Marisha Roman

The applicant, the maternal aunt of two young children in extended society care, sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt them.

The children had been living with a kinship/foster caregiver for a year and had strong ties to their paternal extended family.

The Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that moving the children to the applicant's care would disrupt their stable environment, sever their established parental bond with their current caregiver, and cause significant emotional harm, and that remaining in their current placement was in their best interests.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother of a child involved with the respondent society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

She raised concerns about the society's file management practices and an alleged staff conflict of interest.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was not seeking or receiving services from the society herself, and had obtained the file information through a separate court proceeding rather than a direct disclosure request.

Consequently, the complaint fell outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The applicant, a community member, filed an application expressing concerns about the care and services provided to three children by the respondent society.

The applicant and his family were not acquaintances of the children and had not received services from the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, an applicant must be seeking or receiving services to be eligible to file a complaint.

Since the applicant did not meet this requirement, the application was ineligible for review.

The applicant filed a complaint regarding child protection services received from the children's aid society, specifically concerning an investigation and the society's refusal to provide a copy of its file.

At a preliminary hearing, the society conceded the Board's jurisdiction to order file disclosure but disputed its jurisdiction to review and remove redactions.

The Board held that it has jurisdiction to order file disclosure to ensure a fair complaints process, as well as the jurisdiction to review redactions in a file and order their removal if necessary for a fair process.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

At the hearing, the applicants requested to withdraw their application because the society changed its position and agreed to support the adoption application for the child and the child's sibling.

The society consented to the withdrawal.

The panel granted the request to withdraw the application and closed the file.