Alice, a foster parent, had recently cancelled her foster home contract with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. She had been fostering a high needs youth until the end of her contract. However, Alice did not receive her final payment as expected after the contract ended. Alice called the ministry and was informed that payment could not be issued because there was a discrepancy between the amount of respite funding she requested and what was approved by the ministry. Unable to resolve the issue with the ministry and concerned about upcoming bill payments, Alice reached out to our office.

We investigated whether the ministry followed a fair and reasonable process for issuing Alice’s final foster parent payment.

We spoke with ministry staff and obtained the ministry’s records related to Alice’s foster contract. The ministry explained that nearly $3,000 for fixed costs was still owed to Alice under the contract and this amount was not in dispute. However, there was a disagreement about the amount of respite funds owed because the amount Alice had claimed was more than what the ministry had pre-approved. This discrepancy seemed to be the reason why Alice’s final payment was being held up.

Under the contract, Alice was provided $3,000 per month in respite funding and could request extra as needed. She had requested, and the ministry had approved, an additional $600 in respite funding for a total of $3,600. The ministry told us that Alice had claimed $4,600, $1000 over the amount that was pre-approved before the contract ended.

Based on our review, it was not clear why the ministry had not issued payment for the fixed costs. This amount was not in dispute and was not related to the respite payment issue. It was also unclear whether there was a process available to allow Alice to request approval for the additional $1,000 in respite funds retroactively as it looked like the service was completed while the contract was valid.

We discussed these questions with the ministry and were told that a process was not in place to consider retroactive requests of respite payments. However, in recognition of the high needs of the youth Alice fostered, the ministry agreed to review whether a one-time retroactive approval could be made in Alice’s case. The ministry also agreed to issue Alice a cheque for the fixed costs on an expedited basis, acknowledging that the fixed costs should not have been withheld.

Subsequently, the ministry confirmed that they had considered and approved Alice’s request for additional respite funding and that the payment was also processed on an expedited basis. We considered the actions of the ministry to settle the fairness concerns raised by Alice’s complaint.