Fizul Sima

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard regarding what she and her partner needed to do to present a joint parenting plan.

The Board found that the Society had sent contradictory messages to the Applicant regarding its expectations for joint parenting.

The Board ordered the Society to respond in writing to the Applicant's complaint by outlining its specific expectations for steps or services the couple must undertake to present a joint parenting plan.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent Society's failure to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

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

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over issues of access and custody, which were before the court.

However, the Board determined it had jurisdiction to hear the applicant's complaints that the Society failed to inform her of expectations regarding a joint parenting plan and failed to respond to her request that her sister be considered for kinship care.

The 15-year-old applicant child sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child contested four of the five criteria for admission under section 124(2).

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired his capacity to make reasoned judgments, had caused or threatened bodily harm to others, and that the secure treatment program was the least restrictive method appropriate for his needs.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard regarding his children's safety.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the issues were already decided by or before the court.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns regarding child safety, access, and information were subject to existing court orders and ongoing family court proceedings.

The Board granted the Society's motion and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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 applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society regarding the apprehension of his child at birth and the conduct of society workers.

The society raised a preliminary issue of jurisdiction, arguing that several of the complaints related to matters currently before the court in a child protection application.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints concerning the child's name, the mother's psychological assessment, and the type of counselling provided, as these were either before the court or outside the Board's statutory mandate.

On the merits of the remaining complaint regarding the workers' conduct, the Board found the society had provided the applicant an opportunity to be heard and had not breached the Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society regarding the apprehension of his daughter and poor communication.

The Board found that communication had significantly improved and the parties were working productively together, resolving that issue.

Regarding the apprehension, the Board held that the Society appropriately delayed identifying itself until it was safe to do so, given historical concerns and drug use involving the applicant's partner.

The complaints were dismissed.

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.