John F. Spekkens

The applicant brought an application for a review of a residential placement under section 36(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parties appeared before the Board and settled the matter.

On consent of the parties, the Board closed the file as settled and issued a confidentiality order.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society, alleging that the society failed to hear his concerns regarding his daughter's safety in her mother's care and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the society breached its statutory obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by failing to actively listen to the applicant's concerns and by failing to provide timely and detailed reasons for its actions, including its inconsistent communications about closing the file.

The Board ordered the society to provide detailed written explanations and reasons to the applicant.

The twelve-year-old applicant child sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The child had been diagnosed with major depression and exhibited escalating suicidal ideation, self-harm, and impulsive behaviours.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired his capacity to make reasoned judgments, that he was at serious risk of causing bodily harm to himself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The Applicant grandfather filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide reasons for decisions related to the apprehension of his grandchild.

The Applicant claimed the Society failed to explain why his home was not considered a place of safety, why he and the father were not contacted prior to apprehension, and why protection concerns were not shared.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints, finding that the Society could not share third-party personal information without consent, that the after-hours worker acted properly during the apprehension, and that the Applicant's refusal to collaborate with the Society justified its decision not to assess his home as a place of safety.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard about her service concerns and failed to give reasons for its decisions affecting her interests regarding the safety of her children in their father's care.

The society challenged the tribunal's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were before the family court.

The tribunal found it had jurisdiction, as the complaint concerned the society's service delivery, not the custody dispute.

The tribunal allowed the application, finding the society failed to adequately communicate with the applicant, hear her concerns, or provide reasons for its decisions, and ordered the society to provide written responses and reasons.

The Child, a 13-year-old girl, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board considered whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, specifically whether the Child had a mental disorder, whether she posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others, and whether a less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The Board found that the Child's conduct disorder grossly impaired her judgement, leading to high-risk behaviours including running away, self-harm, and joyriding.

The Board concluded that all statutory criteria were met and dismissed the application for release.

The 12-year-old applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The Board excluded hearsay medical documents authored by the admitting psychiatrist, citing procedural fairness.

Upon reviewing the evidence, the Board found that Youthdale failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by s. 124(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board concluded the child's behaviours were an expected reaction to recent trauma and apprehension, rather than a substantial disorder of emotional processes.

The application was granted and the child was released.

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

The Board considered whether the child met the statutory criteria for admission under the Child and Family Services Act, specifically whether she had a 'mental disorder' as defined by the Act.

Based on the evidence of the admitting psychiatrist, the Board found that the child's level of impairment was moderate and did not meet the threshold of a gross impairment of capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release.

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

The Board reviewed the statutory criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the facility did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the youth had a mental disorder as defined by the Act, because his capacity to make reasoned judgments was not grossly impaired.

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

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

The applicant argued that he did not meet the statutory criteria for admission, specifically regarding having a mental disorder, causing or threatening serious bodily harm, and the availability of less restrictive treatment.

The Board found that the applicant suffered from a severe anxiety disorder that grossly impaired his judgment, had exhibited escalating physical aggression towards his mother, and required a locked setting for assessment and treatment.

The Board concluded that all criteria for emergency admission were met and dismissed the application for release.

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the five criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder causing severe mood swings and aggressive behaviour, posed a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program was the only appropriate and effective less restrictive method available.

The application for release was denied.

The Applicant, the maternal grandmother of a child placed with paternal grandparents, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding her request for a kinship placement.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the service concerns as the Applicant was not a 'parent' under the Act at the relevant time.

However, the Board allowed the application in part, finding the Society breached the Act by providing inconsistent messages and failing to provide clear reasons for its placement decisions between December 2011 and May 2012.

The applicants, who had fostered the child for nearly three years, applied to adopt him.

The Children's Aid Society refused the application based on a SAFE homestudy that raised concerns about the applicants' home condition, finances, and other personal factors.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the refusal.

The Board found that the Society's concerns were either unfounded or overstated, and that the applicants had successfully met the child's significant developmental needs.

Emphasizing the importance of continuity of care and the strong bond formed, the Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to be adopted by the applicants.

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

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

The child had a history of escalating dangerous behaviours, including self-harm, cutting, and climbing to dangerous heights at night.

The Board applied the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act and found that the child had a mental disorder that caused a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself.

The Board concluded that the secure treatment program would be effective in preventing further harm, that appropriate treatment was available, and that no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The child's application for release was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to respond to his complaint in a timely manner and failed to hear his concerns regarding the unauthorized access of his confidential adoption file by his former spouse, a society employee.

The Board found that the society breached its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by failing to respond to the complaint within the required timeframe and by failing to meaningfully investigate and communicate with the applicant regarding the privacy breach.

The application was allowed in part, though no further orders were necessary as the society validated the applicant's allegations during the hearing.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the internal complaints process of the Toronto Children's Aid Society.

The Applicant had complained about past practices relating to the adoption of her child in 1970, and current practices regarding access to her records and staff conduct.

The Board found that the Society failed to follow the statutory complaints process, failed to hear the Applicant's concerns, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions, except regarding inaccuracies in her file.

The Board ordered the Society to reconvene the Internal Complaint Review Panel to properly address the Applicant's concerns and provide a detailed summary with meaningful reasons.

The Applicant sought a review of the Durham Children's Aid Society's decision to remove four foster children from her kinship foster home.

The Board considered the best interests of the children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the Applicant had significant financial instability, failed to disclose her methadone use, allowed an unapproved caregiver with a history of substance abuse and mental health issues to reside in the home, and failed to utilize resources to address the children's special needs.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to remove the children, concluding it was not in their best interests to be returned to the Applicant's care.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's internal complaints process.

The applicant alleged the society failed to follow the statutory process, hear her concerns regarding her child's placement, and provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the society failed to comply with statutory timelines and failed to adequately hear the applicant or provide reasons on three of her five complaints.

The Board ordered the society to reconvene its internal complaint review panel to address the outstanding issues and provide proper reasons.

The child applied for a review of her emergency admission to the secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centre under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the five criteria for admission under section 124(2) were met.

The Board ruled on a preliminary issue, refusing to admit medical records as business records without the testimony of a psychiatrist, citing procedural fairness.

Ultimately, based on the evidence of the child's escalating aggressive behaviour, self-harm, and threats to others, the Board found that all five criteria were met.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Applicant, a 16-year-old youth in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his residential placement at a structured facility.

The Society argued the facility was necessary due to his history and need for structure.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the placement was a child welfare placement despite the youth's probation order.

The Board concluded that the facility's restrictive rules, use of restraints, and lack of community integration were no longer in the youth's best interests.

The Board ordered the Applicant discharged from the facility and directed the Society to find a less restrictive placement.