Celia Denov

The applicant sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a seven-year-old child who had been placed with her for adoption.

The Society removed the child after investigations into the applicant's behaviour raised concerns about her mental health.

A parenting capacity assessment diagnosed the applicant with a paranoid personality trait and delusional disorder.

The Board found the assessment credible and concluded that the applicant's untreated mental health issues posed significant psychological risks to the child.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the adoption placement was not in the child's best interests.

The applicants, the aunt and uncle of a Crown ward, applied to adopt her.

The Children's Aid Society refused the application before completing the homestudy, citing the severe and destructive history of the child's biological parents in disrupting family placements.

The applicants requested a review by the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Board found that the applicants were excellent candidates who had the maturity and resources to protect the child from her biological parents.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision, concluding that adoption by the applicants was in the child's best interests, subject to the completion of the homestudy visitation phase.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her and her son.

The Society did not attend the hearing, arguing the matters were before the court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints related to the child's apprehension and schooling, as those were governed by a consent order.

However, the Board upheld complaints regarding the Society's failure to provide reasons for not notifying the mother when her son ran away from a foster home, and its failure to hear her concerns about her assigned worker.

The Society was ordered to provide written explanations and an opportunity to be heard.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society after it temporarily suspended her access to her daughter and placed the child with her father.

The applicant alleged the Society failed to listen to her concerns regarding a conflict of interest, parental alienation, and the basis for its risk assessment, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that despite numerous communications, the applicant did not have a clear understanding of the Society's actions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a written explanation addressing the applicant's specific concerns.

The applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a two-year-old child with special needs.

The applicants had recently adopted the child's half-sister.

The Society argued it was in the child's best interests to be adopted by her foster parents, who had cared for her since birth.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the applicants could better meet the child's need for individualized attention and that placing the siblings together was in the child's best interests.

The applicants filed complaints against the Halton Children's Aid Society regarding the care of their 15-year-old son under a Temporary Care Agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to comply with its statutory obligations to involve the parents in a Plan of Care meeting and to listen to their concerns about a specific social worker.

The Board also found that the Society failed to provide accurate reasons for refusing to extend the Temporary Care Agreement beyond the child's sixteenth birthday.

However, the Board dismissed complaints regarding the provision of therapeutic services and the handling of sexual assault allegations against the child.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking a review of the respondent Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) process and decision.

The applicant alleged that the Society failed to adequately investigate historical allegations of sexual abuse concerning her daughters and that the ICRP's written summary did not meaningfully address her concerns.

The Board found that while the ICRP provided the applicant a full opportunity to be heard, the resulting written summary lacked sufficient detail regarding the Society's investigations and conclusions.

The Board directed the Society to provide the applicant with a detailed written explanation of its reasoning and decision-making regarding the historical abuse allegations.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the actions of the Hastings Children's Aid Society following the apprehension of their children.

The applicants alleged that the Society ignored their complaints, failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding access visits and the children's care, and did not give them an opportunity to be heard.

The Board found that while the Society had provided some explanations, it failed to adequately address all of the applicants' concerns or provide written reasons.

The Board ordered the Society to meet with the applicants to address their concerns and to provide written reasons and responses to all complaints within thirty days.

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from a secure treatment program, arguing the criteria for emergency admission under the Child and Family Services Act were not met.

At the commencement of the hearing, the applicant withdrew the application.

The applicant explained that her mother, who had provided surety for her in a separate criminal matter, threatened to withdraw the surety if the applicant was released from the treatment centre, which would result in the applicant returning to custody.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from a secure treatment program, arguing that the criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met.

The Board reviewed evidence of the child's mental disorder, including multiple suicide attempts, self-harm, and substance abuse, which grossly impaired her judgment.

The Board found that all five statutory criteria for admission were satisfied, as the secure setting was necessary and effective to prevent serious bodily harm, appropriate treatment was available, and no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board after the Children's Aid Society refused their application to adopt a child and closed their file.

The applicants alleged that the Society failed to provide them with understandable reasons for its decision.

The Board found that while the Society attempted to provide reasons, the written reasons were insufficient and failed to afford the applicants enough information to fully understand the decision.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons in language understandable to the applicants within three months.

The applicants, foster parents to a three-year-old child since birth, appealed the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove the child from their care.

The Society proposed removal after discovering the applicants failed to report that their biological daughter had been sexually abused by a cousin, raising concerns about their parenting capacity and judgment.

Relying on expert evidence regarding attachment theory, the Board found that removing the child would cause severe emotional trauma.

The Board directed the Society not to carry out the removal, concluding it was in the child's best interests to remain with the applicants, though they required additional support to improve their parenting skills.

The applicants sought to review a decision by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto refusing their application to adopt the biological half-sister of their adopted daughter.

The refusal was based on a negative homestudy conducted by a worker with whom the applicants had a previous negative relationship.

The Board found that the homestudy lacked objectivity and that the notes and data upon which it was based were unavailable.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered a new homestudy to be conducted by a third party in the best interests of the child.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against two Children's Aid Societies regarding their investigation into allegations against her son.

The Societies brought a preliminary motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the complaint was made prior to November 30, 2006, and thus fell under the transitional provisions of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the complaint was indeed made before the legislative change and that the Societies' internal complaint review procedures had been engaged.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint and granted the Societies' motion.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decision regarding an alleged suicide note written by the children's mother.

Following a hearing on the merits, the Board found that while the society had addressed other concerns, it had not provided reasons regarding its follow-up actions on the note.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant within three months.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society refused to proceed with his complaint and failed to provide reasons for its decision that his children were not at risk.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant had not filed a formal internal complaint and that the issues were already before the court in a custody and access proceeding.

The Board dismissed the first complaint because no formal internal complaint was filed, but assumed jurisdiction over the second complaint, finding that child protection issues requiring urgent response are distinct from custody and access matters and were not before the court.