MJB v. Brant Family and Children’s Services, 2021 CFSRB 70

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

MJB

Applicant

-and-

Brant Family and Children’s Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: John F. Spekkens

Date: October 12, 2021

Citation: 2021 CFSRB 70

Indexed As: MJB v Brant Family and Children’s Services (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

MJB, Applicant

Self-represented

Brant Family and Children’s Services, Respondent

Inge Packull, Representative

INTRODUCTION

1The Applicant and the Brant Family and Children’s Services (the “Society”) entered into a Settlement Agreement (the “Agreement”) during a mediation held on July 16, 2021, providing for a full settlement of all issues raised in her Application, dated May 19, 2021 to the Child and Family Services Review Board (the “CFSRB”).

2The Agreement contained six Terms which sought reasons for the Society’s decisions. The parties agreed to a compliance date of August 17, 2021 and a non-compliance date of August 25, 2021.

3The Society sent a letter, dated August 13, 2021, as its response to the issues raised in the Agreement. The Society’s Letter was addressed to the Applicant, with a copy sent to the CFSRB.

4The Applicant sent an e-mail, dated August 24, 2021 to the CFSRB, indicating that she felt that “[…] not all of my questions were adequately answered.” The Applicant attached a lengthy letter (the “Response”), also dated August 24, addressed to the Society.

ANALYSIS

The Law

5The CFSRB deemed the Application eligible for review under section 120(4)5 of The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 S.O. 2017, Chapter 14, Schedule 1 (the “Act”), and this determination was conveyed to the Applicant in the CFSRB’s letter dated May 21, 2021.

6The Act outlines the Society’s obligations and the mandate of the CFSRB.

7Section 120 of the Act 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

8The Act does not require or permit the CFSRB to make a determination as to the clinical wisdom or validity of a decision made by the Society in the given situation under review by the CFSRB and for which the Society is giving its reasons under this section of the Act.

9The 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

10The Rules of Procedure of the CFSRB, at section 8.1, allow the CFSRB to conduct hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference.

11In this situation, I have determined that a hearing in writing is the appropriate manner to proceed. Both parties have communicated to the Board their position in writing. I will rely on the Society’s letter (the “Letter”) of August 13, 2021 and on the Applicant’s e-mail and letter (the Response”), both dated August 24, 2021.

12A point of clarification is warranted. In the Agreement and in the Decision, the Applicant is

• the grandmother of the Child K and the Child B;

• the mother of the person referred to as the “mother of the Child” or “the Applicant’s daughter”.

Term 1: In July 2020, what were the reasons for the decision by the worker SI to not investigate safety issues regarding drug use by the Applicant’s daughter and her acquaintances at the Applicant’s daughter’s home?

13The Response from the Applicant stated that the Society failed to give her the results of the investigation, which is what the Applicant asked for, and indicated that the Society did not answer the core question but only stated the reason for which it did not share the results of the investigation.

14The Letter from the Society explained that the Society decided not to share the results of this investigation with the Applicant, regarding the Applicant’s daughter’s alleged drug use, because the Society did not have consent to share the results of this investigation with any one other than the subject of the investigation.

15I find that the Society’s answer in Term 1 was appropriate and correct, given the absence of consent. The Applicant critiqued the Society’s answer, saying that she did not ask why the Society did not share the requested information. In fact, she was not entitled to the requested information, and the Society fully explained the reason for that situation. The Child’s mother is entitled to have the results of the investigation remain private and confidential, unless she gives informed consent to share such information.

Term 2: What were the reasons for the decision by the worker SI to refuse the Child K to have any week-end visits at the Child’s mother’s house while allowing the Child B to remain in the Child’s mother’s care?

16The Society in its Letter gave a detailed and lengthy explanation on why the Society made the decisions referred to in Term 2. The Applicant did not accept the Society’s reasons, stating that they were “[…] likely acceptable given general family matters, but not acceptable in this situation”. The Applicant wrote that the Society “[…] failed to assess the situation properly.” The Applicant then elaborated on why she disagrees with the way the Society handled the situation referred to in Term 2.

17By stating that she disagrees with the reasons given for the Society’s decision regarding Term 2, the Applicant is acknowledging that the Society did give reasons for its decisions on the issues of Term 2. Expressing disagreement is not a ground for the Applicant to allege non-compliance by the Society.

