CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
JB
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry
Respondent
INTERIM DECISION
Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon
Indexed As: JB v Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (CYFSA s.120)
WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS
JB, Applicant
Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of the United Counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry, Respondent
Emily Gallagher, Counsel
Overview
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 CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3In its Response dated November 4, 2024, the Respondent submits that the Applicant is not eligible to proceed because the matter is an issue that has been decided by the court and continues to before the Court in family law proceedings. The Respondent attached court documents to its Response as required by Rule 21.2 of the CFSRB’s Rules of Procedure.
4As directed by the CFSRB in its November 13, 2024, Case Management Direction, the Applicant provided written submissions further to the Response.
5The Applicant is the mother of OA (“the Child”). JA is the father of the Child.
6On June 3, 2024, a domestic family Court Order was made between JA and the Applicant for joint decision-making responsibility for the Child and shared parenting time (“2024 Parenting Order”).
7The Applicant brought an emergency Motion to suspend JA’s parenting time in family Court on September 17, 2024. The family Court Order made on that date did not vary the father’s parenting time but suggested that the motion materials filed at the hearing be forwarded to the Respondent which was conducting a joint investigation with the police. The Order stated that should the Respondent have concerns for the safety of the child while she is parented by the father it shall intervene as it sees fit.
Issue
8The CFSRB’s Case Management Direction dated November 13, 2024, identified the following issue:
i. Are the issues in the Application separate and different from the substantive issues before the court?
result
9I find that there are complaints identified in the Application that are separate and different issues from those that have been or are before the court. The CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear those.
analysis
Has the subject matter of the Application been before the court or is it before the court?
10Section 120(8) of the Act states:
The Board shall not conduct a review of a complaint under this section if the subject of the complaint,
(a) Is an issue that has been decided by the court or is before the court
11The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled in Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo v. DD, 2011 ONCA 441 that the mere existence of child protection proceedings does not bar the CFSRB from reviewing complaints about services received from a children’s aid society if the complaints are separate and different from the substantive issues before the court.
12It is undisputed that the 2024 Parenting Order governs parenting time as between the Child, JA and the Applicant. The CFSRB does not have jurisdiction in relation to parenting time.
13The Applicant states in her Application that she has serious concerns regarding the handling of investigations into the safety and well-being of the Child by the Respondent. The Respondent states that they have opened three (3) investigations, in January 2023, December 2023, and September 2024. In the January 2023 investigation they did not verify concerns and the file was closed. In the December 2023 investigation they did not verify concerns and the file was closed. The September 2024 investigation appears to be ongoing. No protection proceedings have been initiated as a result of any of these investigations.
14Within the context of the September 2024 investigation the Respondent has entered a safety plan with JA regarding the Child. This safety plan is separate from any order made in the family Court.
15On the information filed by the Respondent, I find that many of the Applicant’s complaints do not relate to the issues before the Family Court. The Applicant’s complaints are that she was not heard about her concerns for the child’s safety or provided with reasons for the Respondent’s alleged lack of communication and information-sharing during its investigation.
16I find that reasons relating to these complaints would not be expected as part of the court process addressing the Parenting Order issues and I see no evidence that they have been.
17The Applicant’s complaints related to section 120(4)4 and 5 that are separate and different from the substantive issues before the Court can be considered by the CFSRB.
18I find that the CFSRB has jurisdiction to hear the following complaints raised in the Application:
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not provided her with reasons why during the first investigation in January 2023, child protection worker AK allegedly failed to notify her of the investigation’s opening within the mandated timeframe and did not provide updates throughout the process.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons why the child was taken to the Koala Centre to be questioned by police without the Applicant’s knowledge in January or February 2023.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons why, during the second investigation in December 2023, she was allegedly not notified of the opening of the investigation, nor did she receive timely communication regarding the status of the case.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons why child protection worker CO allegedly allowed the Child’s father to take the Child to the police station without informing the Applicant in December 2023.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons why, during the third investigation in September 2024, she was allegedly not notified of the opening of that investigation.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons why, during the time of the first safety plan in September 2024 the Child was allegedly taken out of school and removed from the jurisdiction without her knowledge. The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons why it allegedly failed to notify Belleville CAS that a child in need of protection was in its jurisdiction.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not heard her concerns or provided her with reasons in relation to safety plans for the Child including:
a. the first safety plan allegedly failing yet remaining unchanged without her input or reassurance of the Child’s safety;
b. the second safety plan allegedly failing yet remaining unchanged without her input or reassurance of the Child’s safety; and
c. the Respondent’s alleged failure to create an adequate safety plan for the Child.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent did not provide her with reasons as to why allegedly from October 10 to October 17, 2024, child protection worker CO repeatedly ignored the Applicant’s communications.
The Applicant alleges that supervisor RVA did not hear her concerns regarding the Child’s trauma when they met on October 16, 2024, demonstrated by the safety plan allegedly remaining the same.
The Applicant alleges the Respondent has failed to provide reasons to her for being allegedly unable to share details about the “case” with her.
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has failed to provide reasons for not providing her with a new worker, despite her request and concerns that the child protection worker is allegedly biased.
ORDER
19The Application shall proceed to a hearing on the 11 issues identified in paragraph 18 above.
confidentiality order
20Pursuant 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 Brockville, December 13, 2024.
Karynn von Cramon
Karynn von Cramon
Member