AS(G) v. Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox, and Addington, 2024 CFSRB 115

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AS(G) Applicant

-and-

Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox, and Addington Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Lise Henrie Date: September 26, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 115 Indexed As: AS(G) v Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox, and Addington (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

AS(G), Applicant Self-represented

Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, Respondent Ayana Hutchinson, Counsel

OVERVIEW

1This is an Application to the Child and Family Services Review Board (“CFSRB”) filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c.14, Sched.1, (the “Act”). A hearing was held by videoconference on September 26, 2024.

ISSUES

2This Application consists of the following complaints under section 120(4) 4 of the Act:

1. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent failed to give her an opportunity to be heard regarding increased access to her son K.
2. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to hear her concerns about the need for her daughter E. to attend counselling for issues relating to parental alienation among other issues.
3. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide her with complete and timely information regarding conversations its workers have with her children K. and E.
4. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to hear her concerns regarding a lack of timeliness and responsiveness exhibited by its workers when attending to matters relating to her family.

3The Respondent (hereinafter “the Society”) submits that it complied with sections 15(2)(a), 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.

RESULT

4Having reviewed the testimony and documents presented at the hearing, I find the following:

1. The Applicant’s complaint regarding increased access to her son K is now before the courts and cannot be reviewed by the CFSRB, according to section 120(8)(b) of the Act.
2. The complaint regarding the Applicant’s concerns about the need for her daughter E. to attend counselling is no longer at issue.
3. The Society provided the Applicant with complete and timely information regarding conversations its workers have with her children K. and E.
4. The Society failed to hear all the Applicant’s concerns regarding a lack of timeliness and responsiveness exhibited by its workers when attending to matters relating to her family.

ANALYSIS

Context

5The Applicant has three children. She separated from her two youngest children’s father, BG, in the Fall of 2023. The Society most recently became involved with the family in August 2023, after receiving information related to concerns for the Applicant’s alcohol use and worries for conflict between the parents over custody of the children. The Society had previously been involved with the family around 2019, when allegations had been made about BG. That file was closed about a year later.

6A voluntary family plan was put in place on April 5, 2024, which provided that the children would reside with their father, BG and the Applicant would have weekly supervised visits with her son, K. The agreement does not provide any visits for the Applicant with her daughter E, as per E’s request. The issues regarding parenting arrangements are now before the family court.

7At the outset, I indicated to the parties that it was unfortunate that the parties did not agree to proceed by mediation as there would have been more flexibility in what the parties could agree to do, such as the disclosure of documents and ground rules on how the parties would communicate going forward. I state this as section 120(7) of the Act provides limited relief, and does not include disclosure of a file, one of the remedies sought by the Applicant.

1. Did the Society fail to give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding increased access to her son, K?

8The Applicant testified that her son wanted to see her more often. She said that he had been telling others that he wanted more time with her. The Applicant said that she and BG had been in family court for a while but had not yet dealt with parenting arrangements. She said that the next court date was in November 2024 and the relief sought was parenting time with the children.

9Section 120(8) of the Act provides that the CFSRB shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint is an issue that is before the court. Because the issue of parenting time is clearly before the court, the CFSRB finds that it does not have jurisdiction to deal with this issue.

10I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to conduct a review of issue 1.

2. Did the Society fail to hear the Applicant’s concerns about the need for her daughter E to attend counselling for issues relating to parental alienation among other issues?

11The Applicant testified that she was estranged from her daughter E. She said that BG did not believe in counselling and did not want it for either of their two children. She noted that a court had found that it was not right to withhold information about the children from her. She said that this issue regarding counselling had now been resolved and did not pursue this issue at the hearing.

12I find that issue 2 was resolved prior to this hearing.

3. Did the Society fail to provide the Applicant with complete and timely information regarding conversations its workers have with her children K and E?

13The Notice of Eligibility determined that the allegations regarding the Applicant’s opportunity to be heard and represented (section 120(4)4) of the Act) were eligible to proceed. I note that the Application was not found eligible under section 120(4) 5 of the Act (i.e., allegations that a Society has failed to provide a complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests) For this reason, this issue regarding the failure to provide information is outside of the CFSRB’s jurisdiction to hear.

14I find that the CFSRB does not have jurisdiction to review issue 3.

4. Did the Society fail to hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding a lack of timeliness and responsiveness exhibited by its workers when attending to matters relating to her family?

Concerns regarding BG’s parenting

15Based on the testimony of both the Applicant and the Society’s witness, I find that while the Society has shown that they heard the Applicant about her concerns regarding BG’s behaviour, it appears that the Applicant did not understand the Society’s explanation and therefore felt that she was not heard.

16According to evidence, the Society explained to Applicant that the current file with the family concerned the Applicant’s behaviour and told her that they had no concerns about BG’s parenting. The evidence that is part of KB’s affidavit shows that the Applicant made several attempts to raise concerns about BG, including his criminal charges/convictions, substance use and mental health.

