CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
GR
Applicant
-and-
Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Indexed As: GR v Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society (CYFSA s.120)
INTRODUCTION
1This Application consists of issues/concerns raised under sections 120(4)(4) and 120(4) (5) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, C.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2In the Complaint the Applicant alleged that he was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting his interests were made, or a chance to be heard when he raised concerns about the services he received. In addition, the Applicant alleged that the Respondent failed to provide him with reasons for a decision that affected his interests.
BACKROUND
3The Applicant is a resident of the Maritimes. He is the father of a daughter and son (the “Children”) who were living with their mother and her partner (kin parent) in Southern Ontario. The Applicant has not seen the Children in five years and has been fighting for access. The mother of the Children experienced mental health crises and she left the Children in the care of the kin parent. The Children and the kin parent currently reside in the home of the kin parent’s mother.
4In July of 2020, the Applicant complained to the Respondent that he was not informed about the placement of the Children. The Respondent informed the Applicant that the Children’s mother has retained full custody of the Children. At no time were the Children in the Respondent’s care. The Children were placed with the kin parent without the Respondent’s involvement.
5The Applicant subsequently reported allegations that the kin parent and the mother had used physical discipline on the Children; the mother had locked the Children in the room and attempted to force them to take pills; and that the Children were being coached by the kin father not to speak about their mother. These allegations were investigated by both the police and the Respondent. The allegations of the use of physical discipline were not verified. The concerns regarding the mother’s behaviour and mental health were verified and the mother was charged by the police.
6The Applicant filed a complaint with the CFSRB on August 7, 2020 asserting that he was not notified of the Children’s placement with the kin parent. In addition, the Applicant was concerned with the Respondent’s lack of response to his stated concerns. This complaint was withdrawn after the Respondent responded to the Applicant’s concerns.
7The Applicant filed an Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) complaint with the Respondent on October 27, 2020 alleging that the Respondent worker would not speak to him about his concerns; the worker did not call the police and report abuse allegations; and his concern that the Respondent did not verify allegations of physical abuse. The ICRP complaint was placed on hold until the Applicant could be provided with disclosure.
8The Respondent sent the Applicant a letter on December 9, 2020 explaining that the mother placed the Children with the kin parent and that the Respondent continues to visit the Children regularly to assess their safety. The letter also indicated that the Respondent does not employ drug testing and depends on ongoing assessments to gage the impact of any substance abuse on the care of the children. The Applicant has not requested that the ICRP process move forward.
9In the latest CFSRB complaint, the Applicant identified the following concerns/issues:
The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent did not hear his concerns that the kin parent had substance abuse issues;
The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent did not follow-up his concerns that the kin parent was not drug tested, and that he was not informed why they failed to perform drug tests on the kin parent;
The Applicant was concerned that the kin parent took the Children to their mother’s residence against the advice of the Respondent;
The Applicant did not provide the Applicant with an explanation as to why the Children were placed with the kin parent rather than being taken into care; and
The Applicant was not provided with an explanation as to why the Children were not removed from the kin parent’s home after the Applicant raised concern with the kin parent’s use of drugs; lying to the Respondent; and coercion of the mother to retain the Children.
THE LAW
10The relevant provisions of the Act are:
s.15(2) Service providers shall ensure that children and young persons and their parents have an opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting their interests are made and to be heard when they have concerns about the services they are receiving;
s.120(4) The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section: (…)
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with section 15(2).
Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests.
11Rule 24.2 of the CFSRB Rules of Procedure allows for hearings to proceed in writing. Rule 8.1 provided guidance to CFSRB members on how to decide the format of a hearing.
ANALYSIS
12In analysing the Application, I focused on whether the Applicant was heard by the Respondent when he raised his concerns, and whether the Respondent provided the Applicant with adequate reasons for the decisions it made regarding the Children.
13I have decided that the hearing will proceed in writing as the issues at hand are sufficiently narrow; are fact-based; and do not require additional oral evidence to decide. The Applicant’s concerns were clearly stated in the Complaint as well as a detailed 5.5 page document appended to his Complaint outlining his concerns with the Respondent’s previous disclosure and communication with him. This document provides additional information which I have relied on to decide the Complaint. A written approach to deciding this Complaint is the most efficient and expeditious way to address the Applicant’s concerns especially given that the Applicant resides in the Maritimes. In addition, there does not be any prejudice related to fairness and accessibility to both parties of deciding the Complaint in writing.
Was the Applicant Heard?
14The right to be heard has been defined as follows:
To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly.
