BR v. The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton, 2024 CFSRB 96

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

BR Applicant

-and-

The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Malcolm M. MacFarlane Date: September 16, 2024 Citation: 2024 CFSRB 96 Indexed As: BR v The Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton (CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

BR, Applicant Self-represented

Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton, Respondent Diane Skrow, 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”).

BACKGROUND

2This decision considers the Applicant’s allegation that the Respondent did not comply with the terms of a settlement agreement with an implementation date of May 31, 2024 and a compliance date of June 7, 2024 reached during a March 20, 2024 mediation (“the Settlement Agreement”).

3The CFSRB held a non-compliance hearing related to the Applicant’s allegation on August 22, 2024 at which both parties made oral submissions.

analysis

4In deciding whether the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, I have considered the Settlement Agreement, the Applicant’s July 5, 2024 email, the Respondent’s July 11, 2024 letter in response to the Applicant’s July 5, 2024 email, and the parties’ oral submissions during the August 22, 2024 hearing.

5In his July 5, 2024 email to the CFSRB describing the ways in which the Respondent was alleged to have failed to fulfil the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Applicant did not focus clearly or in detail on the key elements of the Settlement Agreement. Instead, the Applicant focused on “an unwillingness on the part of CAS staff to reverse their decisions, regardless of evidence.” He focused on the Respondent’s failure to consider evidence “wherein my son's mother makes astonishing crystal-clear claims she will intentionally lie (to social services, police, court, and teachers) to obstruct justice should a custody case arise.” He claims that, “[t]here was no concrete reason to verify a plainly concocted story from a custody battle. This protection matter arose directly from legal action.” The Applicant further focuses on his ex-partner’s failure to acknowledge or seek treatment for his child’s developmental delays and a perceived failure on the Respondent’s part to address this issue with the child’s mother and ensure the child’s treatment needs are met. He concludes that he has not felt heard by the Respondent regarding these concerns.

6The Respondent’s July 11, 2024 letter in response to the Applicant’s July 5, 2024 email is brief and states: “It is the Society’s position that it has fully complied with the above term of the settlement.” The letter continues, “The Applicant does not agree with the outcome of the Society’s file review. However, the Society maintains that a thorough file review has been conducted in compliance with paragraph 1 of the parties’ settlement.” The Respondent included several supporting documents as attachments including:

1. The notes made by Child Protection Worker, Sonia Gomez, regarding the file review conducted by her.
2. Structured Case Conference notes dated May 17, 2024.
3. Letter from the Society to the Applicant dated June 28, 2024.

7During oral submissions, the Applicant argued that the Respondent had made a very clear-cut mistake in relying on untrustworthy information from his ex-partner and that the original verification should be changed.

8During oral submissions, the Respondent argued that it had complied with all terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Respondent argues that it did complete a fresh investigation involving a new experienced worker and a new supervisor who had never been involved with the file. At the end of that investigation there was no verification that the child’s mother was neglecting his needs and no basis for altering the original verification.

9In reviewing the key elements of the Settlement Agreement with the parties during the oral hearing, the Applicant argued that a “checklist” approach to determining whether the terms of the Settlement Agreement had been complied with would fail to address the spirit of the Settlement Agreement and the totality of his experience with the Respondent in regard to whether he had been heard by the Respondent about his concerns and about decisions affecting his interests.

10The Applicant further argued that the Respondent based its original decision to verify on unreliable information from his ex-partner, and that in the Respondent’s decision not to change the verification following a new investigation the Respondent failed to hear him regarding his ongoing concerns about his ex-partner’s ability and willingness to acknowledge and seek treatment for developmental delays and an autism spectrum diagnosis regarding his child.

11While I appreciate the Applicant’s desire to focus on the totality of his experience with the Respondent and whether his concerns have been heard by the Respondent, I find that what the Applicant refers to as a “checklist” approach remains critical to determining whether the specific terms of the Settlement Agreement have been met.

Term 1 of the Settlement Agreement was met.

12Term 1 of the Settlement Agreement reads:

The Applicant indicated that he has new evidence (video, audio, documents) regarding the allegations that he punched his stepson. The Applicant will provide the Respondent with this evidence in a zoom meeting scheduled between 3-4 p.m. on March 20, 2024. The Respondent will review the new evidence and determine if the new evidence results in a change of the prior verification or warrants a fresh investigation. The Respondent will advise the Applicant of its decision in this regard on or before March 28, 2024, at 4PM.

13The Applicant was to provide the Respondent with his evidence in a Zoom meeting to take place by March 20, 2024. The Applicant stated that he did have a frank discussion with Respondent counsel Ms. Skrow and with Director of Services Ms. Binnington on or around March 20, 2024. The Applicant stated he had no issues regarding the timing of this meeting. The Respondent agrees that this meeting took place as required by the Settlement Agreement.

14The Respondent was to review the above evidence and determine if the new evidence resulted in a change of the prior verification or warranted a fresh investigation. The Applicant agrees that this review did take place, however he takes issue with the quality of this review. He maintains that this review did not assist in protecting his son and he continues to believe that the Respondent did not properly consider whether the evidence it relied upon in the original investigation was credible, trustworthy and reliable. Both the Applicant and the Respondent agree that this review resulted in a determination that a fresh investigation was warranted, and this fresh investigation did take place.

15The Respondent was to advise the Applicant of its decision by March 28, 2024. The Applicant did not believe that he was advised of the Respondent’s decision by March 28, 2024. The Respondent states that the Applicant was advised of its decision in a March 27, 2024 email from Ms. Binnington to the Applicant, however this email is not included in any of the documentation filed with the CFSRB for this hearing. As the Applicant stated in his oral submissions that he did not wish to focus excessively on specific dates, and he “believed” rather than was sure that he was not informed by March 28, 2024, I find the Applicant was informed around the time required by Term 1.

