AH v. Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services, 2024 CFSRB 74

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

AH

Applicant

-and-

Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane Date: June 24, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 74 Indexed As: AH v Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

AH, Applicant AH, Self-represented

Simcoe Muskoka Child Youth and Family Services, Respondent Karen O’Keefe, 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, SO 2017, c.14, Sched.1 (the “Act”).

2This decision considers the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent did not comply with the terms of an April 15, 2024 settlement agreement (“the Settlement Agreement”).

Background

3The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under section 120(4)5 of the Act. This section obliges a children’s aid society to provide service recipients reasons for decisions which affect an individual’s interests.

4The issue leading to the Applicant’s complaint was as follows:

1. The Applicant alleges she was not contacted by the Respondent’s family finder as part of the process of the Respondent’s exploration and planning for adoption options for the Applicant’s cousin, Child G. As a result the Applicant was deprived of the opportunity to present a plan for the Child. The Applicant seeks reasons from the Respondent for why she was not directly contacted as part of the family finding process.

5The parties reached a settlement during an April 15, 2024 mediation. The written Settlement Agreement required that:

1. The Respondent agrees to provide the Applicant with a letter by 5:00 pm Friday, April 26th that describes the family finding process used by the Respondent with respect to the Child G. and to provides reasons why the Applicant was not contact directly to present a plan for the Child.

6On April 30, 2024, the Applicant emailed the CFSRB and the Respondent alleging that the Respondent had not complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Applicant attached to their email a detailed one-page letter stating their reasons for alleging non-compliance. In their letter, the concerns raised by the Applicant included:

1. Conflicting information in the Respondent’s reasons letter between what the Respondent alleges took place during conversations between the Applicant’s mother and what the Applicant’s mother alleges took place.

2. The reasons letter provided by the Respondent contains misinformation indicating that the Applicant was living with her mother at the time of the kin finding process and the conversations between the Respondent and the Applicant’s mother regarding the family’s ability to plan for the Child.

7The Respondent had an opportunity to respond in writing to the Applicant’s letter alleging non-compliance, but did not do so. In response to a Case Management Directive dated May 14, 2024, the Respondent provided the CFSRB with a copy of their April 17, 2024 in fulfillment of the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

8The CFSRB scheduled a non-compliance hearing for June 14, 2024. Both parties made oral submissions at the June 14, 2024 hearing.

Analysis

9In deciding whether the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I have considered the Settlement Agreement, the Applicant’s April 30, 2024 email and attached letter, the Respondent’s April 17, 2024 letter in fulfilment of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, and the parties’ oral submissions during the June 14, 2024 hearing.

10Based on my reading of the one term in the April 15, 2024 Settlement Agreement, the elements the Respondent was required to address were as follows:

1. Provide the Applicant with a letter;

2. By 5:00 pm Friday, April 26, 2024;

3. Describing the family finding process used by the Respondent with respect to the Child G.;

4. Provide reasons why the Applicant was not contacted directly to present a plan

11During the hearing both the Applicant and the Respondent agreed that elements 1) and 2) of the above requirements had been met. Given this agreement I will consider only elements 3) and 4) in my analysis.

12With respect to element 3) the Applicant argued in oral submissions that the Respondent did not adequately describe the family finding process. The Applicant wonders why the Respondent didn’t look further into family connections for placing the Child. The Respondent argued that they provided a “fulsome” description of their family finding process in this case in their April 17th letter to the Applicant.

13In reviewing the Respondent’s April 17th letter, I find that the Respondent described a number of aspects of their family finding process for the Child including: being involved with both the Applicant and Applicant’s mother in planning for other children, a decision by the Respondent that the same worker who was assessing the Applicant’s family for other children would also engage in conversations about the Child G to minimize many workers involved, and a description of discussions between the Respondent and the Applicant’s mother regarding whether the mother and the Applicant were able to support a plan for the Child G. While the description provided by the Respondent is brief, I find that it contains sufficient information that the Applicant should be able to understand the process that took place.

14I recognize that the Applicant disagrees with the Respondent’s version of what transpired between the Respondent’s kinship finder and the Applicant’s mother, however it is beyond the scope of this hearing for me to make a determination or finding regarding what actually transpired between the kinship worker and the Applicant’s mother. My role in this matter is limited to determining whether the Respondent fulfilled the terms of the Settlement Agreement and provided the requested reasons for decisions affecting the Applicant’s interests. I find that the Respondent did fulfill this term of the Settlement agreement and provided the Applicant with a description of the family finding process in this case.

15With respect to element 4), in reviewing the Respondent’s April 17th letter, I find that the Respondent clearly describes the reasons why the Applicant was not contacted directly to provide a plan. The reasons given include statements that, “It does appear that our communication about G primarily occurred with your mother…” and that the mother stated that, “…she and her family had decided that they could not support a care plan for G…” The Respondent continues to state that, “Given that you resided in the same home as your mother an your [sic] were involved in the plan to support your mother with the care of the other children, it was assumed that she was including you when she referenced the family.”

16Although the Applicant disagrees that she was living with her mother at the time, and states that her mother’s recollection of conversations is that she never claimed to be speaking for the Applicant in this matter, I find that the Respondent has provided reasons for why the Applicant was not contacted directly to provide a plan.

17The CYFSA does not permit me to make findings regarding the clinical wisdom or appropriateness of a Society’s reasons. With regard to the right to reasons, the CFSRB has found that the “right to reasons” under the Act, means a right to a meaningful explanation about decisions that affect the Applicant’s interests. In J.G. v. Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society, 2013 CFSRB 8, at para. 13, the Board held that:

“With respect to s. 68.1(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.

In this case, I find that the Respondent’s April 17th letter provides “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.” I recognize that the Applicant likely remains dissatisfied with the Respondent’s handling of this kinship investigation.

18The situation before me is an unfortunate one. The Respondent acknowledges making an assumption that the Applicant’s mother was including the Applicant when she referenced family. The Applicant states that her mother denies making this claim. As a result of this assumption a misunderstanding occurred that deprived the Applicant of an opportunity to submit a plan for an indigenous child that may have placed the child in a kinship placement with a related indigenous caregiver consistent with the principles regarding indigenous peoples in the Preamble to the CYFSA and the federal Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families.

19The Applicant has stated in her written submission that she wants “to ensure in the future that this never happens again…” and that, “In the future, if there are multiple adults living in the home, I feel it is imperative that each member relates to independently and given the opportunity to put forward a plan.” The Applicant has also stated that she continues to wish to be able to put forward a plan for the Child. Again, the CYFSA does not permit me to make any findings or orders that would provide the Applicant with the relief she seeks in these areas.

20In making a decision in this matter, I limit my findings to whether the Respondent has complied with the requirements of the Settlement agreement and has provided the Applicant with a description of their child finding process in this case, and reasons for why the Applicant was not contacted directly to submit a plan for the Child.

Conclusion

21For the above reasons, I find that the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

22As the Respondent has complied with the Settlement Agreement, the CFSRB’s file is now closed.

Confidentiality Order

23Pursuant 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.