CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
SF
Applicants
-and-
Dilico Anishinabek Family Care
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney
Indexed As: SF v Dilico Anishinabek Family Care (CYFSA s.120)
Introduction
1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under section 120 (4) 4 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).
2This decision explains why the Application is not eligible for review by the CFSRB.
BACKGROUND
3The Applicant is a grandparent of several grandchildren (the “Children”). The Applicant alleged that the Respondent (“Dilico”) did not protect two of her grandchildren by allowing unsafe, unhealthy, and addicted family members to be in a caretaking role. She alleged that the Respondent failed to perform background checks on two individuals with whom the Children were placed. The Applicant alleged that the inadequate protection resulted in the unfortunate death of her grandson. The Applicant wanted the two individuals caring for the Children to be charged with child neglect. The Applicant also continues to remain concerned for the health and safety of her granddaughter in her current placement.
4The Applicant submitted a complaint to the Respondent. Dilico extended its condolences to the Applicant; however, it indicated that it could not provide any additional personal information or discuss the situation further given privacy restrictions.
THE LAW
5Section 120(4) of the Act states:
The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section:
Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under section 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2).
Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation.
Allegations that the society has failed to comply with the complaint review procedure or with any other procedural requirements under this Act relating to the review of complaints.
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.
6Section 15(2) of the Act ensures 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.”
7H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s. 68), 2012 CFSRB 4 (para. 51) examines the issue of who is in receipt of services.
Looking at the statute, the Society’s obligation to provide reasons in section 68.1 (4) 5 is not confined to “parents”. If that were the case, the obligation would be associated with section 2(2) (a) of the Act, like the right to be heard. The right to reasons for decisions that affect one’s interests is broad and recognizes that there may be persons other than parents who are involved with children under the Act and whose lives may be impacted by Society decisions. For example, the Board has held that foster parents or teachers who are the subject of an investigation by a society are receiving a service and are entitled to reasons relating to the decisions made in the investigation. The Board has also held that grandparents who have sought access to their grandchildren from a society that controls access have a right to reasons.
ANALYSIS
8The Applicant is the grandmother to the Children. The Applicant expressed her concerns for the health and safety of the Children while in the care of their two caregivers and alleged that Dilico did not hear her concerns.
9The right to be heard in the Act is limited to “children and young persons and their parents”. The definition of “parent” in the Act does not include foster parents or grandparents. As such, section 15(2) of the Act does not apply to the Applicant.
10I considered the application of H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services to this complaint. I have not been provided with any evidence that the Applicant is has received or is currently receiving any services or assistance related to access to her grandchildren from Dilico.
11As such, I find that the Applicant is not in receipt of services from Dilico. Therefore, the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application under sections 120 (4) 4 and 5 of the Act.
12I also note that Part X of the Act relates to the protection of personal privacy. As noted by Dilico, Part X precludes them from sharing any further personal information about the unfortunate circumstances and events without the permission of the persons involved. I do note; however, that the Applicant has received information regarding some of her concerns through Court proceedings.
13Finally, I would like to express the CFSRB’s condolences for the loss of the Applicant’s grandson.
14For these reasons, the CFSRB lacks jurisdiction to review the Application.
order
15The Application is dismissed.
confidentiality order
16Pursuant 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, November 15, 2022.
Daniel McSweeney
Daniel McSweeney
Member