P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33 (para 14)
15After having reviewed the material before me, I find that the Applicant has had an opportunity to raise and discuss his concerns with the Respondent on several occasions and in different fora including:
November 2016 - initial child protection complaint submitted to the Respondent;
July 26, 2020 - communication between the Applicant and the Respondent in which the Applicant expressed concerns with the level of care of the Children, and not being informed of the placement of the children;
July 27, 2020 – communication between the Respondent and the Applicant in which the Applicant was informed that Children were not in care and were subject to a safety plan;
July 29, 2020 – the Applicant contacted Respondent to request disclosure and again expressed frustration that he was not contacted regarding the placement of the Children;
July 29, 2020 - referral from the Applicant outlining concerns with spanking; and being locked in a room and forced to take pills by their mother; and coaching by the kin parent;
August 25, 2020 – telephone conversation with Family Services Supervisor to answer questions related to the Applicant’s CFSRB complaint filed on August 7, 2020;
August 27, 2020 - letter sent from Family Services Supervisor to the Applicant addressing 11 of his questions, many of which go beyond the issues/concerns identified in the complaint;
October 27, 2020 – written ICRP complaint alleging that the Applicant was not heard about his concerns of abuse and the Applicant’s concerns with the outcomes of the previous investigation;
October 30, 2020 - letter from Family Services Supervisor to the Applicant following-up on telephone conversation regarding the complaint;
December 5, 2020 - letter sent by the Applicant to the Family Services Supervisor addressing disclosure he received; and
December 9, 2020 - letter sent by the Family Services Supervisor indicating that the Children were placed with the kin parent by their mother; that the Respondent continues to see the children to assess their safety; and that the Respondent does not use drug testing, rather it depends on ongoing assessments to ascertain the impact of substance abuse on the care of the children.
16In addition, I note that the Applicant provided a detailed explanation of his concerns regarding the kin parent in a letter to the Family Services Supervisor. The letter outlined the Applicant’s concerns with some of the disclosure provided him by the Respondent and included the Applicant’s perspective on the disclosure. The letter addressed issues such as: the kin parent’s drug use; the Applicant’s concerns that the kin parent is not being tested for drugs; concerns of arguments in the home; the mother’s mental health concerns; the Children being locked in a room by their mother; alleged coercion of the mother by the kin parent; the use of corporal punishment by the Children’s mother and the kin parent; the kin parent taking the Children to their mother’s residence; and the kin parent’s denial that he has talked with the Children about the court process.
17The evidence before me confirms that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the health and safety of the Children.
18With regard to the Applicant’s concerns regarding the kin parent’s alleged substance use, the Applicant was advised by the Respondent’s letter of December 9, 2020 that it relies on ongoing assessments of the impact of any substance use on the care and safety of the Children. I find that this letter confirms that the Applicant’s concerns regarding the alleged drug use of the kin parent were heard and considered by the Respondent.
19I find that the allegations of physical abuse reported by the Applicant were heard by the Respondent. In fact, the Respondent launched a joint investigation into the allegations with local police. The Children were interviewed. The kin parent was cautioned against the use of spankings and physical force. The Respondent’s concerns regarding spanking were investigated and were not verified. No criminal charges were laid against the kin parent.
20In addition, I find the Applicant’s concerns regarding the risks to the Children related to the mother’s mental health and behaviour were heard by the Respondent. These concerns were investigated, a protection finding was verified, and the mother was charged by police. Safety plans have been implemented in relation to supervised visits.
21The Applicant was concerned that the kin parent took the Children to visit their mother against the advice of Respondent workers. This allegation was heard and investigated by the Respondent. The Respondent interviewed the Children. The Respondent verified that on one occasion, prior to the filing of criminal charges against the mother, the kin parent allowed the Children to visit their mother at her home. This went against the safety plan to have access at the kin parent’s home. After the investigation, the Respondent determined that there was no indication that the Children had experienced harm during the visit, and that the visit was fully supervised. The kin parent was directed not to leave the children alone with their mother, and that future access would occur at his home or in the community.
22The Applicant’s concerns regarding communication around the Children was addressed in a letter dated August 27, 2020. The Respondent acknowledged the Applicant’s concerns related to the Children being exposed to adult conversations. The kin parent was reminded not to have these conversations in a place where they could be overheard by the Children.
23The letter of December 9, 2020 confirmed that the Applicant’s allegations that the mother may have been coerced into placing the Children with the kin parent were heard by the Respondent. The letter indicated that it was impossible to ascertain what the mother was thinking about at the time she placed the Children with the kin parent as she was mentally ill at the time.
24Finally, the letter of December 9, 2020 indicates that the Children are monitored on an ongoing basis by a worker which recognizes that the Applicant’s concerns for the safety and wellbeing of the Children have been heard by the Respondent.
Was the Applicant Provided with Reasons?
25The Applicant alleged that he was not provided with reasons why the Children were not taken into care by the Respondent. The Respondent has explained to the Applicant on a number of occasions that the children were not placed in their care as there were a lack of child protection concerns, and the Children were placed voluntarily with the kin parent without the involvement of the Respondent (Letter of December 9, 2020).
26The Applicant alleged that he was not provided with reasons for why the Children were not removed from the kin parent’s home after the Applicant reported concerns with the kin parent. The concerns were investigated by police as well as the Respondent and the Applicant was told that the lack of verified child protection concerns with the kin parent did not warrant apprehending the Children.
Summary
27For the reasons cited above, I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard and investigated by the Respondent through conversations with staff and management, and through the complaint and ICRP process, and that remedial action (warnings, verification findings) were implemented as required. In addition, I find that the Applicant has been informed orally as well as in writing the reasons why the Children were placed with the kin parent. The Respondent also explained in writing why the Children were not taken into care.
28While the Applicant may not agree with the Respondent’s decisions and actions, I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns and provided him with adequate reasons for its decisions.
DECISION
29The Applicant’s complaint is dismissed in its entirety.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
30Pursuant 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.
Dated at Toronto, January 20, 2021.
Daniel McSweeney
Daniel McSweeney
Member