TS v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, 2023 CFSRB 32

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

TS Applicant

-and-

Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Tamara Jordan Date: April 14, 2023 Citation: 2023 CFSRB 32 Indexed As: TS v Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County (CYFSA s.120)

INTRODUCTION

1This is an Application filed with the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) under subsections 120(4)4 and 5 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1.

background

2At a January 12, 2023 pre-hearing, the parties agreed to mediation and reached a settlement of the Application. The Settlement Agreement included an implementation date of March 2, 2023 and a non-compliance date of March 9, 2023.

3The Respondent sent the Applicant a letter dated February 27, 2023 in response to Term 1 of the Settlement Agreement, relating to missing and/or inaccurate information in the Applicant’s records held at the Respondent Society (“Respondent’s February 27, 2023 Letter”).

4The Respondent sent the Applicant a letter dated March 2, 2023 in response to Term 2 of the Settlement Agreement, relating to seven (7) questions for which the Applicant sought written reasons (“Respondent’s March 2, 2023 Letter”). Included with the Respondent’s March 2, 2023 Letter was another letter dated February 21, 2023 related to Term 2(4) of the Settlement Agreement (“Respondent’s February 21, 2023 Letter”).

5On March 8, 2023, the Applicant sent an email to the CFSRB, copying the Respondent, in which she alleged that the Respondent was not in compliance with the Settlement Agreement (“Applicant’s First March 8, 2023 Email”). The Applicant did not identify the particular terms with which she felt the Respondent was not in compliance. The email also contained additional allegations and comments about the Respondent’s conduct and its response to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

6On March 8, 2023, the CFSRB sent the Applicant an email in which it included a request that the Applicant, “send an email to the CFSRB indicating which specific term(s) of the Settlement Agreement you feel has not been complied with”.

7Later on March 8, 2023, the Applicant replied to the CFSRB by a second email, which she copied to the Respondent (“Applicant’s Second March 8, 2023 Email”). The Applicant stated that “[a]ll 7” of the terms were not complied with. The Applicant also made additional allegations about the Respondent’s responses to the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

8On March 15, 2023, the Respondent sent a letter to the CFSRB, copying the Applicant, in response to the Applicant’s email messages to the CFSRB on March 8, 2023 (“Respondent’s March 15, 2023 Letter”).

Decision

9My task is to decide whether the Respondent complied with the Settlement Agreement. Concerns outside of the Settlement Agreement cannot be addressed as part of the non-compliance process.

10In reaching my decision I reviewed the January 12, 2023 Settlement Agreement and the correspondence between the parties and the CFSRB related to the non-compliance allegations described above.

11On the basis of the correspondence between the parties and to the CFSRB and in consideration of the factors set out in Rule 8.1 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure that allow the CFSRB to determine the format of a hearing, I proceeded to make a decision on the Applicant’s allegations of non-compliance in writing.

12For the reasons set out below, I find that the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, with the exception of Terms 2(1)a, 2(6) and 2(7).

analysis

13The Applicant alleges the Respondent has not complied with “[a]ll 7” of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

14There were eight terms of the Settlement Agreement. Term 1 relates to allegations of missing and/or inaccurate information in the Respondent’s records and actions that both parties would take relating to this issue. Term 2 contains seven main questions for which the Applicant sought written answers from the Respondent.

Term 1: The Applicant is concerned that information is missing and/or inaccurate in her records held at the Respondent Society.

a. On or before February 23, 2023, the Applicant will provide the Respondent Society with (a) documentation that she feels is missing from her file; and (b) a letter containing information that she feels needs to be included in the records.

b. The Respondent Society will confirm in writing to the Applicant by March 2, 2023 whether they have received this information from the Applicant and added it to her file.

15In the Respondent’s February 27, 2023 Letter, the Respondent confirms that the Applicant provided the Respondent with “contextual information” related to the Applicant that she believed to be missing from the Respondent’s records, including a letter from the Applicant dated February 23, 2023.

16In the Respondent’s February 27, 2023 Letter, the Respondent confirms that the Applicant’s February 23, 2023 letter will be affixed to the Applicant’s records at the Respondent Society as a “Statement of Disagreement”. Further, the Respondent notes that should the Applicant’s records be disclosed in the future, the Statement of Disagreement will be disclosed along with them.

