JJ v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, 2023 CFSRB 93

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JJ Applicant

-and-

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Martina Dwyer Date: November 02, 2023 Citation: 2023 CFSRB 93 Indexed As: JJ v Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

JJ, Applicant Self-represented

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto, Respondent Rachel Buhler, Counsel

Introduction

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, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”).

2The Application was found eligible for review under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act. Those sections provide that an Application may be brought when 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 the Applicant raised concerns about the services she is receiving, of the society is alleged to have failed to provide the Applicant with reasons for a decision that affected her interests.

3At the Pre-hearing that took place on July 21, 2023, the following issues were identified:

1. The Applicant alleges that her concerns regarding an incident where her son left the school on October 30, 2021, were not heard/or were dismissed by Respondent staff and were not followed up in a timely manner;

2. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff did not hear her concerns with her son (allegations of sexual abuse, being left in a room for time out) while in the care of his father;

3. The Applicant alleges that she was not provided with adequate reasons regarding the two investigations of alleged abuse;

4. The Applicant alleges that her concerns regarding her treatment by “the Child Protection Worker A.K.” during the access visit of April 21, 2022, were not heard;

5. The Applicant alleges that Respondent workers did not hear her concerns about her son hitting himself;

6. The Applicant alleges that Respondent staff failed to hear her concerns regarding the impact on her son of the school being held-up;

7. The Applicant alleges she was not provided with a reason as to why trauma counselling for her son has not been scheduled as of yet;

8. The Applicant alleges that her concerns regarding the Respondent’s decisions and actions related to supervised access and the access schedule were not heard by the Respondent; and she was not provided reasons for the Respondent’s decisions regarding access;

9. The Applicant alleges that she was not provided with reasons for why her access has to be supervised;

10. The Applicant alleges she was not provided with an explanation as to why “the child protection worker A.K.” was meeting with her child at school without the knowledge of existing on going workers.

11. The Applicant alleges that Respondent workers did not hear/dismissed her concerns that her son had cuts on his penis and irregularities in his urine (May 13, 2023);

12. The Applicant alleges that her concerns regarding a June 9, 2023, incident at school were not heard by Respondent staff;

13. The Applicant alleges that her request to have her file move to Simcoe-Muskoka have not been heard.

ISSUES

4The Applicant withdrew her allegations at the hearing in paragraphs 4(3), (8) and (13) set out above. I allowed her to withdraw these claims. The Applicant clarified that allegation three was the same as in paragraphs 4(11) and (12).

5The Applicant testified on her behalf. The child protection worker, “L.C”. testified on behalf of the Society.

6For the following reasons, the CFSRB finds that the Respondent gave the Applicant an opportunity to be heard, and it provided her with satisfactory reasons for its decisions. Her application is dismissed.

the law

7The relevant provisions of the Act are set out below:

Section 120(4) of the Act provides:

The following matters may be reviewed by the Board under this section: …

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.

8Section 15(2) provides:

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.

9Section 120(7) of the Act provides:

After reviewing the complaint, the Board may:

(a) order the society to proceed with the complaint made by the complainant in accordance with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(b) order the society to provide a response to the complainant within a period specified by the Board;

(c) order the society to comply with the complaint review procedure established by regulation;

(d) order the society to provide written reasons for a decision to a complainant; or

(e) dismiss the complaint.

10Moreover, the right to reasons under the Act means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the applicant’s interests. In JG v Windsor Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, the CFSRB held that:

With respect to s.68.1(4)5 (now s.120(4)5), what constitutes sufficient reasons is a matter to be examined in each case in the context of that particular situation. This may include an examination of the timeliness and the level of detail provided. A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were taken into account in making the decision to allow him or her to understand why and how the decision was made.

11The Act does not mandate or permit the CFSRB to make determinations as to the clinical wisdom or validity of decisions made by the Society.

background

12The Applicant is the mother of a son, the “child”.

