CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JC

Applicant

-and-

Family & Children’s Services of Renfrew County

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Silvia Novak

Date: November 03, 2020

Citation: 2020 CFSRB 95

Indexed As: JC v Family & Children’s Services of Renfrew County (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

JC, Applicant

Self-represented

Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County, Respondent

Caitlyn Symsyk-Deker, Counsel

Introduction

Introduction

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 Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) found the Application eligible under subsections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

the law

The Law

3Section 120(8)(a) of the Act states:

The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,

(a) is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court.

4The Ontario Court of Appeal ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441, that the mere existence of a child protection proceeding does not automatically bar the CFSRB from reviewing a complaint about the services an individual has received from a children’s aid society. In DD the Court found that complaints about how the children’s aid society had handled the temporary placement of the applicant’s children could proceed before the CFSRB. Those complaints “were separate and different from the substantive issues before the court” (para 35).

BACKGROUND

Background

5The Applicant is the father of a 3-year-old child who is in the care of her mother. The Applicant feels the Society failed to listen to his concerns and failed to give him reasons for decisions that affect him. He does not feel it is in his daughter’s best interests to live with her mother. He also feels the Society failed to provide him with reasons for a decision which affected his interests, namely their decision not to verify child protection concerns and return the child to her mother’s care.

6The Respondent noted, “This is the exact issue that was before the court on March 30, 2020 and will once again be adjudicated by the Honourable Madam Justice Fraser on September 30, 2020.” The Respondent indicated they intended on making submissions in that matter despite not being a party. Although they did not include a copy, they noted, the Applicant’s Affidavit in support of the new Motion “very closely mirror the fact provided in…. [his]…CFSRB complaint. Namely, he is upset the FCSRC has not been more intrusive” and has not removed the child from the mother’s care despite the history of concerns.

7In her endorsement from March 30, 2020, Justice Fraser wrote, “It could be that whether there is a protection concern or not, the circumstances of the recent events would dictate that it is in [child’s] best interest that there be a change in her primary care…given the potential disruption…. I conclude it would be premature to make any changes at this time”

8In response to the Respondent’s submissions, the Applicant reiterated he feels the Society has not heard his concerns about the mother and has not taken greater steps to ensure his child’s safety and wellbeing.

analysis

Analysis

9After reviewing all of the evidence before me, I find the concerns of the Applicant all relate to the substantive issues currently before the Court.

10This finding is supported by the Applicant’s own acknowledgment when he answered yes on Question 10 of the Application (Is the concern you describe above currently before the Court?).

11The Applicant further acknowledged he has applied to the Court for “primary care” of his daughter and “greater custodial rights”, as well as disclosure of the Society file, which he later obtained. He noted on March 30th 2020, the Court declined to change the custody or access of his daughter on an interim basis, “however specifically stated that this was without prejudice to [his] right to return the motions with further affidavit material once the ordered disclosure was provided”.

12The Applicant will have the opportunity to raise his concerns about his daughter’s care and custody in Court.

ORDER

Order

13The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

Confidentiality Order

14Pursuant 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.