JF v. Dilico Anishinabek Family Care, 2025 CFSRB 18

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

JF Applicant

-and-

Dilico Anishinabek Family Care Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Christine Staley Date: February 20, 2025 Citation: 2025 CFSRB 18 Indexed As: JF v Dilico Anishinabek Family Care (CYFSA s.120)

Introduction

1This is an Application filed under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, c.14, Sched. 1, (the "Act").

2The Child and Family Services Review Board (the "CFSRB") found the Application eligible to proceed under sections 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act on January 31, 2025.

3The Respondent submitted their Response on February 10, 2025.

4Rule 22.1 of the CFSRB's Rules of Procedure permits the CFRSB to decide an Application on the basis of the Application and the Response. I find that I have sufficient information to make a decision in this matter.

ISSUE

5The issue drawn from this Application is:

a. did the Respondent hear the Applicant's concerns and provide reasons regarding why they could not provide a letter stating that the mother is only allowed to visit the child if supervised.

RESULT

6I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant's concerns and provided reasons.

ANALYSIS

7The Applicant alleges that he has not been heard or provided reasons as to why the Respondent can not provide a letter which states that the mother of the child is only allowed supervised access.

8The Respondent provided that the Applicant's child was deemed to be unsafe in the care of the mother in March 2020. At that time, the mother consented to the child residing with the Applicant, mitigating the protection concerns. The file was closed shortly after.

9In January 2025, the Applicant requested a letter from the Respondent which confirmed that the mother could have only supervised access. The Respondent alleges that during a phone call, they explained that they could not provide the requested letter as they had not assessed the mother as a caregiver since March of 2020.

10During a phone conversation on January 28, 2025, the Respondent alleges that the Applicant clarified that a letter was required for the purpose of obtaining the Child Tax Benefit. The Respondent alleges that they explained that they could not express an opinion on the determination of custody and access.

11However, to assist the Applicant, the Respondent provided the Applicant with a letter via email on January 28, 2025, confirming that the child had been in the Applicant's care and had resided with him since March 12, 2020.

12The Applicant is not satisfied with this letter.

13The Applicant concedes in their Application that the Respondent provided reasons for not providing the information in the letter as he requested, but he questions the validity of those reasons.

14Even though the reasons provided are unsatisfactory to him, I find that the Applicant has had an opportunity to be heard and has in fact been provided with reasons.

CONCLUSION

15I find that the Applicant was provided an opportunity to be heard and was provided reasons.

ORDER

16The Application is dismissed.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

17Pursuant 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.