13The Applicant, the child, and the child’s father “father” have had extensive involvement with the Respondent since 2014. There were six files opened from 2014 to 2020 that were all closed following an investigation of complaints. There were mutual allegations of domestic violence, substance abuse, poor parenting, mental health and criminal harassment. The Applicant and the father separated in 2014 when the child was four years old. The child has moderate hearing loss, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder “ADHD” and behavioural difficulties.

14There is presently a supervision Order in place with regard to the child’s parenting time with the Applicant. The child resides primarily with the father.

15The child attends counselling virtually bi-weekly for coping strategies regarding his ADHD and emotional regulation.

analysis

Issue one: the Respondent heard concerns regarding the child leaving the school and the delay in responding to the Applicant.

16The Applicant alleges that it took over a week to find out what happened to the child when he left the school on October 30, 2021. The Applicant stated that the complaint was dismissed. The Appellant stated that she had requested an Internal Complaints Review Panel “ICRP” meeting, which was scheduled for January 2022. The Applicant provided a statement of facts attached to her application concerning this ICRP meeting. In the statement of facts, the Applicant stated:

I was given an apology from CCAS during a ICRP meeting in March for the conduct and was told repeatedly by email that this was handled incorrectly.

17The child protection worker, L.C., testified that she took over carriage of the matter starting in May 2022. She did not have direct knowledge of this. However, L.C. testified that she read this communication in the Applicant’s file and indicated that the complaint was heard.

18The Applicant participated in an ICRP during which the Respondent acknowledged it had made errors and provided an apology. I find that the Applicant’s concerns regarding the delay of one week in responding to the Applicant were heard during the ICRP meeting.

Issue two: the Respondent heard the sexual abuse allegations and provided reasons.

19The Applicant stated that from March 16 to 22, 2022, that she had parenting time with the child. Her parenting time was just increased 50/50 at that time. During that time, the child stated he was put in a room for storage under the stairs for time out. The child was fearful at bedtime and had to leave the lights on. The Applicant stated that she was concerned and informed A.K. regarding what the child had disclosed; however, she did not indicate when she had done so.

20The Applicant testified that on March 23, 2023, A.K. had interviewed the child at his school. The child informed the Applicant that the interview occurred the following evening. The Applicant stated in her testimony that it took two days to start the investigation and two days to get a response from A.K. However also testified that it took one month to discuss her concerns. The Applicant felt that the investigation should have been initiated immediately. The Applicant stated:

On April 1st, 2022, I was finally contacted about the investigation and “A.K.” informed me that it was believed that “child” was saying these things to try and “please me”. I asked immediately to go back into the supervision order.

21The Applicant stated in her statement of facts:

An investigation was made by both CCAS and the police of the Child & Youth Advocacy Center, and the only change in “the child’s” daily routine was that we were doing the original family court order from 2018

22The Applicant’s testimony on this issue was inconsistent. She changed her testimony that it took over a month to discuss this. She referred to a Facilitated Access Conference on May 5, 2022. I asked for the Applicant to clarify by pointing out where in the evidence did it confirm that her concerns were not addressed. The Applicant then conceded that she was given adequate reasons.

23I find that the Applicant’s testimony was inconsistent. The Applicant, in her own words, verified that her concerns were addressed. I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard.

Issue four: the Respondent heard the Applicant’s treatment concerns by “the Child Protection Worker A.K. and Issue ten: the Respondent heard the allegation that the child protection worker A.K.” did not meet the child.

24The Applicant’s statement of facts indicated that on April 25, 2022, she was told that supervised visits were recommended as there was concern by the Respondent. The Applicant was overhead telling the child it was unfair that she could not see him over Easter. A.K., reprimanded the Applicant. The Applicant stated that she apologized to A.K. after the visit, and they laughed this off. The Applicant stated that she also emailed A.K. and never heard back.

25The Applicant testified that A.K.’s conduct was not explained. However, she indicated the reason as set out above concerning the incident. The Applicant then testified that she was served with a cease-and-desist notice from the Respondent’s lawyer regarding an email that she sent A.K. The Applicant testified that she did this to find out what was going on and wanted to know why A.K. had left. The Applicant stated that she was frustrated with the entire situation.

