David Griffiths

The applicant, a former foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel decision.

The applicant alleged that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decision to close her foster home following a child protection investigation.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was given ample opportunity to express her concerns during the internal review process and that the Society had provided written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant father brought an application for review to the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) requirement to convene a meeting regarding child protection concerns, and failed to properly address allegations of abuse by the children's mother.

The Board found that the Society was actively addressing the ICRP requirement by funding an ongoing parental capacity assessment, making the first complaint premature.

The Board also found the second complaint regarding the abuse allegations to be premature, as it was a continuation of the first complaint and should be addressed by the Society upon completion of the assessment.

Both complaints were dismissed.

The applicants, a mother and grandparents, filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions and a failure to allow them to be heard regarding child protection involvement.

The Board reviewed ten specific complaints, including allegations of harassment, threats, and lack of communication.

The Board dismissed nine of the complaints, finding the Society had provided reasons and opportunities to be heard.

However, the Board upheld one complaint regarding the grandmother's health issues, finding she was not given an opportunity to be heard, and ordered the Society to conduct an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting on that issue.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

She alleged that the Society failed to hear her concerns about a case worker, failed to provide information and reports regarding her child's injuries while in foster care, and pressured her into signing a Temporary Care Agreement without explaining its impact or allowing her to revisit the decision.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint regarding the case worker but upheld the complaints regarding the lack of information and the circumstances surrounding the Temporary Care Agreement.

The Board ordered the Society to revise its communication processes, provide the requested reports, and assist the mother in understanding the requirements to bring her child home.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society regarding the care and apprehension of her child.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters raised were before the Court in a Crown wardship application.

The Board held that while it lacked jurisdiction over issues directly before the Court, such as custody, access, and the accuracy of court filings, it retained jurisdiction to review whether the Society followed proper procedures in hearing the applicant's concerns and providing reasons for its decisions.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear their concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests.

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the matters were currently before the court in a related protection application.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding that while the court had jurisdiction over the care and custody of the children, the Board retained jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding the society's failure to provide services, hear concerns, and provide reasons for its decisions.

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.