16Moreover, the parties agreed that the Respondent worker Ms. Gomez did meet with the Applicant, as required by Term 2 below, on or about May 30, 2024 to review the outcome of the Respondent’s fresh investigation, and that there were further subsequent meetings between the Applicant and the Respondent counsel, Ms. Skrow and Ms. Binnington.

17Given the above facts, there is no further action required by the Respondent in relation to this term and I find that the requirements of Term 1 have been met.

Term 2 of the Settlement Agreement was met.

18Term 2 of the Settlement Agreement reads:

Should the Respondent make the decision to not change the prior verification or conduct its own fresh investigation, the Respondent will request that an independent party which may include another child protection agency (not FACS Niagara or Hamilton CAS as these agencies have been involved with the family in the past) conduct an independent review of the Society's investigation and outcome. The review will be performed on or before May 17, 2024. The review will consider the evidence provided by the Applicant regarding statements made by the Child’s mother that the Applicant alleges are untrue, as well as threats that the Child’s mother has allegedly made to put forward false allegations against the Applicant and the father of his 2 stepsons. The Applicant and the Respondent will meet to discuss the outcome of the review on or before May 31, 2024.

19Regarding this term, the Respondent argued that as it did decide to conduct a fresh investigation, there was no requirement that it request an independent party to conduct an independent review of the Society’s investigation and outcome. In turn, the Applicant argues that he did expect that there would be further options for review of the original verification decision if it was not changed by the Respondent, and this did not happen. He argues that in not requesting an independent review, the Respondent has not adhered to the spirit of the Settlement Agreement.

20The specific language of Term 2 is: “[s]hould the Respondent make the decision to not change the prior verification or conduct its own fresh investigation… (emphasis in bold added)”. Thus, when the Respondent decided to conduct its own fresh investigation as part of Term 1, the requirement for an independent review in Term 2 was eliminated or nullified. Term 2 was an alternative term that did not require any further action by the Respondent given the Respondent’s fulfillment of Term 1, above.

Term 3 of the Settlement Agreement has been met.

21Term 3 of the Settlement Agreement reads:

The Applicant has concerns regarding his Child’s inability to speak, as well as his meeting developmental milestones such as toileting. The Applicant will provide the Respondent with this evidence on or before March 28, 2024, at 4PM. The Respondent will review and/or investigate the evidence about the Child’s speech and development in relation to any possible child protection issues. The Respondent will provide a response to the Applicant regarding its investigation/review on or before May 17, 2024.

22The parties agreed that the Applicant had an opportunity to provide the Respondent with evidence of his concerns. The Applicant expressed concern that the child’s mother was either not seeing or not addressing the child’s developmental delays.

23The parties agree that the Respondent reviewed the Applicant’s material, however the Respondent did not verify that the mother was not able to protect the child. The Applicant disagrees with the Respondent’s decision not to verify a failure to protect. The language in this term speaks only to an agreement to review the evidence and makes no commitment to verify any specific concerns. It is not within the legislative authority of the CFSRB to make findings regarding the correctness or wisdom of a Society’s clinical decisions.

24As stated above, the Applicant indicated in his oral submissions that he did not wish to focus on whether timelines were precisely met in determining the outcome of this non-compliance hearing. A June 28, 2024 letter from the Respondent to the Applicant advised him of the outcome of the Respondent’s review. Although this letter is not compliant with the expected timing set out in Term 3, it was provided and there is no further action required in relation to this term.

25I find that the requirements of Term 3 has been met.

Term 4 of the Settlement Agreement has been met.

26Term 4 of the Settlement Agreement reads:

The Respondent will provide the Applicant with a list of appropriate resources to support the assessment, treatment, and home management of the Child’s speech and developmental delays on or before May 12, 2024.

27The Applicant stated that he received a pamphlet from the Respondent regarding the Reach Out (ROCK) Program and the Respondent agreed that it provided the Applicant with referral information. The Respondent notes that at that time the child’s autism spectrum disorder diagnosis had not been made and that there were limited services they could suggest. The Applicant states this information was received in a May 13, 2024 email. Based on the above information, and in keeping with the Applicant’s expressed preference not to focus narrowly on dates and timelines, I find that the requirements of Term 4 have been met.

Term 5 of the Settlement Agreement has been met.

28Term 5 of the Settlement Agreement reads:

The Applicant is concerned about the safety of his Child while in the care of the Child’s mother. For example, the Applicant has claimed that the Child has recently begun to mimic his mother by saying “We have to call the police”. The Applicant is also concerned that any allegations he has made against the Child’s mother appear to be turned against him. Should the above investigations and/or independent review result in a finding that his Child's mother demonstrates alienating behaviour, the Respondent will add a Special Caution about the Child’s mother to CPIN to inform any future referrals and/or allegations.

29The Respondent stated that given its lack of verification of any protection concerns or alienation, no special caution was added to the mother’s CPIN record. The Applicant disagrees with this conclusion on the part of the Respondent and continues to assert a years-long process of alienation has taken place. Given the Respondent’s decision not to verify any protection concerns on the part of the mother, I find that the requirements of Term 5 have been met.

30It is clear that the Applicant remains dissatisfied with the outcome of this process and disagrees with the Respondent’s decisions regarding verification. The Applicant stated that his desired outcome would be for the original verification to be changed and for protection concerns regarding the child’s mother to be verified. However, it is not within the scope of the CFSRB’s authority to make judgements regarding the appropriateness of the Respondent’s decisions.

CONCLUSION

31For the above reasons, I find that the Respondent has complied with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

32As the Respondent has complied with the Settlement Agreement, the CFSRB’s file is now closed.

confidentiality order

33Pursuant 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.