17I find that both parties have met their obligations under Term 1 of the Settlement Agreement. The Applicant has provided the Respondent with the information described in Term 1(a) and the Respondent has confirmed that it has received that information from the Applicant and added it to her file as a “Statement of Disagreement”.

18As such, the Respondent has complied with Term 1.

19As described above, seven (7) main questions were set out under Term 2 of the Settlement Agreement for which the Society was to send correspondence to the Applicant providing written answers to her questions in those terms. Term 2(1) has three parts. Terms 2(2) through Term 2(7) are singular questions.

Term 2(1): The Applicant understands that there is a Rapid Response Fund available through the Respondent Society that provides funds for families that are having difficulties accessing services and to assist them getting out of crisis.

a. Has the Applicant been considered for funding from the new Rapid Response Fund available through the Respondent Society? Why or why not?

b. Will the Respondent Society consider the Applicant for this funding for both housing for her and her child and counselling for her child? Why or why not?

c. Are there any other supports that the Respondent Society can access or make a referral to (aside from [specific child and youth mental health program]) to ensure the Applicant’s child can resume therapy or attend additional programs to support her mental health (e.g., programs through the [local] Family Violence Counselling Program)? Please explain.

20In the Respondent’s March 2, 2023 Letter, the Respondent describes the Rapid Response fund and that access to this fund is “through a referral from service providers when there is a gap of service including a service not being offered in our community or if individuals who are in crisis do not have access to service because of extensive waitlists” or “if specific service offerings are not available, this fund will seek to cover specific counselling”.

21The Respondent further describes that since the Respondent’s involvement with the Applicant that it is the Respondent’s understanding that the Applicant has been able to access services for her child, including through some work health benefits and privately.

22While the Respondent suggests through its response that in the circumstances it did not consider the Applicant for funding through the Rapid Response Fund, it did not provide a clear affirmative or negative answer to the direct question in Term 2(1)(a), “[h]as the Applicant been considered for funding from the new Rapid Response Fund available through the Respondent Society”? The Respondent must answer this question clearly and thereafter link any reasons related to its decision-making process for its answer to be deemed sufficient.

23In her First March 8, 2023 Email, the Applicant asserts that she and her daughter were “in crisis” and on very long wait lists, implying that they met the criteria for the Rapid Response Fund. It is not the role of the CFSRB to determine whether or not the Applicant should have been referred to the Rapid Response Fund. However, it is the CFSRB’s role to determine whether the Respondent has provided clear and accessible answers to the Applicant who is seeking reasons for decisions made by the Respondent.

24The Respondent has not provided a clear enough answer to Term 2(1)a, and as such is not in compliance with that term.

25In response to Term 2(1)b, in the Respondent’s March 2, 2023 Letter, the Respondent explains that the purpose of the Rapid Response funding is specific to providing counseling services and “[r]equests for this fund to assist with housing are beyond the scope and resources of this fund”. The Respondent further states that should the Rapid Response program be funded again and “a service partner” refer the Applicant and her family to that program, that “the Steering Committee would consider the referral; however, this fund is not intended to assist with paying rent or finding housing”.

26In its response, the Respondent notes that it “would consider” a further referral of the Applicant and “her family” to the Rapid Response funding program, but only for counselling, not housing, and only if a service provider refers the Applicant “and her family” to that program. While the Respondent does not clearly identify the Applicant’s daughter in its response, the Applicant’s daughter is part of her “family”, and therefore is included in the Respondent’s response.

27As such, the Respondent has complied with providing a satisfactory, albeit somewhat indirect, response to Term 2(1)b.

28With respect to Term 2(1)c, the Society confirms that it “is able to assist in making” a referral to a local Hospital that offers counselling services for children and youth as well as assist the Applicant with an application “for CSCN” to support additional access to services. The Respondent also states that the Applicant can access services offered by the Family Violence Counseling Program and that the Applicant’s child protection worker can arrange a meeting with that Program’s staff to assist with that referral.

