KB and AA v. Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex, 2023 CFSRB 30

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

KB and AA Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Daniel McSweeney Date: April 05, 2023 Citation: 2023 CFSRB 30 Indexed As: KB and AA v Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (CYFSA s.120)

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”).

2After having reviewed the Application before me, I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review the Application pursuant to sections 119 and 120 of the Act.

3The Applicants are foster parents to one Child. The following concerns were alleged in the Application: no permanency planning has been performed by the Respondent; concerns with access visits and communication with the Child’s birth mother; communication barriers between the Applicants and Respondent staff; and concerns with legal documents and processes.

THE LAW

4Section 120(4)4 of the Act indicates that the following matters may be reviewed by the Board:

1. Allegations that the society has refused to proceed with a complaint made by the complainant under subsection 119(1) as required under subsection 119(2)

2. Allegations that the society has failed to respond to the complainant’s complaint within the timeframe required by regulation

3. 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

4. Allegations that the society has failed to comply with subsection 15(2)

5. Allegations that the society has failed to provide the complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests

6. Such other matters as may be prescribed

5Section 2(2) of the Act defines parent as:

a) The person who has lawful custody of the child; or

b) If more than one person has lawful custody of the child, all of the person who have lawful custody of the chid, excluding any person who is unavailable or unable to act, as the context requires

6Section 15(2) of the Act confirms that:

Service providers shall ensure 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

7Section 2(1) of the Act defines service as:

a) a service for a child with a developmental or physical disability or the child’s family

b) a mental health service for a child or the child’s family

c) a service related to residential care for a child

d) a service for a child who is or may be in need of protection or the child’s family

e) a service related to adoption for a child, the child’s family or others

f) counselling for a child or the child’s family

g) a service for a child or the child’s family that is in the nature of support or prevention and that is provided in the community

h) a service or program for or on behalf of a young person for the purposes of the Youth Criminal Justice Act (Canada) or the Provincial Offences Act, or

i) a prescribed service The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,

8H.L.B. v. Chatham-Kent Children’s Services (CFSA s. 68), 2012 CFSRB 4 (2012-02-01) (para. 51) as follows:

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

9The Applicants are foster parents. Under normal circumstances, foster parents are unable to have their section 120 complaints reviewed by the CFSRB as they are not parents; and they are not considered service recipients.

10The CFSRB has found applications from foster parents to be eligible for review when, for example, they have been subject to an investigation and are seeking reasons under section 120(4)5. In this case; however, the Applicants have not indicated in their Application that they have been subject to an investigation by the Respondent.

11As such, the CFSRB is not eligible to review the Applicant’s Complaint pursuant to section 119 and section 120(2) of the Act.

DECISION

12The CFSRB does not have the jurisdiction to review the Application as the Applicants are foster parents who have not been subject to an investigation by the Respondent.

13The Application is therefore dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

14Pursuant 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.