RB v. Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, 2025 CFSRB 57

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD

BETWEEN:

RB

Applicant

-and-

Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society

Respondent

DECISION

Adjudicator: Karynn von Cramon

Date: April 30, 2025

Citation: 2025 CFSRB 57

Indexed As: RB v Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society

(CYFSA s.120)

APPEARANCES

RB, Applicant

Self-represented

Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society, Respondent

Suzanna Bala, 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 section 120(4)4 and section 120(4)5 of the Act.

3The Hearing was held by videoconference on April 17, 2025.

4The Applicant gave birth to twins (hereinafter “the Children”) on October 1, 2022. The Respondent removed the Children from the Applicant’s care on October 5, 2022. The children transitioned back to the Respondent’s care at the end of November, returning to her full-time care on November 25, 2022.

ISSUE

5The CFSRB’s Pre-Hearing Mediation Report dated February 14, 2025, set out the issues for Hearing as:

1. The Applicant’s allegation that she was not provided an explanation of the Respondent’s consent forms that she agreed to in terms of access to personal information about herself and her children, and the potential extent of the Respondent’s involvement with her and her children.

2. The Applicant’s allegation that she was not provided reasons for why she was not informed that her breast milk was not being provided to her children while they were in foster care, and why it took one month to inform her she could submit a video of her milk expressing process.

3. The Applicant’s allegation that she was not heard or provided reasons, after she complained to worker J, for why the visitation transport driver was able to transport her children in a vehicle that had been smoked in, and that the car seats in the vehicle were inadequate to support her children’s heads.

6The Hearing proceeded on these issues.

RESULT

7The CFSRB finds that in relation to Issue 1 the Applicant was provided an explanation of the Respondent’s consent forms but was not fully able to understand that explanation. The Applicant was not provided with an explanation of the potential extent of the Respondent’s involvement with her and her children.

8The CFSRB finds that in relation to Issue 2 the Applicant was provided reasons for why she was not informed that her breast milk was not being provided to her children while they were in foster care. It did not take one month to inform her she could submit a video of her milk expressing process.

9The CFSRB finds that in relation to Issue 3 the Applicant was heard and provided reasons, after she complained to worker J, for why the visitation transport driver was able to transport her children in a vehicle that had been smoked in. The Applicant was heard that the car seats in the vehicle were inadequate to support her children’s heads.

ANALYSIS

10The CFSRB has explained the right to be heard under section 120(4)4 of the Act as follows:

To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. P.O. v. Family and Children’s Services Niagara, 2012 CFSRB 33 (para 14).

11Section 120(4)5 of the Act states that the CFSRB may review allegations that a society has failed to provide a complainant with reasons for a decision that affects the complainant’s interests. The “right to reasons” under the Act is the 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, the CFSRB held at para 13 that:

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.

Issue 1: The Applicant’s allegation that she was not provided an explanation of the Respondent’s consent forms that she agreed to in terms of access to personal information about herself and her children, and the potential extent of the Respondent’s involvement with her and her children.

12The Applicant testified that she signed consents in hospital on October 4, 2022. She testified that she was heavily medicated and felt “bombarded” and intimidated because in addition to the Respondent’s two workers a hospital social worker and two nurses were also present. She testified that she would have signed whatever they wanted, she just didn’t want them to take her babies.

13Child Welfare Worker TK testified by way of affidavit (filed as Exhibit 3) that she and Child Welfare Worker RD attended the hospital on October 4, 2022, for a planning meeting with the Applicant. In this meeting TK advised the Applicant that there had been concerns raised with her ability to provide consistent care for her infants. The Applicant signed multiple consent forms giving permission to share personal medical information with the Respondent. TK testified that she explained the purpose of the consents to the Applicant. She outlined that in assessing capacity, the Respondent was looking to determine whether the Applicant had previously exhibited such behaviour, whether she had a history of mental health struggles, or whether this behaviour was new and triggered by pregnancy and/or birth.

14TK testified the Applicant signed the consents as requested. She did not recall the Applicant having any questions or raising any concerns about the consent forms.

15TK’s Contact Log dated October 4, 2022 (filed as Appendix A to Exhibit 3) states that Nurses T and N, social worker DN, RD, TK, the Applicant and JT (the father) were in attendance for the planning meeting. The only statement related to the signing of consents in the notes is, “They signed consents. While signing consents, [the Applicant] required constant redirection as she remained very fixated on CAS being called and her anger towards nursing staff and feeling she had poor care.”

