DC Family Connections

I am rejecting this response because:1)I absolutely did not state I forgot the contract at the time of the visit, because I was not asked for it, reminded about it or offered another copy to review or sign. That is an outright lie. If I had stated that, why did they not ask me to sign another copy at the office at the time of visit? They easily could have printed another copy. I do not dispute I did not bring the contract with me, but I am a busy, working full-time single mother. It is the duty of the business to follow their rules & they should have asked ME for the contract or NOT allowed a visit to take place.2)I have an email stating they did NOT open the SEALED envelope the father TOLD them was a birthday card, so they had and still have no way of proving that was what was in it. This is a clear violation of their rule. Nobdocuments or information should have been passed between the parents, by the agency or using the child.3) There may not be confidentiality about the supervised visitation, but my private emails to the agency voicing my concerns, were just that, private communication between them & I.4) I am not asking for money at all.

The complainant did not pay any money at all for services and yet she is asking for money in response to her complaint. The complainant brought her own child to the visit for the child to see the other parent but stated that she forgot to bring the contract back. She chose to leave her child for the...

visit as we did not refuse to allow the child to see the other parent at that time. The complainant, if she was  concerned about the contact not being signed before services were rendered, could have simply chose to not bring the child or she could have left with the child at the time of the visit. As she did not do so, we provided services in good faith of her acknowledgment and agreement to such services because she stated she would bring back a signed copy. In the contract that the complainant was given, it clearly states that there is NO CONFIDENTIALITY in supervised visits. We additionally explain in the intake process that there is no confidentiality in supervised visits which she attended on November 17, 2017. As the complainant attended her intake on November 17, 2017 and the first visit occurred on December 5, 2017 it gave the complainant 18 days to review and reject our services. However, she chose to participate in such services voluntarily. Also, there is a CA Rule of Court that states that there is no expectation of confidentiality in supervised visits so the complainant has not right to any confidentially or privacy as she claims.Our polices do state that we do not allow the parents to pass documents to the other parent. The document in question was a birthday card for the child and was given to the child, NOT the complainant. Consequently, our polices and procedures were not violated despite the allegation. We did not terminate services to the complainant but we did suggest that if she did not feel comfortable with our agency that she could go and find another agency.I am surprised to read about this complaint as the complainant did not pay any money for services, was given ample opportunity to review the contract but "forgot" it despite her voluntarily using our agency, and we did not violate any of our rules or polices. I am, however, concerned that this complainant is demanding money despite never paying any money to our agency.