29In its answer, the Respondent has identified additional support services to which it would make a referral or assist the Applicant to make her own referrals. While the Applicant states in the Applicant’s First March 8, 2023 Email that she has been mistreated by the local Hospital, the Respondent has nevertheless answered the question posed satisfactorily.

30As such, the Respondent has complied with Term 2(1)c.

Term 2(2): What were the circumstances that led to the Respondent Society making a determination that it may apprehend the Applicant’s child without a warrant in July 2022?

31In the Respondent’s March 2, 2023 letter, the Respondent states that the circumstances that led it to consider an apprehension of the Applicant’s child were specific to the Respondent’s inability to assess the safety of the child. The Respondent identifies that it had concerns about the Applicant’s mental health, the child had been moved to multiple locations and there were “suggestions” that the Applicant was unable to provide a stable environment for the child. The Respondent also outlines how these factors were balanced with others, including the Applicant’s continued involvement with a counselor, challenging housing issues and the Applicant’s work with the Respondent. The Respondent notes that it ultimately decided not to apprehend the child when it re-established contact with the Applicant and her child and workers were able to assess the safety of the child.

32There are no statements from the Applicant in her March 8, 2023 email messages related to this term.

33I find that the Respondent has provided sufficient information about the circumstances that led to its consideration of apprehending the child in its response to the Applicant in relation to Term 2(2). As such, I find that the Respondent has complied with this term.

Term 2(3): What circumstances led to the Respondent Society initiating a “BOLO” (be on the lookout for) the Applicant and her car in August 2022?

34In the Respondent’s March 2, 2023 Letter, the Respondent explains that the circumstances that led it to initiate a BOLO in August 2022 included concerns about the Applicant’s mental health, the Respondent’s inability to assess the safety of the child and concerns that the child did not have access to a stable environment.

35In her March 8, 2023 emails, the Applicant did not specifically address this term.

36I find that the Respondent has provided sufficient information about why it initiated a BOLO in response to Term 2(3), and as such, has complied with this term.

Term 2(4): What are the Respondent Society’s current concerns relating to the child such that a Society worker remains assigned to the Applicant?

37In the Respondent’s March 2, 2023 Letter, the Respondent notes that “there are worries” that the Applicant continues to struggle with stabilizing her mental health and isolate the child from meaningful supports including her father, and the Respondent has had some challenges talking with the child. The Respondent’s February 21, 2023 Letter was included as part of the Respondent’s response to this term.

38In the Respondent’s February 21, 2023 Letter, in several paragraphs, the Respondent provides further details about its concerns relating to the child including the Applicant’s mental health and presentation, lack of supports for the Applicant’s mental health and well being, and isolation of the child from other family support.

39In the Applicant’s First March 8, 2023 Email she notes that she has “recently received a copy of the society’s concerns” and provides some comments related to those concerns.

40While the Applicant takes issue with some of the concerns identified by the Respondent in its response to Term 2(4), and the lack of favourable information about the Applicant in it, the Respondent has outlined several current concerns relating to the child for which it has ongoing involvement with the Applicant.

41As such, the Respondent has provided a satisfactory response to Term 2(4) and I find the Respondent has complied with this term.

Term 2(5): In what circumstances would the Respondent Society convene another Situation Table for the Applicant?

42In the Respondent’s March 2, 2023 Letter, the Respondent describes how referrals are made to the Situation Table and refers to the past involvement of the Respondent in a Situation Table and a recommendation related to the Applicant arising from that process. The Respondent further states, “In recent consultation with the facilitator of this Table, it was agreed that should [the Applicant] feel that [her] circumstances necessitate a referral to the Table, that they would present [the Applicant’s] situation and the group would determine if [the Applicant’s] situation met the requirements for an intervention”.

43The Applicant did not comment on the Respondent’s response to Term 2(5) in her March 8, 2023 emails.

44I find that the Respondent has described the circumstances under which it would become involved in another Situation Table for the Applicant. As such, I find the Respondent has complied with Term 2(5).

Term 2(6): The Applicant has expressed concerns about the father’s interactions with the child and for the child’s mental health arising from those interactions. What supports can the Respondent Society provide to the child and her father to help with this?

