CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES REVIEW BOARD
BETWEEN:
TJD
Applicant
-and-
Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County
Respondent
DECISION
Adjudicator: Donna A. Wowk
Indexed As: TJD v Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County
(CYFSA s.120)
APPEARANCES
TJD, Applicant ) Self-represented
Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, ) Debbie McDonald,Representative
Respondent )
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 (CYFSA), 2017, SO 2017, c.14, Sched. 1 (the “Act”).
2The CFSRB found the Application eligible to proceed under s. 120(4)4 and 120(4)5 of the Act.
3The Applicant is the father of one child, DD (“the Child”). The Respondent has had multiple child welfare file openings related to the family, with the most recent opening being in September 2024.
ISSUES
4The following are the allegations and issues for hearing as confirmed by the CFSRB’s February 10, 2025 Pre-Hearing Report:
The Applicant alleges that the Respondent has not heard his concerns regarding the safety of his child while in the care of the child’s mother following the mother being charged with impaired driving while she had children with her in the vehicle.
The Applicant alleges the Respondent has not provided him with reasons for the Respondent’s actions or lack of actions in addressing his concerns regarding the child’s safety.
RESULT
5Having reviewed the testimony and documents presented at the hearing, I find the following:
a. The Applicant was heard by the Respondent regarding the safety of his child while in the care of the Child’s mother following the mother being charged with refusing to submit to a breathalyzer. She had children with her in the vehicle at the time; and,
b. The Applicant was provided with reasons by the Respondent for its actions or lack of actions in addressing his concerns regarding the Child’s safety.
ANALYSIS
6The Applicant’s issues relate to the investigation conducted by the Respondent following the Child’s mother being charged on August 23, 2024 with failure to comply with police request that she take a breathalizer test. At the time, the mother was driving with two children (not including the Child) in the car. The Child had been left at the mother’s residence with an older child at the time. The Respondent had received reports of the mother abusing alcohol while in a caregiving role both before and after the August 23, 2024 incident.
7It was the Applicant’s testimony that the investigation conducted by the Respondent was inadequate and resulted in the Child being left at risk in the mother’s care. This is the basis for the Applicant’s position that he was not heard by the Respondent. The Applicant’s testimony was that the Respondent conducted a ‘customized’ investigation and that it ought to have conducted a ‘traditional’ investigation.
8Jacqueline McGann, a service manager for the Respondent, testified that the difference between ‘customized’ and ‘traditional’ investigations is that the latter is applied where there has been conduct that may result in criminal charges related to a child. While a traditional investigation adopts a more forensic approach, Ms. McGann testified that both types of investigations require the application of the same standards required for child protection investigations.
9During cross-examination, the Applicant acknowledged that Ms. McGann had explained the difference between a customized versus a traditional investigation and the reason the former was applied.
10At the end of the investigation, the Respondent verified concerns of caregiver with a problem related to the mother’s alcohol abuse. It opened the file to ongoing service and created a safety plan to address its protection concerns, including in relation to alcohol abuse by the mother. This voluntary service plan was signed by both parents. The Child was ultimately apprehended and is in the father’s care.
11The evidence of the Respondent’s witnesses was that there were over a dozen communications with the Applicant during which he was provided with the opportunity to express his concerns about the mother’s care of the Child. The Applicant acknowledged during cross-examination that he had met on multiple occasions with the Respondent, particularly with Tyra Riach, child protection worker. The Applicant also submitted a binder to the Respondent containing information he had gathered which the Respondent accepted and reviewed.
12The Applicant maintains that the steps taken by the Respondent were inadequate and that the Child should not have been left in the mother’s care as long as she was. In other words, the real issue is not that the Applicant was not heard by the Respondent or that he was not provided with reasons for its decisions in this matter. The real issue is that the Applicant does not agree with the Respondent not removing the Child from the mother’s care at the time of the August 23, 2024 incident.
13Based on the evidence of the Respondent and the applicant’s responses in cross examination, I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with multiple opportunities to be heard, including through contacts such as text, telephone calls, home visits and other meetings. I find that the Respondent heard the Applicant as demonstrated by the investigation it conducted, the nature and frequency of its communications with the Applicant, and the steps it took to address the verified protection concerns. Finally, I find that the Respondent provided the Applicant with reasons for the decisions it made with respect to the investigation and follow up.
ORDER
14The Application is dismissed.
CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER
1Pursuant 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 these Applications, 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 Toronto, May 23, 2025
Donna A. Wowk
Donna A. Wowk
Vice-Chair