Ivana Vaccaro

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with its complaint review procedure and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The applicant had complained about the respondent interviewing his child at school without consent.

The Board dismissed the application, finding the applicant did not initially file his complaint in the required form, and later failed to provide particulars of the decisions for which he sought reasons, effectively withdrawing from the written hearing process.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons for decisions regarding supervised visits, intercepted communications about a hospital visit, and the child's medical and mental health care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant's own conduct—including breaching a restraining order, absconding with the child, and refusing to communicate meaningfully with the society—prevented the society from engaging in discussions or addressing her concerns.

The young person applied to the Custody Review Board for a review of her placement at a secure detention facility, seeking a transfer to a different facility closer to her father.

The Board reviewed her needs, including proximity to family, mental health support, safety from self-harm, and educational requirements.

The Board found that the current facility was appropriate to meet her needs, noting her stabilization, engagement with staff and programs, and access to necessary medical and mental health support.

The application for transfer was dismissed and the placement was confirmed.

The applicant mother filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging that the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons regarding its involvement with her 16-year-old son.

The son had entered into a Voluntary Youth Services Agreement and was placed in a group home.

The applicant alleged her son was "kidnapped" and abused.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the respondent had repeatedly listened to the applicant, addressed her concerns, and provided reasons for its involvement, but the applicant simply refused to accept the explanations.

The applicant parent filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to provide an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests regarding their child.

Following a hearing, the Board found that while the respondent had provided the applicant with an opportunity to be heard on all issues, it failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions not to consult the applicant prior to its initial involvement and not to notify the applicant of specific domestic violence incidents in the child's primary home.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide written reasons for these two decisions within 30 days.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

During the video conference hearing, the self-represented applicant became upset when asked to share a document, used inappropriate language, and disconnected from the hearing.

After refusing to rejoin and confirming via email that she would not proceed, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application as abandoned.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society refused to proceed with her internal complaints and failed to give her an opportunity to be heard.

The complaints related to the Society's alleged failure to disclose a doctor's radiological findings and a worker's alleged suggestion that the father take a 'Caring Dads' course.

The Board found that the Society met its obligations regarding the medical records, as the Applicant and the Court were notified of the findings.

While the Society failed to proceed with the complaint regarding the parenting course, the Board dismissed the application entirely because there was no factual basis for the Applicant's concern, as the transcript showed the worker did not suggest the course.