Frances Sanderson

The applicant brought an application under s. 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act regarding the implementation of a previous Board decision.

The Board reviewed whether the Society had complied with three previous orders.

The Board found that the Society complied with the orders relating to the service plan and email accommodation policy.

However, the Society failed to comply with the order to investigate and assess the impact of inconsistent access and domestic violence on the child.

The Board ordered the Society to consult with the child's therapist and provide a written explanation of its assessment.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the services she received from the Society, alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her child's access visits with the father.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its obligations in several areas, including communication, investigating the father's residences, and addressing the child's well-being during specific access incidents.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons and address the Applicant's concerns, while dismissing other complaints.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent children's aid society's refusal to place three children with them for adoption.

Following a hearing, the Board rescinded the society's refusal pursuant to section 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board ordered that the children be placed for adoption with the applicants, with written reasons to follow.

The applicant grandmother filed an application under the Child and Family Services Act regarding service complaints about the respondent society's handling of her request for contact with her granddaughter.

Following a preliminary decision confirming the Board's jurisdiction, a hearing on the merits commenced.

Prior to the completion of the hearing, the parties reached an agreement and the applicant withdrew her application.

The file was subsequently closed.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding her requests for assistance in re-uniting with her granddaughter.

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was merely a spokesperson for the child's mother and had not sought or received a service in her own right.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding that the applicant had sought and received a child welfare service separate from her advocacy for the mother, and that she had a direct interest in her family bond with her granddaughter that was affected by the society's decisions.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against two Children's Aid Societies, alleging they failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding allegations of physical abuse of his children in a foster home.

The Oxford Society, which received the initial disclosure, referred the matter to the Guelph Society as the foster home was in its jurisdiction.

The Board found that the Oxford Society fulfilled its obligations by hearing the Applicant and referring the matter.

However, the Board found that the Guelph Society failed to hear the Applicant, failed to return his calls, and failed to provide detailed reasons for its decision not to verify the abuse allegations despite the children's credible disclosures.

The Board ordered the Guelph Society to provide detailed written reasons and to meet with the Applicant.

The applicants, former foster parents of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their adoption application and its failure to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Society had removed the child from the applicants' care following child protection investigations that verified the use of unapproved caregivers and corporal punishment.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to refuse the adoption application, finding that the applicants could not meet the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs.

The Board also found that while the Society provided reasons for its child protection investigation decisions, it failed to provide reasons for the adoption refusal.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear him and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Society had investigated the father's concerns about the mother and child, during which the mother made allegations of domestic violence against the father.

The Society verified the domestic violence allegations and wrote a letter to a doctor stating the mother had a history of domestic violence and the father posed a serious risk, without giving the father an opportunity to be heard or providing reasons for these decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found in favour of the applicant, concluding the Society breached its duties under the Child and Family Services Act, and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its decisions.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Hamilton Children's Aid Society regarding its handling of child protection investigations involving his son.

He alleged the Society failed to hear his concerns about the maternal family, failed to explain its finding that the child was at risk of emotional harm in his care, and failed to address his complaints about a specific worker.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society adequately heard and explained its decisions regarding the emotional harm finding and the subsequent investigation into the maternal family.

However, the Board found the Society failed to hear the Applicant's concerns about the worker and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its decision to keep the worker on the file.

The applicant sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt two children.

The applicant, a close friend of the children's biological mother, argued she should be considered a kinship placement.

The Society opposed the application, citing concerns that the applicant would not maintain boundaries between the children and the biological mother, who had been denied access due to child protection concerns.

The Board affirmed the Society's decision, finding that the children's best interests were served by remaining with their current foster parents, who provided continuity of care, supported their Native culture, and posed no safety risks regarding the biological mother.

The applicants sought a review of the society's decision to permanently remove three foster children from their home, later narrowing their request to the return of one child.

The society had removed the children due to verified child protection concerns, specifically a lack of supervision and the primary caregiver's personal problems.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the applicants failed to adequately supervise the children on numerous occasions and that the primary caregiver's personal challenges prevented her from meeting the child's mental and emotional needs.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests not to be returned to the applicants' home and confirmed the society's decision.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to respond to a letter regarding abuse allegations in foster care.

At the hearing, the Board considered the preliminary issue of whether the society had actually received the letter.

The applicant provided no documentary or corroborating evidence to prove the letter was faxed or received, while the society's logs showed no record of it.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving the letter was sent and received.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by the Society.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the issues were before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in D.D., the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the service-related complaints (1-11) because they were not substantive child protection issues decided by or before the court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaint 12, which was an employment matter subject to the Labour Relations Act.

The child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

At the hearing, the Board excluded the admitting psychiatrist's Form 14 and Admission Summary because the psychiatrist was not called to testify, finding that admitting the hearsay evidence would violate the child's right to procedural fairness and fundamental justice.

On the merits, the Board found that the facility failed to prove the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired her judgment, or that she had caused serious bodily harm to herself.

As the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met, the Board ordered the child's release.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to provide them with an opportunity to be heard and meaningful explanations regarding their adoption of a child.

The applicants had requested additional information about the child and expressed concerns about delays in the placement process.

The Board found that the society deliberately withheld available information without explanation and failed to adequately explain delays in responding to the provincial ministry.

The Board ordered the society to provide detailed written explanations for the delays and the misinformation provided regarding the requirement of a Statement of Live Birth.

The 14-year-old Aboriginal applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his residential placement, seeking to be moved closer to his home and family.

The applicant had complex needs including ADHD, substance abuse issues, and a history of self-harm, and the current facility was failing to provide adequate cultural programming, individual counselling, or other recommended supports.

Despite finding that the current facility was not meeting the applicant's physical, emotional, and cultural needs, the Board confirmed the placement because no alternative residential placements were available.

The Board strongly recommended that the society transition the applicant to a therapeutic foster home with appropriate Aboriginal programming within three months.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's investigation into allegations of excessive use of force against his children.

The Applicant argued the Society failed to hear his concerns regarding parental alienation, failed to conduct a proper investigation, and failed to notify his Native Band promptly.

The Board found that the Society failed to follow mandatory child protection standards during its investigation by not interviewing other adults in the home, thereby failing to hear the Applicant.

The Board ordered a note reflecting this decision be placed on the Applicant's file.

The remaining complaints regarding reasons for decisions and Band notification were dismissed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding the placement and treatment of her children in care.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the Society, not the court, was the decision-maker regarding specific placements and services.

On the merits, the Board found the Society failed to comply with its statutory obligations to listen to the applicant and provide reasons for its decisions regarding foster care, group home placement, access, and kinship options.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its decisions.

The applicants appealed the decision of the Children's Aid Society to remove two foster children from their care.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants' foster home had been closed.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the applicants were foster parents at the time of the removal.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board concluded that returning the children to the applicants' restrictive environment would not be in their best interests, particularly given their need for native cultural exposure and psychological assessment which the Society was funding in their current placement.

The Society's decision to remove the children was confirmed.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove two foster children from her home.

The children had lived with the applicant for over five years.

The Society removed the children after the applicant requested relief due to the older child's escalating behavioural issues.

The Board found that the older child's behaviours were exacerbated by a lack of appropriate supports and that the younger child was negatively impacted by the removal.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered the immediate return of the younger child and the graduated return of the older child once necessary supports were implemented.