SF v Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, 2022 CFSRB 49

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

SF Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: October 11, 2022 Citation: 2022 CFSRB 49 Indexed As: SF v Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (CYFSA s.120)

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS

Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel, Respondent Amanda Rozario, Counsel

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1This is an Application 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 CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act: The Applicant alleges she was not given the opportunity to be heard and represented when issues affecting her interests were made, or a chance to be heard when she raised concerns about the services she is receiving; and the Applicant alleges that the society did not provide her with reasons for a decision that affected her interests.

3The Applicant is the mother of a son (the “Child”).

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

1. The Applicant alleges that her concerns regarding the health and safety of the Child (alleged sexual assault; exposure to adult conflict, verbal and emotional abuse) while in the care of his grandmother were not heard by Respondent staff;

2. The Applicant alleges she was not provided reasons for why the Respondent recommended that the grandmother have custody of the Child; and

3. The Applicant alleges she was not provided with a list of the Respondent’s concerns with her parenting.

5In its Summary Reply, the Respondent indicated that it has provided the Applicant with ample opportunity to be heard and represented when decisions were made pertaining to the Child’s safety and wellbeing, protection concerns, the Applicant’s ongoing contact with the Child; the management of her file, and the services the Applicant received. The Respondent provided the Applicant with explanation for all decisions affecting her interests at each step of its involvement.

6The Respondent indicated that the Applicant and Respondent recently concluded child protection proceedings which resulted in a Final Order placing the Child in the care of his maternal grandmother. This Order was granted on the Applicant’s consent. The Respondent filed materials to the Court which addressed the Applicant’s concerns that she was not heard and was not provided with reasons for decisions that affected her interests. The Applicant had an opportunity to speak to Respondent staff on the telephone and/or to meet various staff in person on multiple occasions, including having her complaints addressed by management. Respondent staff offered the Applicant explanations; however, calls were not answered, and the Applicant has not submitted an Internal Complaints Review Panel Application despite having indicated that she would submit a complaint.

7The Respondent asked that the Application be dismissed.

THE LAW

8The CFSRB Rules of Procedure provides the CFSRB with the ability to hold hearings orally, in writing, or electronically by teleconference or videoconference. Subsection 8.1 of the Rules state:

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

9I considered the most appropriate method to conduct the hearing. I find that the Applicant’s Issues/Concerns were sufficiently narrow that additional oral evidence on the Issues/Concerns is not required to decide the Application. In addition to its Summary Reply, the Respondent provided 35 pages which included affidavits from 3 staff members; an affidavit sworn by the Applicant, and the final Order dated July 4, 2022. These documents contained sufficient information in them which relate directly to the Applicant’s Issues/Concerns. Finally, I find that proceeding with a review in writing is the most efficient use of CFSRB resources.

10I then considered the merits of the Application.

11The Applicant alleges that her concerns regarding the health and safety of the Child (alleged sexual assault; exposure to adult conflict, verbal and emotional abuse) while in the care of his grandmother were not heard by Respondent staff; and she was not provided reasons for why the Respondent recommended that the grandmother have custody of the Child.

12I find that the Respondent staff have heard the Applicant’s concerns. The Applicant has had at least 2 opportunities to address her concerns related to her parenting and related to the health and safety of her son in Court. The Applicant was represented by Counsel during the latest proceedings (July 4, 2022). The Applicant consented to the terms of the Final Order. While I am not making a finding on whether the CFSRB has the jurisdiction to address issues before the Court (as per s. 120(8) of the Act), I note that the documents presented at Court addressed the Respondent’s concerns related to the Applicant’s ability to care for the Child; and what custody arrangements were in the best interests of the Child. I note that the Applicant’s own affidavit dated May 16, 2022, is silent in relation to any risk of harm or safety concerns for the Child while in the care and custody of his grandmother. If the Applicant had concerns regarding the health and safety of the Child while in the care and custody of his grandmother, it was incumbent on the Applicant and her Counsel to draw these concerns to the attention of the Court.

13Furthermore, I find that the Team Lead’s affidavit, confirms that the Applicant had an opportunity to express her concerns related to the ability of the Child’s grandmother to care for him, and the Applicant’s lack of trust in her mother in a conversation dated February 5, 2021. The Team Lead offered to meet with the Applicant to further discuss these concerns and to review the Respondent’s expectations and plans for reunification.

14The Team Lead, Child Protection Worker, and the Applicant met on June 16, 2021, to discuss the Respondent’s rationale for deciding to recommend that the Child be placed in the custody of his grandmother. Staff outlined concerns with the Applicant’s parenting and behaviour during the meeting.

15I find that the Applicant had the opportunity to express her concerns regarding the care and safety of the Child while in the custody of his grandmother in conversations with the Team Lead, as well as at Court. The Applicant was also provided with the Respondent’s rationale for recommending that the Child be placed in the custody of his grandmother in person as well as in documents presented to the Court. As such, Issues/Concerns 1 and 2 are dismissed as the Applicant’s concerns were heard and the reasons for the Respondent’s position regarding the custody of the Child were discussed with the Applicant and were included in arguments before the Court.

16I then considered the Applicant’s allegations that she was not provided with a list of the Respondent’s concerns with her parenting. Based on the affidavits provided by Respondent staff, I find the Applicant was offered and had multiple opportunities to discuss with Respondent staff its child protection and parenting concerns, and issues related to service planning and reunification.

17For example, the Applicant spoke with the Team Lead on February 5, 2021, about access issues and what the Applicant had to do to regain custody of her son. The Applicant was scheduled to discuss the service plan with the Team Lead and Child Protection Worker on March 30, 2021; however, she cancelled the meeting as she did not see the need for the meeting, and she had other things to do. The Applicant met with staff to discuss the service plan and staff members’ concerns with the Applicant’s mental health and parenting on April 26, 2021. The Applicant, Team Lead, and Child Protection Worker met on May 25, 2021, to discuss the service plan, including the Respondent’s parenting expectations of the Applicant. The Applicant made a formal complaint to the Service Relations Manager on June 29, 2021, in which she complained about the Child not being returned to her care, her request for a new worker, and her concerns with another worker. The Applicant met with the Respondent’s Service Relations Manager, and the Team Lead on September 1, 2021, to discuss the Applicant’s concerns. The Applicant had an opportunity to express her concerns to a Child Protection Worker on October 29, 2021. The Applicant’s own affidavit indicates that the affidavit of Felicity Obeng-Donkor (Child Protection Worker) called into question the Applicant’s parenting abilities. Finally, the affidavits confirm that the Applicant was provided with ongoing feedback on her parenting by staff who supervised access sessions.

18I note that the Applicant either refused to discuss the parenting concerns or ended the conversation before staff could provide the Applicant with feedback. This is not a question of whether the Applicant was provided with reasons, rather it is one in which the Applicant refuses to hear the reasons when provided to her.

19As such, I find that the Applicant was provided with an opportunity to hear from Respondent staff their concerns regarding her parenting, and to discuss planning to support her parenting. For these reasons, Issue/Concern 3 is dismissed.

DECISION

20I find that the Applicant’s concerns regarding the health and safety of her son while in the care of his grandmother have been heard by the Respondent. The Respondent has provided the Applicant with an explanation as to why it supported the Child being placed in the custody of his grandmother in person and through documents presented at Court. The Respondent has also provided the Applicant with several opportunities to hear the Respondent’s concerns with her parenting, and requirements for her to regain custody of the Child.

21As such, the Application is dismissed in its entirety.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

22Pursuant 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.