16On cross examination the Applicant asked TK why she wasn’t given more time, so they could have talked more before the children were removed. TK responded that she and her supervisor had been advocating with the hospital to keep the Applicant and the children longer, but they would not. TK acknowledged it was fast. The Applicant asked why she had not spoken to her alone about the consents. TK replied that she had brought the nurses and social worker to share their observations and concerns with the Applicant.

17Child welfare worker RD testified by way of affidavit (filed as Exhibit 1) that on October 4, 2022, she and TK attended the hospital for a planning meeting with the Applicant. During this meeting, the Applicant signed multiple consent forms giving permission to share personal medical information with community service providers she was involved with. RD testified that the Respondent’s procedure when consents are being signed is that the privacy statement is explained to the service recipient; and they are advised of their right to consult with counsel prior to signing, as well as their right to revoke their consent at any time.

18The Applicant was permitted to read two medical records from the hospital into evidence, as she was unable to share them via video conference and had not provided them to either the Respondent or to the CFSRB in advance. One record was a note authored by the hospital social worker on October 4, 2022. The other was a note authored by a hospital nurse adopting the contents of the social worker’s note, also authored on October 4, 2022. The Applicant wanted the evidence to show that the social worker and two nurses were present when she signed the consents. I accept that this was the case. TK’s contact log (filed as Exhibit 3 Appendix A) noted the attendance of the social worker and two nurses. RD did not recall whether the nurses and social worker remained for the signing of consents.

19I accept the evidence of both the Respondent’s workers that the Applicant’s privacy rights were explained to her and that she did not raise any concerns or questions when she signed the consents. The Applicant, though, testified that she was medicated, felt “bombarded”, and felt intimidated when she signed the consents. This evidence was not contradicted by the Respondent.

20The Respondent’s workers met with the Applicant for the first time on October 4, 2022, and had her sign consents. The children were removed from the Applicant’s care on October 5, 2022. Child protection worker TK acknowledged that the removal occurred quickly because the hospital was unwilling to keep the Applicant or the Children any longer.

21A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were considered in making a decision to allow them to understand why and how the decision was made. This must include the parent being able to understand the information provided and having the time and opportunity to consider that information. The Applicant was in hospital recovering from a c-section, was medicated, and was overwhelmed.

22I find that the Applicant was not provided an explanation that was fully understood by her at the time she was given the Respondent’s consent forms to sign. The Applicant did not fully understand the terms of the Respondent’s access to personal information about herself and her children, and the potential extent of the Respondent’s involvement with her and her children at the time she signed the consents.

Issue 2: The Applicant’s allegation that she was not provided reasons for why she was not informed that her breast milk was not being provided to her children while they were in foster care, and why it took one month to inform her she could submit a video of her milk expressing process.

23The Applicant testified that the Respondent had known from day one that she wanted the children to have her breastmilk. She explained that she was fully vaccinated for COVID and wanted the children to have that protection. She also testified that she had learned how to use her breast pump from highly qualified individuals, including her sister and cousin, who were medically trained.

24The Applicant testified that she did not think the children had been provided any breast milk from the date they were removed from her care until October 13, 2022. She testified that after October 13, 2022, she was breastfeeding during access visits. The Applicant testified that the Respondent told her on October 17, 2022, that it had concerns about her sanitation process. The Applicant testified that on November 1, 2022, she asked the foster parent why they were not providing the children with her breastmilk, and they said they were told not to use it.

25The Applicant testified that the children were never provided with her pumped breastmilk, even after she provided a video of her pumping and sanitation process. This testimony conflicts with the testimony of the Respondent’s workers.

26Child welfare worker TK testified by way of affidavit (filed as Exhibit 3) that she joined a visit with Child in Care worker RG at the foster home by phone on October 13, 2022. RG brought up concerns related to the Applicant’s distractibility and process of pumping, storing, and transporting breastmilk. They agreed that going forward no breast milk would be provided to the children until TK attended the home to view the Applicant’s pumping practice to ensure that the breastmilk was pumped and stored properly.

