RS v Chatham-Kent Children’s Services, 2021 CFSRB 53

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RS

Applicant

-and-

Chatham-Kent Children’s Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: July 28, 2021 Citation: 2021 CFSRB 53 Indexed As: RS v Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This is an Application (“Complaint”) filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2The Application was found eligible pursuant to sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. It is alleged that the Applicant 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; and the Respondent is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected his interests.

3The Applicant is the father of two children (the “Children”).

4The Applicant identified the following Concerns/Issues in his Application:

1. The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent has not heard his concerns regarding his allegations of abuse and neglect of the Children by their mother as a result of her mental health and actions surrounding the family separation;

2. The Applicant was concerned that Respondent staff have enabled the Children’s mother’s harming behaviours; and

3. The Applicant was concerned that the Respondent has not heard his concerns regarding parental alienation and has not provided a reason for the Respondent’s failure to take action on this issue.

5In the Eligibility Decision dated July 5, 2021, the Respondent was directed to file a Response to the Application with the CFSRB and to provide the Applicant with a copy of the Response. The Response was to include a brief chronology of the Respondent’s interactions with the Applicant; copies of any documents relevant to the issues raised in the Application; and any additional facts issues, or allegations on which the Respondent relied.

6The Eligibility Decision also indicated that within 20 days of receiving the Application the CFSRB will decide to hold a hearing and schedule a pre-hearing or will decide the Application without holding a hearing.

7In its Response, the Respondent indicated that participation in a mediation or the Pre-Hearing process would not produce the outcome desired by the Applicant.

THE LAW

8Section 120 of the Act provides that, if a person has “a complaint in respect of a service sought or received from a society [and the complaint] relates to a matter described in subsection (4), the person who sought or received the service may decide” to make a complaint to either the society or the CFSRB.

9The right to be heard, as set out in sections 120(4)4 and 15(2) applies to “children and young persons and their parents”.

10The CFSRB Rules of Procedure provides the CFSRB with the ability to hold hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or videoconference. Rule 8.1 of the CFSRB Rules provides:

In deciding the format of a hearing, the CFSRB will consider:

a) whether it is a fair and accessible process for the parties;

b) the costs and efficiency of the process;

c) the potential for a more expeditious resolution;

d) the convenience of the parties;

e) the consistency with the CFSRB’s mandate;

f) whether the facts or evidence may be agreed upon;

g) the estimated duration of the hearing;

h) whether the issues for hearing are predominantly legal issues;

i) whether oral testimony is likely to be needed;

j) any objections to the format of the hearing.

ANALYSIS

Format of the Hearing

11I considered the Rules 8.1 (a) to (j) of the CFSRB Rules regarding the format of the hearing in conjunction with the contents of the Application as well as the Respondent’s comments regarding the format of the hearing.

12I concur with the Respondent that an oral hearing, including Pre-Hearing/Mediation, would not be productive at this point in time for the reasons that follow.

13I have been provided with sufficient information to decide the Issues/Concerns based on the contents of the Application and Response. The Issues/Concerns are narrow, and no additional testimony is required for me to decide them.

14The Respondent cited concerns with the Applicant’s behaviour and his repeated inability to hear reasons for the Respondent’s actions Given this, I am doubtful that a Pre-Hearing/Mediation would be beneficial to the Applicant. In my view, a written process is fairer to the Applicant than an oral hearing. There is no potential for a more meaningful resolution of the issues in dispute through an oral hearing. There is no credibility assessment in this case. I need to determine issues that are adequately assessed in writing. As such, I find that a written review of the Application is most appropriate bearing in mind the past interaction between the Applicant and the Respondent.

Family Law Issues Raised:

15The Applicant has expressed concerns regarding parental alienation, custody and access issues, and the possession of the family home. The Application indicated in his own words: “Justice Wong has agreed to look at the allegations as parent alienation and need a [sic] investigation done showing the shared persugatory delusion environment. Please help me and my boys my next court date is July 19 as I am trying to have everything ready for this date.”

