Lorna King

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

The facility argued the admission was necessary due to the Child's aggressive behaviours and risk of self-harm.

The Board found that while the Child had a mental disorder, the facility failed to prove that he had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, or that no less restrictive treatment method was appropriate.

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

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

The facility bore the burden of proving that all five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that while the child had a mental disorder, the facility failed to prove that she had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, or that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

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

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

The admission was sought due to his violent and aggressive behaviour at home, which led to his apprehension by the Children's Aid Society.

The Board found that while the applicant had a mental disorder and posed a risk of harm, the criterion requiring that no less restrictive method of treatment be appropriate was not met.

The applicant's behaviour had stabilized in an open custody facility prior to admission, and alternative non-secure treatment options had not been adequately explored.

The Board ordered the applicant's release.

The applicants, experienced foster parents, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a nine-year-old foster child from their care.

The child, who had complex special needs and trauma, had lived with the applicants for three years and developed a strong attachment to them.

The Society argued the child was thriving in a new placement with improved sleep and independence.

The Board found that breaking the child's emotional bonds with the applicants could jeopardize his future relationships and place him at serious risk of losing his attachment gains.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered the child returned to the applicants' care.

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

The youth's mother had sought the admission due to the youth's escalating behaviour, aggression, and poor choices in the community.

The Board found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the youth had a mental disorder within the meaning of the Child and Family Services Act, as her capacity to make reasoned judgments was not grossly impaired.

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

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

The child argued that the statutory criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments, resulting in substantial threats of serious bodily harm to herself and others.

Concluding that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate, the Board determined all criteria were met and denied the application for release.

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.

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

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

The Board found that the youth had a mental disorder, had attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of providing treatment was appropriate given her escalating suicidal behaviours.

The application for release was denied.

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

The admission was sought due to her history of running away, high-risk behaviours, and a recent brief hospitalization.

The Board found that the evidence, including testimony from the admitting psychiatrist, did not establish that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments at the time of admission.

Because the first statutory criterion under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act was not met, the Board ordered the child's release.

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 applicants, who are parents and foster parents, filed a complaint against the Durham Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to hear their concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding a child protection investigation involving their nine-year-old son.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to hear the applicants and provide sufficient reasons regarding several aspects of the investigation, including interviewing the child alone, the outcome meeting, and the inclusion of their names in the Provincial Database.

The Board ordered the Society to meet with the applicants to hear their perspective and provide a written report.

The applicant child sought a review of his admission to a secure treatment program by the respondent treatment centre.

The child had a history of running away from foster placements and engaging in self-harm.

The Board refused to admit hearsay medical documents tendered by the respondent, as the admitting psychiatrist was not available for cross-examination.

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

Consequently, the Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant brought an application regarding the implementation of a previous Board decision that ordered two Children's Aid Societies to investigate her service concerns about racial discrimination.

The Board found that while Guelph complied with the order to hear from the applicant, neither Society complied with the orders to properly investigate the racial discrimination concerns.

The Board concluded its role in the matter but granted the applicant permission to use a redacted version of the decision in her upcoming application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The 14-year-old applicant sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while some criteria for admission were met, the requirement under section 124(2)(e) of the Child and Family Services Act—that no less restrictive method of providing appropriate treatment was available—was not satisfied.

The Board noted that appropriate services in a less intrusive setting had not been adequately investigated.

Consequently, the Board ordered the child's release.

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.