27TK testified that on October 17, 2022, she explained to the Applicant that due to concerns about her presenting as distracted, the children’s worker raised concerns in relation to the Applicant’s ability to properly sanitize and store her breast milk. She advised the Applicant that she was asked to meet with her to observe her sanitization and storage practices to confirm they were in line with Public Health Guidelines before any more breastmilk was provided to the children. TK testified that the Applicant told her she was unable to meet with her that week because she was very busy. She offered to send her pictures of her pumping set up. TK advised the Applicant that she would need to see it in person. TK’s contact log dated October 17, 2022 (filed as Appendix C to Exhibit 3) reflects this communication.

28TK testified that on October 20, 2022, she attended an appointment with the Applicant and the children with the Applicant’s Nurse Practitioner. TK’s contact log from this date (filed as Appendix D to Exhibit 3) states, “[the Applicant] advised she has not been pumping as much because she has been very busy with appointments. I asked if I could come to her home to see the process, I could come Friday, she states she has many appts and would not be possible. I advise [sic] unfortunately the pictures she sent me would not suffice for me to approve that we were satisfied with the sanitation process. I would need to come in person…[the Applicant] asked FP how much breastmilk they were getting. I answered that as we had discussed, we cannot provide any of her frozen milk until I see her pumping/sanitizing process. [the Applicant] asked when I could come. I state [sic] I can come tomorrow anytime. [the Applicant] states that she can make this work, she has a few appointments though. I state I can come after and asked she text me.” TK testified that the Applicant did not text TK as agreed.

29TK testified that on October 27, 2022, in the interest of resolving this issue, she made a concession, allowing the Applicant to record and send a video of her sanitation process. Upon receipt of the video TK determined that there were no issues with sanitization. TK testified that the foster parents resumed providing the children with frozen breastmilk as of October 27, 2022.

30TK testified that on November 17, 2022, the Applicant attended the Respondent’s office to meet with TK, her supervisor, and worker RG. The Applicant came to the meeting with a list of concerns that she wished to discuss, which included breastmilk taking a long time to provide to the children. TK testified that she advised the Applicant that she had explained to her many times that there were concerns about the pumped breastmilk that she provided at access visits and that the Respondent needed to ensure that it was being pumped and stored correctly. TK explained that she had immediately reached out and requested to come to the Applicant’s home to view her process and that she had refused. TK explained that, finally, to hurry up the process she agreed to a video. This was a concession as TK was supposed to see the process in person, but the Applicant was not agreeable. This explained the delay.

31Child welfare worker RG testified by way of affidavit (filed as Exhibit 4) with regard to the meeting she attended by videoconference on November 17, 2022, with the Applicant, ongoing worker TK and the Service Supervisor. RG’s testimony was aligned with TK’s with regard to the explanations that were provided to the Applicant relating to the breastmilk. RG testified that it was important to note that the children were primarily formula fed and supplemented with breastmilk by breast feeding during visits and relatively small amounts of pumped frozen breast milk. The decision to stop providing the pumped milk supplement to the children was made on October 17, 2022, and resumed on October 27, 2022.

32I accept the Respondent’s workers evidence in relation to the provision of breastmilk to the Children and that it was not provided for a period of approximately ten days.

33I find that the Respondent explained to the Applicant the reasons for not providing the pumped breastmilk on October 17, 2022; October 20, 2022; and on November 17, 2022. On each of these occasions the Applicant was given sufficient information regarding the factors that were considered in making the decision to allow her to understand why and how the decision was made.

34I find that the Applicant was provided reasons for why she was not informed that her breast milk was not being provided to her children while they were in foster care. It did not take one month to inform her she could submit a video of her milk expressing process.

Issue 3: The Applicant’s allegation that she was not heard or provided reasons, after she complained to worker Jennifer, for why the visitation transport driver was able to transport her children in a vehicle that had been smoked in, and that the car seats in the vehicle were inadequate to support her children’s heads.

Smoking

35The Applicant testified that late in November when she was getting the children back, she had complained to access supervisor J about smoking in the volunteer driver’s car. The access supervisor said that she would message her supervisor. The Applicant testified that she did not know what happened. On cross examination the Applicant was asked if she had ever asked what happened after she made her complaint. The Applicant responded she had not as she was focused on getting her kids back.