17While the Society’s most recent file related primarily with safety concerns for the children when in the Applicant’s care due to alcohol use, section 15(2) of the Act makes it clear that the Society should ensure that the Applicant is heard when decisions are made.

18In the course of its involvement in this file, the Society recommended a temporary family plan which provides that the children reside with BG. Because of this, BG’s parenting abilities are relevant. The Society’s position is that they did hear the Applicant’s concerns about BG’s parenting abilities, and ultimately found no concerns. The evidence shows that the Society did hear the Applicant’s concerns about BGs behaviour. For example, KB testified that she sought the children’s views about BG in her meetings with them. Also, at paragraph 12 of KB’s affidavit, the Applicant’s concerns are listed, and at paragraph 14, it states that the Society had no evidence that the children were at risk of harm because of BG’s behaviour. At paragraph 34 of the affidavit, KB notes that neither child expressed any concerns pertaining to their father’s care.

19I find that the Applicant’s complaint regarding the lack of responsiveness to her concerns with BG’s parenting abilities stems from a miscommunication as to why the Society found no concerns and determined that the children reside with BG.

Concerns regarding the Family Plan

20The Applicant testified that she believed the family plan that was implemented on consent on April 5, 2024 would be in place for one weekend. On the other hand, the Society’s witness indicated in her affidavit that it was in place “until such time as [the Society’s] protection concerns related to the [Applicant’s] alcohol use could be mitigated.”

21I note that in the April 5, 2024 contact log (exhibit F to KB’s affidavit), KB writes that the Applicant stated that she would allow BG” to have the children for the weekend”. This evidence suggests that the length of the arrangement may not have been clearly communicated to, or understood by, the Applicant.

22The Applicant testified that she has not seen her daughter E since April 2024, and she has weekly supervised visits with her son K. The Applicant testified that an example where she felt that the information about her children was not heard is that she said her son K wanted to see her more often. KB testified that she did not hear him say this. I note that in exhibit M of KB’s affidavit, she wrote that K misses his mom a lot. This information does not clearly indicate the child’s wishes about spending more time with the Applicant but does help understand why the Applicant feels that her son wanted to spend more time with her and why, from her perspective, she thought he was not heard, as required by section 15(2) of the Act.

23KB testified that the Society had a plan to discuss the trajectory for the family going forward, but that was postponed in July 2024, when the Applicant was intoxicated for the first daylong visit with K. The Applicant testified that she sought treatment for 42 days from the end of July 2024 to early September 2024. KB testified that the day before the hearing, she heard from her manager that she should be arranging a time to speak with the Applicant about a trajectory. This suggests that it took the Society a couple of weeks to prepare to discuss changes to the family plan. Given the length of time that the family plan has been in place with limited or no visitation for the Applicant, this delay of a couple of weeks suggests that the Society has failed to hear and acknowledge the Applicant’s concerns regarding the time she has with her children. While KB testified to having approximately 18 files, the Applicant’s concerns about the limited time she had with her children did not appear to be heard.

Applicant’s understanding of the issues

24Finally, it is important to refer to the reason for the Society’s involvement with the Applicant and her family to put the Applicant’s complaint in context. KB’s testimony and affidavit show that the Applicant’s alcohol use had put the children at risk, for example:

• when she drove while under the influence in April 2024, and
• when the Applicant’s mother called BG in July 2024 because the Applicant was intoxicated during her first daylong visit with her son, K.

25KB testified that due to the Applicant’s alcohol use during the July 2024 visit, there were concerns with the children’s safety, and that the decision to move to community visits would depend on the Applicant.

26The evidence shows that the Applicant contacted the Society often and raised other issues without acknowledging her responsibility in this file. The evidence shows that the Society communicated regularly with the Applicant. The Applicant’s situation may have made it difficult for her to understand some of the communications provided by the Society. This in turn, may have made her feel that she was not heard.

27I found that the level of tension between the Applicant and some Society workers could also be a reason that the Applicant had difficulty understanding. During the hearing, the Applicant would sometimes interrupt the Society representative or witness, despite warnings not to do so. At the same time, I noted that the Society witness was abrupt with the Applicant. This tension could make it difficult to have clear communications between the parties.

28Based on the evidence above, I find that the Society heard most of the Applicant’s concerns, however, it failed to hear the Applicant’s concerns regarding the need for timely and responsive measures relating to time with her children. The Society witness testified that the Society would soon be meeting with the Applicant regarding the trajectory. Such a meeting would help ensure that she is heard.

ORDER

29Issues 1, 2 and 3 are dismissed.

30In relation to Issue 4, I order the Society to provide written reasons to the Applicant by November 30, 2024, regarding how it considered the Applicant’s views regarding time with her children, and how timely any action was taken in this regard, notably after she completed her treatment.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

31Pursuant 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.