John F. Spekkens

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement regarding child protection matters.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing to determine compliance.

The Board found that the Society had provided adequate reasons for its decisions regarding the assignment of workers, the reversion to supervised access visits due to domestic incidents, and the expectations for community resources.

The complaint of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns about an individual living in the same home as his children who had been charged with sexual assault, and failed to provide reasons for closing its investigation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society failed to make meaningful attempts to engage with the applicant and failed to provide reasons for its decision that the children were not at risk.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant within 30 days.

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 her two children in care.

The Board reviewed nine specific issues raised by the mother, including medical care, access visits, and religious upbringing.

The Board found that the Society had provided timely and detailed reasons for its decisions and actively listened to the mother's suggestions.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for sharing child abuse investigation information with his employer and failed to involve him in developing his service plan.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints.

The Board found the society was mandated to share information with the police service under an existing protocol, and that the limitations placed on the applicant's involvement in the service plan were reasonable given the finding of extreme child abuse and the complex family dynamics.

The applicant, a former foster parent, sought a review of the actions of the respondent children's aid society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The complaints related to decisions regarding a foster child and the applicant's biological son, who was the subject of sexual assault allegations and an ongoing civil lawsuit against the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant did not meet the definition of a parent seeking services with respect to the foster child, and that the issues regarding the biological son were precluded from review because they were the subject of an active civil lawsuit before the courts.

The applicants, the grandmother and aunt of a child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board requesting a review of the actions of the Children's Aid Society of Toronto.

They alleged the Society failed to listen to their concerns about the child's safety and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants were not persons who sought or received services from the Society.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicants were fulfilling their duty to report child protection concerns, but were not seeking or receiving a service themselves.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicants, two older siblings in extended care, filed complaints against the children's aid society for failing to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests.

Specifically, they sought reasons for the society's support of a custody order for their two younger siblings and its refusal to facilitate sibling access visits while the younger siblings were in care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society failed to provide the applicants with timely and detailed reasons or meaningful opportunities for input.

The Board ordered the society to provide comprehensive written reasons for both decisions.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding alleged bias, unprofessional conduct by a worker, and a worker's failure to attend court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to review the bias complaint as it related to access issues currently before the court.

On the remaining issues, the Board found that the Society had met its statutory obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its actions.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed applications with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his service concerns and did not provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The applicant's concerns related to the society's investigation of emotional harm, alleged bias, and failure to consider a psychological report.

Following a hearing where the parties worked constructively, the Board ordered the society to provide written responses to ten specific questions raised by the applicant.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging that it failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her son, who was a society ward living in a group home.

The concerns related to the child's school lateness, hygiene, delayed dental surgery, and access to medical records.

The Board found that the society had communicated primarily with the child's grandmother, who was the primary contact and caregiver prior to apprehension, in accordance with the child's wishes.

The Board concluded that the society met its statutory obligations to hear concerns and provide reasons, and dismissed the application.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Children's Aid Society sought the admission due to the applicant's violent and aggressive behaviours towards his family and caregivers.

The Board found that the applicant had a mental disorder that grossly impaired his ability to make reasoned judgments, had caused serious bodily harm to his brother, and required a secure environment for assessment and stabilization.

The Board concluded that the statutory criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met and denied the application for release.

The applicant child sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The facility failed to provide direct medical evidence or the testimony of the admitting psychiatrist to establish that the child had a mental disorder within the meaning of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the behavioural evidence presented was insufficient to prove a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought, or cognition grossly impairing the child's capacity to make reasoned judgments.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the criteria for emergency admission were not met and ordered the child's release.

The applicants, who previously adopted the child's older biological sister, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Society's decision refusing their application to adopt the child.

The Society had supported placing the child with a kinship family after a court ordered temporary placement with them.

The Board found that the Society placed too much weight on the temporary court order and failed to adequately consider the kinship family's history of child protection involvement, financial instability, and parenting limitations.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to be placed for adoption with the applicants, allowing the child to grow up with her biological sister in a stable environment.

The Society's decision was rescinded and the child was ordered placed with the applicants.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 144(3) of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of the respondent Society's decision refusing their application to adopt a child.

After hearing the evidence and representations, the Board granted the application.

The Board annulled the Society's decision and ordered that the child be placed with the applicants for adoption, with reasons to follow.

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board found that while the child had a mental disorder, she had not made a substantial threat to cause serious bodily harm to herself or others, and that less restrictive methods of providing treatment had not been fully explored.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicants, parents of a child in temporary wardship, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Toronto Children's Aid Society.

The applicants alleged that the Society failed to hear their concerns and provide reasons for its decision to stop community access visits.

The Society had curtailed the visits citing new information about the parents' criminal records and alleged gang affiliation.

The Board found that while the Society heard the applicants' concerns, it failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions regarding the specific criminal convictions considered, the basis for the gang affiliation allegation, the rejection of a risk-mitigating proposal, and the role of medical marijuana use.

The Board ordered the Society to meet with the applicants and provide detailed written reasons on these four issues.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The local Children's Aid Society sought her admission due to her absences from her foster home and high-risk behaviours in the community.

The Board found that the secure facility failed to provide psychiatric evidence to establish that the child had a mental disorder as defined by the Child and Family Services Act.

As the statutory criteria for emergency admission were not met, the Board granted the application and ordered the child's release.

The 15-year-old applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The applicant had a history of trauma, substance abuse, and running away from home, prompting her father to seek her admission.

The Board found that while the applicant suffered from a mental disorder, she did not pose a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that less restrictive methods of treatment had not been fully explored or exhausted.

The Board granted the application and ordered the applicant's release.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, alleging the society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her children's care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society did not fully exercise its legislated responsibility to hear the applicant or provide reasons for its decisions following a March 2014 meeting.

The Board ordered the society to arrange a face-to-face meeting to hear the applicant's concerns and to provide written reasons for any subsequent decisions.

A second complaint regarding the worker's behaviour was dismissed as being beyond the Board's mandate.

The Applicant filed a complaint against the Halton Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions during a child abuse investigation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed four specific complaints, including the Society's interview of the child at school and alleged inaccuracies in its records.

The Board found that the Society had adequately heard the Applicant's concerns and provided detailed reasons for its decisions.

The complaints within the Board's mandate were dismissed, and the Applicant was directed to the Internal Complaint Review Procedure for record inaccuracy claims.