36TK testified by way of affidavit (filed as Exhibit 3) that on November 23, 2022, she received a text message from the Applicant who described seeing an ashtray in the driver’s seat of the van which she felt was concerning as she did not want smokers around her children. TK testified that on the same day she received calls from access supervisors advising TK of the Applicant’s concerns. TK testified that she replied to the Applicant’s text advising that she heard her concerns and had forwarded them to her supervisor as well as the volunteer department. TK also noted that [the Children] would not be having any further drives from volunteer drivers, as they were being returned to the Applicant’s care that week.

37TK testified that she immediately brought the Applicant’s concerns to her supervisor and Human Resources. TK was advised by Human Resources that the matter was investigated, and the issue was addressed with the volunteer driver in question.

38RG testified that on November 23, 2022, she received an email from a Family Preservation Program Worker, who supervised access that day, reporting the Applicant had concerns about observing an ash tray and smelling smoke in the car of a volunteer driver who was driving the children to access. RG testified that she reported this concern to the Volunteer Department and followed up with the foster parent who advised that they did not smell smoke in the car when the children were returned, and that the children’s clothing and blankets did not smell like smoke.

39RD testified by way of affidavit (filed as Exhibit 1) that on November 30, 2022, she attended a home visit. The Applicant asked about a recent complaint she made to the Society about a volunteer driver smoking in his vehicle. RD advised the Applicant that she had seen the note about the complaint on her file and that the issue had been brought to the volunteer department and had been dealt with.

40To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. Several of the Respondent’s staff heard and responded to the Applicant’s concerns. They reported the concern to their superiors, the volunteer department, and to human resources. The issue was addressed with the volunteer driver, demonstrating that they took the Respondent’s concerns seriously and dealt with them.

41A parent must be given sufficient information regarding the factors that were considered in making the decision to allow her to understand why and how the decision was made. In this instance the children were returned to the Applicant’s care and the volunteer driver did not, therefore, ever drive the children again. Outside of explaining to the Applicant that the issue was addressed with the driver, the Respondent was prohibited from providing the Applicant with any personal information related to the driver.

42I find that the Applicant was heard and provided reasons, after she complained to worker J, for why the visitation transport driver was able to transport her children in a vehicle that had been smoked in.

Car Seats

43The Applicant testified that on October 7, 2022, child welfare worker TK brought the children in car seats that did not support the children’s heads. The Applicant testified nothing came of her complaint on that occasion, but that car seat safety became an issue later in October and November. The Applicant testified that she had a lot of concerns about the safety of the car seats.

44Child welfare worker RG testified by way of affidavit (filed as Exhibit 4) that in November 2022 conflict began to escalate between the Applicant and the foster parents regarding the appropriate way to strap the children into their car seats.

45RG testified that on November 9, 2022, the Respondent held an internal conference to review the escalating stress between the Applicant and the foster parent regarding the proper way to ensure that the children were belted into their seats. Nine of the Respondent’s workers and supervisors were present. RG testified that the team agreed to a plan whereby:

• All parties would receive a copy of the car seat manual to refer to.
• The foster parents or volunteer driver would drop the children off at the staff entrance for visits, where two staff members would check the car seat straps before the visits started.
• The Applicant would be tasked with putting the children in their car seats at the end of visits.
• The foster parents and two staff members would check the car seat straps when the children were returned to the foster parents.
• It was acknowledged that every person who inspects the car seats may have a slightly different interpretation of the instructions, so there needs to be some degree of cooperation and give and take in relation to this.

46RG testified that this procedure was followed at all access visits after the meeting.

47To be heard involves active listening, discussions, the society’s taking steps to address the Applicant’s concerns and communicating this to her so that she feels that her concerns are taken seriously and dealt with thoroughly. I find that the Respondent did hear the Applicant’s complaint that the car seats in the vehicle were inadequate to support her children’s heads. While little evidence was adduced in relation to the complaint the Applicant testified, she made on October 7, 2022, it is clear from the evidence that later concerns regarding the car seats were taken very seriously by the Respondent. The Respondent held a meeting on November 9, 2022, involving nine staff members and developed a comprehensive car seat plan that was subsequently followed.

ORDER

48Issues 2 and 3 are dismissed.

49Issue 1 is upheld. Within 30 days the Respondent shall provide a letter to the Applicant containing the following:

• A general explanation of the Applicant’s privacy rights.
• A clear and understandable explanation of the Respondent’s consent forms that she agreed to on October 4, 2022, in terms of access to personal information about herself and her children, and how those consents informed the potential extent of the Respondent’s involvement with her and her children.

CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

50Pursuant 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.