26The Applicant testified that she saw her child with the bear on June 16, 2022. She testified that she advised the school about the visit from a prior Respondent child protection worker and that this visit was unknown by the Respondent. A bear had been given to the child at that visit. The Appellant stated that in June 2022, her complaint was dismissed and denied. She stated that she did not know why A.K. had gone to the child’s school and was never given a reason.

27In cross-examination, the Applicant verified that she received an email that A.K. was no longer employed with the Respondent. She verified that she was given a reason and it did not have anything to do with her family.

28On April 25, 2022, the Applicant provided an email with a transfer meeting notification from the CCAS supervisor to the Applicant indicating that the Applicant had been informed that a new child protection worker would be taking over the matter. The Applicant testified that she requested a new supervisor, and there was a meeting on April 29, 2022. The Applicant provided a transcript of this transfer meeting. The Applicant and her mother attended this meeting and were made aware that the child protection worker was leaving; the Applicant met the newly assigned worker, L.C. at this meeting.

29In or around May 2022, the child protection worker L.C. testified she informed the Applicant that A.K. was taking a leave from his employment. It was a planned leave. The reason for the change in workers was provided to the mother. A family-centered conference meeting was done with the Applicant and the Respondent supervisor, as noted above.

30L.C. testified that a transfer family services meeting was also done at the father’s residence with the father, A.K., and the supervisor. A bear gift was given to the child during the transfer visit.

31The child protection worker, L.C., testified that she had no knowledge of A.K. attending the child’s school when the Respondent no longer employed him. L.C. stated that the Applicant told her that A.K. attended the child’s school. However, A.K. was out of the country when the Applicant alleged this occurred. L.C. responded to the Applicant and advised her that the child was questioned and had never said that A.K. had visited him. The Applicant was informed that the gift to the child occurred at the final transfer meeting in the presence of her and her supervisor.

32The Applicant stated in response that she was told that she was aggravating the child, because she did not like the stuffed animal, and that was quite upsetting to the child.

33Regarding the Applicant’s complaint that she was unaware of the reasons for A.K. reprimanding her, she provided the particulars of this incident herself. She had a debriefing meeting afterward in which she apologized to A.K. Regarding the complaint that the Applicant received no response concerning A.K. attending the child’s school unauthorized, L.C. testified to immediately interviewing the child and following up with the Applicant. As noted above, the bear was provided at the transfer meeting at the father’s home. I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard.

Issue five: the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns about her son hitting himself at school.

34The Applicant testified that on February 18, 2022, the child was upset during a virtual access visit. The Applicant stated that while on the virtual visit, the child hit himself, he cried, and he would not stop. The Applicant stated that the child likes to hit himself and others. The Applicant stated that the child protection worker allowed her to handle this. The Applicant testified that the child protection worker ignored her concerns, and she was told that the child was bored. However, the Applicant changed her testimony to that she had an access meeting about this. The Applicant stated that at the access meeting, it was agreed that the child protection worker would attend the child’s school to find out if the child does this at school.

35The Applicant provided the transcript of the Facilitated Access Conference on March 7, 2022. The Applicant stated the following:

“The Applicant” shared that everything is generally going well with her access visits with the child.

“the Applicant” maintains a structured schedule with “the child”, including a set bedtime, mealtimes and various activities. They watch a movie together every night. She allows him to pick one 30-to-60-minute show to watch daily. He sometimes gets mad and says he’s bored. He wants to watch things on Netflix that “the Applicant” does not feel are appropriate.

“the child” can sometimes get angry and be aggressive about the boundaries and the rules. The school called recently to ask that “the Applicant” pick him up because he was being disruptive.

36The Applicant testified that she was told that the child acted out at school. He hit others with a shoe. A teacher had to remove a shoe from him and restrain him in front of the child protection worker.