18I find that the Society did give clear reasons for its decisions in this situation, and it thus met its obligations under the Act and under the Settlement Agreement.

Term 3: What were the reasons for the worker NM to advise the Applicant that there were no other nearby respite homes (as opposed to the more distant home of HP)?

19The Society’s Letter states that the worker did not tell the Applicant that there were no nearby respite homes. Instead, the Society’s reason for focussing on HP as a respite placement was because of the ongoing positive relationship between the Child K and HP.

20The Applicant’s Response suggested that the Society’s statement was “untrue”. The Applicant’s basis for saying this is her observation that the worker did not take any notes during the interview.

21I find that the Society gave a brief but to-the-point answer, based on its desire to place K with a person with whom K had an ongoing positive relationship, rather than with a new person based on location of the respite home.

22The Applicant clearly disagrees with the Society on the conversation that day and on what was the best respite placement for the Child K. Such disagreement does not constitute a valid complaint of non-compliance.

Term 4: The Applicant states that HP was offered respite care every week-end plus all school holidays, while she (the Applicant) was only offered one week-end of respite care per month; why this significant disparity in the respite care offered to the two named individuals?

23The Society Letter gave a detailed account of the various discussions leading to respite care arrangements that she, the Applicant, felt she needed. There was a decision made to offer respite care, as outlined above.

24The Applicant disagrees with the explanation given by the Society, and outlines her recollection of the various steps in the decisions made around respite care.

25The Applicant clearly disagrees with the Society decision on the respite care requirements and arrangements made by the Society. Such disagreement does not constitute a valid complaint of non-compliance.

Term 5: (a) How does the Society decide what constitutes a “family visit” as opposed to what constitutes a “respite placement” in terms of paying the per diem payment or withholding the per diem payment for the days of such placement?

(b) Would the Society provide the Applicant with the written policy which governs such payment decisions?

26Regarding part (a) of this Term, the Society Letter spells out in some detail the difference between family respite placements with relatives, family or friends, in contrast to a placement in another foster home or an Outside Paid Resource (OPR). It also sums up the circumstances under which a per diem is or is not paid.

27Regarding part (b) of this Term, the Society indicated it would provide the written policy to the Applicant.

28The Applicant, in her Response, requested a copy of the relevant policy. The Applicant also shared her opinion that all policies ought to be available to the public and that website addresses for those policies need to be published for the public. Suggestions such as this are not factored in to decisions on compliance or non-compliance.

29I find that the Society did comply with Term 5.

Term 6: During the crisis of February 2021, why did the Society not involve St.Leonard’s mobile crisis team or any other such outside professional services, rather than make the decision to directly place the Child K with H.P.?

30The Society gave specific and detailed reasons dealing with both aspects of Term 6. The Society wrote

There was not a need to have any other service providers present on February 5, 2021 as things had already deescalated upon the arrival of JO and K was happy that he was going to H.P.’s on respite. […] Foster parents are able to utilize the services of St. Leonard’s Mobile Crisis at any time if they feel they could benefit from the service.

and

On February 8, 2021 the Society held a meeting in regards to K’s placement given his refusal to return to his foster home placement with the Applicant. It was at this meeting that a decision was made for K to be placed in the home of H.P.

31The Applicant’s Response devoted more than a full page in reviewing the events of February 2021. If the Applicant were to make the decisions about the various events of that time period, her lengthy comments clearly indicate that she would have made different decisions. She believes that her approach to the events of February 2021 would have been superior to the decisions the Society made, and for which it gave reasons.

32It is not the within the mandate of the CFSRB to determine whether the Society’s plan of action, or what the Applicant would have done had she been in a position to make the decisions, is the better plan under the circumstances of February 2021. The Society is responsible for making decisions and for giving reasons for those decisions. I find that the Society did so in Term 6. The merit of the plan of the Applicant is irrelevant in determining compliance or non-compliance.

33I find that the Society did give reasons for its actions on the issues of Term 6, and thus met its obligations under the Act and under the Settlement Agreement.

ORDER

34I find that the Society met its commitments and obligations for the six Terms of the Settlement Agreement by providing reasons for its decisions. Therefore, the allegation of non-compliance is dismissed, and the CFSRB's file is closed as settled.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

35Pursuant 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 on-line. 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