16The Applicant concedes that he has raised his issues before the Court and is expecting a decision by the Court in the near future. As such, I find that the Court is the most appropriate forum for him to continue to address his family law issues, including access, custody, and parenting capacity.

Were the Applicant’s Issues/Concerns Heard by the Respondent and Was he Provided with Reasons for the Respondent’s Decisions?

17The Applicant was concerned that Respondent staff did not hear his concerns regarding allegations of abuse, neglect, and parental alienation. The Applicant was also concerned that the Respondent did not provide him with explanations for their decisions.

18The Response indicated that the Applicant has had an opportunity to raise his concerns with a variety of Respondent staff and management on multiple occasions in person, through conversations, and through countless voicemail and e-mail messages.

19The Applicant has had a history with the Respondent since February of 2018. The Respondent has verified harm to the Children pursuant to their exposure to parental conflict. Throughout the past 3 years, Respondent staff have explained to the Applicant that they would not become involved in issues that are not child protection related. In addition, on many occasions, Respondent staff explained their concerns with the behaviour of both parents (the impact of post-separation conflict on the Children) and with the Applicant’s mental health.

20During the majority of the interactions with Respondent staff, the Applicant responded by talking over staff and or by asking them to leave. For example, the Applicant spoke with a Worker on May 25, 2020 for 45 minutes during which he alleged abuse at the hands of the Children’s mother. The Worker explained that she could not get involved with access issues, and that Respondent staff remained concerned with the Applicant’s mental health. The Worker followed the conversation up with an e-mail dated June 12, 2020 regarding the Respondent’s position and decision regarding access issues, one of the Child’s visits to his home against his mother’s instructions; and the Applicant’s arrest; and the need to shield the Children from issues between the parents.

21The Applicant explained his concerns in a conversation with a Worker on November 25, 2020. When the Worker attempted to explain the Respondent’s role and its decision, the Applicant accused the Respondent of grooming him for abuse. The Applicant had a further opportunity to express his concerns during a home visit on December 9, 2020. Again, the Applicant did not hear or was dissatisfied with the Worker’s explanations and he asked the Worker to leave the home.

22In addition, Respondent staff have attempted to respond to the Applicant’s numerous voicemails and e-mails. In fact, on December 15, 2020, the Child Protection Worker sent the Applicant an e-mail requesting that he refrain from repeating the same complaints in his communication with staff, and indicating that the Applicant has prevented staff from providing an answer to his questions. The e-mail set limits on the Respondent role and focus on child protection issues. The Applicant failed to stop sending e-mails and voice mails and continued to communicate with staff. The Applicant explained his concerns about his former partner as well as with the Respondent’s actions on multiple occasions to the Worker, the After Hours Service; the Child Protection Supervisor; Supervisor On-Call; the Director of Protection Services, and the Executive Director between December 2020 and July 12, of 2021.

23My review of the Response confirms that the Applicant is fixated on the allegations regarding his former partner. In addition, it is clear that Respondent staff have listened to the Applicant’s concerns on countless occasions over the years; have investigated the concerns; and have attempted to provide explanations to the Applicant for the Respondent’s actions as well as their concerns with the behaviour of both parents, the Applicant’s mental health, and for impact that the high conflict separation was having on the Children. The Applicant has refused to hear the explanations.

24While the Applicant may not have received the responses he anticipated from Respondent staff, this does not mean that he was not provided with an opportunity to be heard and that staff have not heard his Issues/Concerns. In addition, the Applicant’s insistence in raising his concerns does not mean that the Respondent has failed to provide adequate responses to the Applicant’s concerns.

SUMMARY

25Based on the information in the Application and Response, I find that I find that the Respondent has heard and considered the Applicant’s concerns on multiple occasions and has attempted to provide verbal and written explanations for its decisions regarding the Applicant’s concerns.

26For these reasons, the Applicant’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

27Pursuant 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.