37The Applicant stated that a meeting occurred around February 18, 2022, and that this was transcribed. At the meeting, it was agreed that the child was already seeing a counsellor and they did not want to change this. A copy of the transcript of this meeting was not provided.

38The child protection worker interviewed the child and explained to the Applicant the steps it was taking and that there was nothing to indicate that the child was at risk of harm.

39The position of the Respondent was that a Family-Centered conference with a supervisor present was done in May 2022 with regard to the child hitting himself at school. The child protection worker followed up with and the principal of the school and spoke to the child’s counsellor. Emotional regulation was recommended. The father was also consulted, and the counselling was focused on emotional regulation and goals were set. It was preferrable to the father to have the child attend counselling by Zoom. The sessions were for 30 minutes and this accommodated the child’s condition of ADHD.

40With regard to the Applicant’s complaints that the child was hitting himself at school. The worker had done her due diligence and followed up with the appropriate persons. Counselling was changed to focus on emotional regulation. I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard.

Issue six: the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns regarding the school hold up with a replica gun.

41The Applicant testified that on January 20, 2023, the child’s school was held up at gunpoint. She saw this incident while watching the news. The child, however, did not attend school on this day and was at home with the Applicant. The Applicant stated that she requested to schedule a meeting with the Respondent and was told they did not know about the incident. The Applicant stated that she called the school’s principal, and he dismissed her concerns. The Applicant stated that the school’s principal sent a notice the next day. The Appellant stated that she requested a meeting with the father in attendance and did not get one.

42Concerning the Applicant’s complaint, the Respondent indicated that they had shared the information from the school with the Applicant (who was not receiving this communication at the time). The Respondent further shared the father's information on how the child reacted. The Respondent also followed up with the principal about this, following which this information was additionally shared with the Applicant. The Respondent did respond to the Applicant’s concerns as noted above, as evidenced that the following day, the correspondence from the child’s school was forwarded to the Applicant by the Respondent. I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard.

Issue seven: the Respondent heard the Appellant’s concerns regarding trauma counselling and provided reasons.

43The Applicant indicated that she would like the child to undergo a trauma assessment/trauma counselling concerning the school hold-up. The Applicant testified that on Monday, May 1, 2022, she received a text from the father.

44The Applicant explained the context of this text was in reference to a discussion regarding trauma counselling with the father of the child. The Applicant stated that both parents believed that the child should have trauma counselling. However, the Respondent did not believe there was a concern.

45The Applicant stated that she set a meeting with the counsellor, and they agreed that the child experienced a major death, ADHD, and hearing impairment. He got physically aggressive and physically interactive. A meeting was set with the father, and also, the father agreed to trauma counselling. The Applicant testified that all of this is in writing. The Appellant further stated that everyone agreed to counselling except the Respondent. The Applicant provided no particulars with regard to the above statement concerning that all had agreed to trauma counselling.

46The text from the father to the Applicant dated May 1, 2022, stated:

I think it as well would be better in person, but “the counsellor” has the services for free so I thought it would be cost effective. He’s been doing video calls through school (Covid) his calls with you and others. Lol he is better at zoom than I am.

In retrospect to trauma counselling, over the family members passing. I’ve kept an eye on him since and he’s still very outgoing, and happy and hasn’t brought out my mom or your aunt. (Which I im (sic, I’m) sorry to hear about). I feel it’d be more useful for him to talk about the separation from you or if he feels stressed during the visit with you (always being watched from CCAS and maybe holding back a bit at the visit because of this) they don’t tell me much how visits go. So, I will get in contact which (sic, with) “the counsellor” and go from there.

47In response to the Applicant’s request the Respondent sent an e-mail to the child’s counsellor on May 31, 2023, asking for his recommendations about trauma therapy. The counsellor had been providing therapeutic support to the child regularly. The counsellor responded and advised that he has consulted with a staff psychologist and a trauma assessment/therapy was not being recommended.

