CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JS

Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney

Date: March 11, 2022

Citation: 2022 CFSRB 12

Indexed As: JS v Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County

(CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

JS, Applicant

Unrepresented

Family & Children’s Services of Renfrew County, Respondent

Lauren C. Blanchet,

Counsel

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 Complaint was found eligible pursuant to sections 120(4)4 of the Act. It is alleged that the Applicant was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions affecting her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when she raised concerns about the services she is receiving.

3The Applicant is the mother of 2 boys (the “Children”). The Children are placed in the temporary care and custody of their 2 fathers.

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

1. The Applicant alleged that she was not heard by Respondent staff when she expressed her opinion that the Children should be returned to her after the incident of February 24, 2021;

2. The Applicant alleged that her concerns regarding access to her youngest child (TL) were not heard by Respondent staff; and

3. The Applicant alleged that the Respondent has not heard her when she attempted to provide evidence to them regarding her concerns regarding the health, safety and welfare of the Children while outside her care.

5The Application also made allegations against the Ontario Provincial Police. The CFSRB only has jurisdiction to address issues/concerns related to the services that the Applicant received from the Respondent.

6In its Summary Response to the Application, the Respondent argued that the CFSRB did not have jurisdiction to address the Issues/Concerns in the Application as these were issues which were placed previously before the Court or are currently before the Court. The Respondent indicated that issues related to the Applicant’s access to the Children; events that took place in Court; and concerns over parental alienation have been addressed in Family Court and are being addressed in the current Child Protection proceedings.

7The Respondent provided many documents, including documents that have been presented to the Court. The Respondent argued that the Application should be dismissed in its entirety pursuant to section 120 (8) of the Act. In addition, the Respondent provided evidence in support of its argument that the Applicant has been provided an opportunity to be heard when decisions affecting her interests were made and/or when she raised concerns about the services she received.

8In a Case Management Direction (CMD) dated February 28, 2022, the Applicant was directed to provide written submissions to the CFSRB (copied to the Respondent) on the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to review the Issues/Concerns identified in her Application.

9The Applicant’s two submissions indicated that many issues were not brought up in Court. These issues include: the Applicant’s son being asked to apologize to the neighbour; the threats the Applicant has received from the Children’s grandparents; the Applicant’s concerns with access; noise complaints and other accusations related to the Applicant’s neighbour; concerns related to the Children’s fathers; and concerns related to the safety of her youngest child in the care of his father. The Applicant reiterated her belief that the Respondent should be charged with neglect and putting the Children in danger.

10None of the Applicant’s submissions addressed the issue of jurisdiction.

THE LAW

11Subsection 120(8) 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

12The 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).

ANALYSIS

13I considered the jurisdictional issues associated with the Complaint.

14With regard to the issue of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction, section120(8) of the Act directs that the CFSRB cannot conduct a review of a complaint if: “the subject of the complaint is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court”.

15My reading of this section of the Act confirms that the concept of “subject of the complaint” is a broad category that encompasses more than the content of any specific issue raised by a party before the Court. As such, a specific issue may not have been raised in Court proceedings; however, the proceedings may have addressed the broader subject matter included in a complaint.

16The Respondent’s Summary Reply included the following documents presented to the Court:

• Protection Application dated March 1, 2021

• Affidavit from Child Protection Worker SB dated February 28, 2021

• Endorsement of Madam Justice Mary Fraser dated November 8, 2021

17The Protection Application addressed the following issues: the Applicant’s supervised access to the Children after February 24, 2021; the reasons for the apprehension and placement of the Children with their fathers; access and custody arrangements between the Applicant and her youngest child’s father; the Respondent’s long history with the Applicant and difficulties that Respondent staff encountered when trying to engage with the Applicant; events leading up to and after the February 24, 2021 incident, including the Applicant’s resistance to safety planning; and the Applicant’s escalating behaviours.

18The Affidavit from Child Protection Worker SB addressed: parenting time between the Applicant and her youngest child’s father; the reasons for the February 2021 apprehension of the Children; difficulties with safety planning to have the Children returned to the Applicant’s home; access challenges between the Applicant’s youngest son’s father and the Applicant; and behavioural and other requirements for the Applicant to have the Children returned to her.

19The Endorsement by Madam Justice Fraser on the Temporary Care and Custody Motions for both Children heard on August 30, 2021 addressed the following issues: temporary care and custody of both children with their fathers; access conditions; the reasons for the apprehension of the Children on February 24, 2021 and the Respondent’s Application to have the Children placed in the care of their fathers; the Applicant’s history of access visits with the Children and concerns regarding the Applicant’s behaviour during these visits; the Applicant’s failure to attend access since March 31, 2021; and the Applicant’s criminal charges and harassing conduct.

20I note that the Applicant was represented by Counsel in respect to the August 30, 2021, proceedings, and that both fathers were also parties in the proceedings. Madam Justice Fraser’s endorsement did not identify or mention any of the Applicant’s concerns with the health and safety of the Children while in their fathers’ care. I note that the Respondent’s Summary Response contained evidence of staff receiving and responding to the Applicant’s concerns regarding her Children while in their fathers’ care on multiple occasions before the August 30, 2021, proceeding.

21I find that the Applicant had the opportunity to raise health and safety concerns related to her Children during the August 30, 2021, Court proceeding. The proceeding focused on issues custody and access and included an assessment of which placement was in the best interests of the Children, including issues related to their health and safety. The Endorsement was silent on any health and safety concerns for the Children while in the care and custody of their fathers.

22I find that the most appropriate forum for the Applicant to raise issues related to the health and safety of the Children while in the care and custody of their fathers was at the August 30 2021 Court proceedings. The Court decided what placement was in the best interests of the Children which included an assessment of any risks associated with their placement. The CFSRB cannot and will not review the aspects of an Application for issues which were best decided by the Court.

23In summary, I find that issues related to the Respondent’s failure to return the Children to the Applicant’s home after February 24, 2021; access to the Applicant’s youngest son (TL); and health and safety concerns with the Children while in the care and custody of their fathers were issues that were placed squarely before the Court and have been decided by the Court.

24As such, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to address all 3 Issues/Concerns in the Applicant’s Complaint pursuant to section 120(8) of the Act.

25The Applicant’s Complaint is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

26Pursuant 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.