy Finlay Date: October 07, 2020 Citation: 2020 CFSRB 90 Indexed As: SD v Kunuwanimano Child and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

SD, Applicant Danica Francis, Representative

Kunuwanimano Child and Family Services, Respondent Allana McComb, Counsel

BACKGROUND

1A mediation took place by teleconference on June 15, 2020 between the Applicant and the Respondent facilitated by a Board member. The Applicant was seeking a reintegration plan with her son and alleged that the Respondent was not taking the required steps to facilitate this plan. A settlement agreement was reached which had an implementation date of August 04, 2020 and a non-compliance date of August 11, 2020.

On August 7, 2020, the Applicant wrote to the CFSRB alleging that the Respondent was not compliant with the terms of the settlement agreement specifically the introduction of unsupervised access to her son. The Respondent refuted this allegation of non-compliance on August 19, 2020.

ANALYSIS

2The terms of the settlement agreement (#1,2,3,5) indicated what was required of the Applicant in order to reinstate unsupervised access to her son. The settlement agreement also identified August 4th as the date for a meeting between the Applicant and the Society to assess the Applicant’s progress with regard to the settlement terms. If the terms were met, August 8th would be the date of the first unsupervised access visit between the Applicant and her son. In the correspondence of August 7th, the Applicant only spoke of #1 “random drug testing in which the Society worker will pick up the Applicant at her home at random times and take her to the medical centre where testing takes place” and #2 “The Applicant will proceed with a mental health assessment at the local CMHA”. She stated she had completed all the required drug screening tests and the tests were negative for drug use. She also stated that the mental health assessment had been delayed because the “Agency” had cancelled the date for the initial psychiatric assessment. The Applicant also stated that she had completed all of the other requirements outlined in the settlement terms.

3In the Respondent’s reply to the allegation of non-compliance, the Society provided evidence that the Applicant had not met the requirements of the settlement agreement. In term #1, the Respondent confirmed that the drug screening tests had been provided as agreed, however the results received by the agency indicated that “the urine sample provided was not compatible with regular urine”. The test results were provided to the Board. In the August 4th meeting with the Society, the Applicant explained what she believed to be the reason for these results i.e. a problem with her liver and/or pancreas or the fact that she had been taking antibiotics. The Society approached the family physician to confirm these explanations and the physician disputed these explanations and believed that the Applicant was tampering with her urine.

4In term # 2, the Respondent indicated that the initial psychiatric assessment was delayed because the worker from the mental health clinic who supported the Applicant was unavailable.

5In term #3, the Applicant will avoid criminal activity, the Respondent indicated that the Society’s worker had consistent evidence that “known drug users involved in criminal activity remained in the home”.

6In term #5, the Applicant will improve the condition of her home, the Society worker who visited the home, identified numerous specific examples that indicated that the Applicant’s had not improved the condition of her home i.e. clutter, dirty dishes stacked up in the sink, wood shavings on the basement floor, stuffing from toys spread around the living room, massive amounts of piled laundry, piles of unbagged garbage in the yard etc.

7The Respondent explained to the Applicant in the meeting of August 4, 2020 that due to the fact that she had not met the requirements of the settlement agreement (as described above), they were not allowing her unsupervised access with her son.

8The Board member reviewed all the correspondence provided by the Applicant, the settlement agreement and the Respondent’s response to the allegation of non- compliance to determine whether the Respondent had been in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement. The Respondent had provided documented evidence from the lab that concluded that “the concentration of the sample was not consistent with normal urine. Specimen integrity may be compromised. Collection of a fresh specimen suggested.” These results related to the June 24 and July 2 visits. Also, the physician confirmed that he believed the urine samples had been tampered with by the Applicant. Furthermore, the explanation for the delay in the initial psychiatric assessment was reasonable and out of the Society’s control. The information provided by the Respondent about the potential of known drug users residing or visiting in the Applicant’s home although not conclusive was nonetheless troubling. Finally, the information provided by the Respondent about the condition of the Applicant’s home was concerning. The information provided by the Respondent was not sufficiently disputed by the Applicant to persuade the Board member that the Applicant had met the conditions for unsupervised access as outlined in the settlement terms.

DECISION

9For these reasons, the Board is satisfied that the Respondent was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement and the file is therefore closed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

10Pursuant 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.