48The Applicant is not in agreement with the decision of the counsellor. At the hearing, she continued to state that the father supports trauma counselling. However, his text to her did not support her testimony. I find that the Respondent has heard the Applicant’s request for trauma counselling and has followed up by asking the child’s counsellor whether this was recommended and has been advised that it is not. The Respondent has explained this to the Applicant; the Applicant disagrees.

Issue eight: the Respondent heard decisions and actions related to supervised access and the access schedule

49The Applicant provided transcripts of several facilitated access conferences. The transcripts indicated the Respondent had met with the Applicant on December 2, 2021, January 20, 2022, January 24, 2022, February 7, 2022, March 7, 2022, April 6, 2022, and April 29, 2022.

50The Appellant stated the Respondent scheduled a meeting that she could not attend because she broke her toe. At 24 hours before the meeting her visits were revoked, and this was when things began to change. She was assured that she could get out of the access meeting. The Applicant stated that she was returned to supervised access. The Applicant testified that there was a quick change in access when the child talked about abuse. There was a very strict supervising order after this. As noted previously in this decision, the Applicant was aware of the access returning to supervised access and testified that it was she who suggested this.

51The Applicant referred to a Facilitated Access Conference on April 11, 2022. However, it was clear that the Applicant had participated in the supervised access schedule and the location. The Applicant stated at this conference the following:

“the Applicant” said that she is very concerned that CCAS (including CYAC) may feel that she is involved with encouraging “the child’s” allegations and his behaviours. She feels that her contact with “the child” should be fully supervised at the “the center” so that, going forward, if “the child” makes any allegations, it will not be held against her. She feels very vulnerable and that it is risky for her to continue to care for “the child” at her home because she may be held responsible for any allegations he makes.

“The Applicant,” said, at this time, she is more comfortable having access visits at a CCAS location with CCAS staff providing supervision. She also does not want any telephone or virtual access visits without CCAS supervision during the calls.

52The Applicant testified that she completed a psychologist report concerning access, and nothing was determined. The evaluation was discussed in the April 29, 2022, Facilitated Access Conference and indicated:

The psychological evaluation of “the Applicant” was completed and recommended that, as least in the short-term, “the Applicant’s” access be supervised. It also recommended that “the Applicant” have a psychiatric assessment to explore whether medication can assist with her “profound anxiety”.

53Supervised access took place on April 7, 2023. The Applicant testified that the Respondent did not agree with this, and it was she who requested to return to supervised access. Another visit was supervised on April 12, 2023, by a child protection worker for two hours from her home.

54L.C. testified that at the end of every supervised access visit feed back was given to the Applicant. She did not always agree with the feedback. After the visits follow up emails were sent to the Applicant. L.C. indicated that it was hard to schedule monthly visits with the Applicant. The Respondent indicated that the Applicant’s lawyer was present for an access meeting. Her lawyer suggested supervised access longer than 12 months, while only 12 months was endorsed by the Respondent.

55The Applicant stated that she requested a meeting with the Respondent, which was held on April 29, 2023. She stated that she discussed returning to the original order of unsupervised equal parenting time. She provided an email to show it was set up with her father. Her mother was present. The Applicant stated that a majority of the meeting was focused on the society changing the child protection worker. She stated that she was requesting formally that she have this access, and the visits were denied.

56The transcript was provided for this Facilitated Access Conference. One of the purposes of the meeting was the Applicant’s request that her access visits be reviewed, given her request that her visits move to her home or her father’s home (supervised by her father). Regarding access the following was discussed and agreed upon by the Applicant:

“The Applicant” requested that her access visits be moved to her father’s home (or her home) on Tuesdays and Thursdays. He lives nearby so there is little travel time involved and “the child” would not need to miss school. On Tuesdays and Thursdays, “the Applicant’s” father does not have any service providers coming into his home and would be available to supervise visits

“The Applicant” said that CCAS staff can also be present to supervise the visits, if needed. “The Respondent” agrees to this arrangement and feels it’s best for “the child”.