45In the Respondent’s March 2, 2023 Letter, the Respondent provides the following response to the Applicant:

The Society is supportive of children having access to a broad network of support over their lifetime, recognizing that isolating or withholding a child from another parent is not child centred. The Society is able to assist in facilitating access between the child and the father by providing space in which pick up and drop off can be negotiated between the caregivers. In the Society’s experience, caregivers who are able to remain child focused and are able to have open and respectful dialogue, experience positive outcomes in their parental relationship with the child. It is very clear that you and the child’s father are very focused on the child’s best interest and the relationship between the two of you is paramount in the child’s life. Should both you and the child’s father agree to attend child centred parenting groups/programs, this could be a good start in rebuilding relationships that place the child’s best interest in the center.

46In the Applicant’s First March 8, 2023 Email, the Applicant notes that she feels her concerns about the father were “disregarded”, although she doesn’t specifically describe the Respondent’s response to Term 2(6).

47The Applicant’s question in Term 2(6) relates to what supports the Respondent may be able to provide to the child and her father given the Applicant’s concerns about the impact on the child’s mental health as a result of the child’s interactions with her father.

48In order to answer the question satisfactorily, the Respondent must either outline the supports that the Respondent can provide to the child and her father (not to the Applicant) in relation to the Applicant’s concerns, or explain concretely the reasons why the Respondent would not be able to offer supports to the child and her father relating to, and despite, the Applicant’s concerns.

49The Respondent has not done either in its response to Term 2(6). It has instead provided an answer that meanders around the question posed without providing a clear answer. The Respondent has not complied with Term 2(6).

Term 2(7):The Applicant is concerned about her relationships with [DH], Executive Director of [a women’s shelter] and Ontario Works due to past interactions, and the impact of those interactions on her ability to secure housing. What steps has the Respondent Society taken or would the Respondent Society consider taking, if any (excluding the Situation Table), to help the Applicant improve her relationship with [DH] and Ontario Works?

50In the Respondent’s March 2, 2023 Letter, the Respondent responds to this term as follows:

The Society’s best hope is that we are able to coney with your permission, the gains you have made as you have continued to work towards stabilizing your situation. Although the Society has limited powers to fix relationships within the community, we are able to offer additional information for other services (sic) providers to consider.

51In the Applicant’s First March 8, 2023 Email, she states, “they don’t contain any mention of the ‘gains’ they want permission to use in my favour”.

52While the Respondent has partially responded to Term 2(7) in that it describes that it will convey, with the Applicant’s permission, the gains that the Applicant has made, it is important that the Respondent provide further details to help the Applicant understand what “gains” or “additional information” the Respondent would be conveying to service providers. It is also unclear if the Respondent would be conveying that information specifically to DH and Ontario Works.

53The response to Term 2(7) lacks sufficient details to be a complete response to the term. As such, I find that the Respondent has not complied with Term 2(7).

CONCLUSION

54I find that the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, with the exception of Terms 2(1)a, 2(6), and 2(7) for which the Respondent has not provided sufficient detail or clarity to the Applicant related to the questions asked in those terms.

55In her March 8, 2023 emails, the Applicant expressed frustration with some of the Respondent’s responses to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The role of the CFSRB relating to allegations of non-compliance is only to confirm whether the Respondent has satisfactorily complied with the terms. With respect to the answers the Respondent provides to questions within the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the CFSRB will find that the Respondent has complied with the terms if there is a satisfactory answer, even if it is one with which the Applicant disagrees or feels could have been answered differently.

order

56Within 14 days of the date of this decision, the Respondent shall provide the Applicant with further information in writing and clear responses to Terms 2(1)a, 2(6) and 2(7). Specifically,

a. In respect of Term 2(1)a, the Respondent shall answer the first part of the question with a clear affirmative or negative response, followed by the reasons for that response;

b. In respect of Term 2(6), the Respondent shall either outline the supports that the Respondent can provide to the child and her father (not to the Applicant) in relation to the Applicant’s concerns, or explain concretely the reasons why the Respondent would not be able to offer supports to the child and her father relating to, and despite, the Applicant’s concerns.

c. In respect of Term 2(7), the Respondent shall outline the Applicant’s “gains” and “additional information” that it would be willing to provide to other services providers, including DH and Ontario Works.

confidentiality order

57Pursuant 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.