57The Respondent’s position is that the current court order allows for supervised access to the mother at their discretion. The Respondent has continued to have access conferences involving the Applicant to discuss possibilities to decrease supervision and has explained that there are ongoing concerns about the nature of her conversations with the child (projecting worries, fixation on unsubstantiated concerns with caregivers).

58There was another access conference scheduled shortly after the hearing to discuss the plan to have the Applicant’s mother supervise the visits once she is apprised of the concerns and can ensure that the conversation remains child-focused and avoids any topics about custody and the child’s care.

59The Respondent had explained to the Applicant the reasons for supervised access; the Applicant disagreed; however, testified that it was her that requested supervised access, given the child had voiced that he was being abused. The Applicant’s testimony concerning access not being addressed on April 29, 2023, and refused was inconsistent with the transcript noted above in this decision. The Applicant was aware of the supervision and worked with the Respondent to find suitable access supervisors. I find that the Respondent has heard the mother’s request for access and was given reasons.

Issue 10: the Respondent heard the Applicant’s concerns that her son had cuts on his penis and irregularities in his urine, and Issue 12: the Respondent heard concerns regarding a June 9, 2023, incident at school.

60L.C. testified that she met with the child privately on May 19, 2023, and again on May 30, 2023. The child did not report any maltreatment by any individual(s) and advised that he “just woke up” feeling itchy in his penis area.

61L.C. testified that she had follow up with the father who shared that the child had come home from school and reported an itchy area on his penis. The father brought the child to a walk-in clinic. The child did not have a urinary tract infection, he had a small cut on his penis and was prescribed a topical antibiotic Fucidin to apply to the area. The child did not disclose any trauma by anyone.

62The principal was interviewed and felt the Applicant had a heightened response regarding whether this happened at the school. L.C. emailed the Applicant and advised that, she then interviewed the principal, and spoke with the child. L.C. indicated that she may have also phoned the Applicant and her reaction was she was worried about how this happened. L.C. advised the Applicant that the doctor did not feel it was neglect or abuse and did not report this.

63The Respondent indicated that the Applicant cancelled her visit with the child on June 13, 2023, as she wanted the child protection worker to interview the child about inappropriate behaviour at school, before she saw her child.

64A week or two later, the child was interviewed again at school, and the child protection worker also spoke to father after the Applicant brought up the other issues. The father was not concerned.

65The position of the Respondent is that there have continued to be concerns that the Applicant remains entrenched in her belief that the child is not safe, is being harmed, and/or is being sexually maltreated by males, including the father, the paternal grandfather, and now the child’s current teacher. The Respondent has reviewed each of the Applicant’s concerns and despite there being no evidence to indicate that the child is being harmed, the Applicant is unable to accept information that is inconsistent with her preconceived beliefs that the child is being abused. The Respondent indicated that the Applicant has not demonstrated insight into the Society’s concerns, and the reasons for involvement, as she continues to believe that the file is open because the child is being abused, when the file is open due to the emotional impact of the Applicant’s false allegations were having on the child.

66The Respondent followed up by hearing that the Applicant had spoken to the child’s doctor and the Applicant was showed the doctor’s note and had told the doctor about her concerns. The principal and the father were also interviewed by L.C. No concerns were noted. I find that the Applicant’s concerns were heard.

Conclusion

67I find that the Respondent met its obligation to hear the Applicant’s concerns in a timely manner. It provided reasons for its actions at the time. After reviewing all of the materials filed by the Respondent and by the Applicant for the reasons identified above, I find that the Applicant was heard by Respondent.

68While the Applicant disagrees with the Respondent’s conclusion, I find that she has been provided with sufficient reasons to explain its decisions on all aspects of her complaints.

69In this case, the Applicant disagrees with the Respondent’s finding that the child is not at risk of physical and sexual abuse. This does not mean the Respondent failed to hear the Applicant’s concerns.

ORDER

70The Application is dismissed.

confidentiality order

71Pursuant 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.