Richard Linley

The Applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

The Society had reversed its initial decision to place the child with the Applicants after learning that one of the Applicants had been criminally charged with a historical sexual assault relating to a former adult client.

The Board found that the risk of disruption to the child's continuity of care was low and that the Applicants were well-suited to meet the child's needs.

The Board concluded it was in the best interests of the child to be placed with the Applicants and rescinded the Society's refusal.

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

Following a hearing, the Board determined that it was in the best interests of the child to be placed for adoption with the applicants.

The Board rescinded the society's refusal under subsection 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act and ordered the child to be placed with the applicants.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Society's refusal of his application to adopt his grandchild.

The application was adjourned pending a status review in the Ontario Court of Justice.

The court subsequently ordered Crown Wardship of the grandchild without access to the applicant.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it could not make an order inconsistent with the court's order denying access.

The applicant grandfather sought to review the Society's refusal of his application to adopt his grandchild.

The Society brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the child was not yet a Crown ward and therefore not available for adoption.

The Board found it had jurisdiction under section 144(1) of the Child and Family Services Act, as the provision does not require the child to be a Crown ward before a refusal can be reviewed.

However, because a summary judgment motion for Crown wardship was scheduled for the following month, the Board adjourned the application to avoid planning in a vacuum.

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, father of a Crown Ward, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process.

The applicant alleged the ICRP failed to adequately address his concerns regarding access, information sharing, and proper process.

The Board found the ICRP process deficient, as the written summary provided to the applicant lacked detail and failed to demonstrate his concerns were heard or to provide adequate reasons for the society's decisions.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed written explanation addressing each of the applicant's specific concerns.

The applicants, parents of three children apprehended by the Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests.

The parents raised concerns regarding the separation and multiple moves of their children, medical care decisions made by foster parents and workers, late access visits, being asked to sign blank forms, lack of input into the service plan, and drug testing requirements.

The Board found that the Society failed to provide adequate reasons regarding the children's placements, medical care, and the signing of blank forms.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding access visits, service plan input, and drug testing.

The Society was ordered to provide written explanations and records to the parents.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to provide reasons for its decision to contact his friend.

The society's worker had contacted the friend after receiving a report that her granddaughter was visiting the applicant unsupervised, while his access to his own children was supervised.

The Board found that the worker had provided sufficient explanation to the applicant during their telephone conversation, given her limited knowledge of his file and the fact that no specific personal information was disclosed.

The application was dismissed.

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, foster parents to two special needs boys, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the children's removal by the Durham Children's Aid Society.

The Society removed the children after substantiating allegations that the foster mother used inappropriate physical discipline, including banging the older boy's head on the floor.

The Board found that the foster mother had used physical force and that there was a risk of future physical harm.

Concluding that the children's physical and emotional needs could not be met in the foster home, the Board determined it was not in their best interests to be returned and confirmed the Society's decision to remove them.

The Applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society, alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns, failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, and failed to comply with internal complaint procedures regarding her 16-year-old daughter.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding the internal complaints process, finding the Society complied with the legislation.

However, the Board found that the Society failed to hear the Applicant or provide reasons for its decisions regarding the daughter's placement, the service plan, the suspension of the child tax credit, a crisis call, and the cancellation of counselling services.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations to the Applicant for these decisions.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The complaints related to a letter the Society sent to the court and its alleged failure to forward information regarding the father to the court and police.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to communicate genuinely with the applicant between April and mid-June 2012 regarding the court letter, but fulfilled its obligations once direct communication resumed.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the forwarding of documents, finding the Society had no obligation to do so, though it noted the Society should have communicated its reasons more clearly.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against two Children's Aid Societies, alleging they failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding allegations of physical abuse of his children in a foster home.

The Oxford Society, which received the initial disclosure, referred the matter to the Guelph Society as the foster home was in its jurisdiction.

The Board found that the Oxford Society fulfilled its obligations by hearing the Applicant and referring the matter.

However, the Board found that the Guelph Society failed to hear the Applicant, failed to return his calls, and failed to provide detailed reasons for its decision not to verify the abuse allegations despite the children's credible disclosures.

The Board ordered the Guelph Society to provide detailed written reasons and to meet with the Applicant.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests regarding her son.

The Board dismissed four of the five complaints, finding the Society had properly heard her concerns and provided explanations regarding allegations of abuse, alienation, and inappropriate discipline.

On the fifth complaint regarding access visits, the Board found the Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions prior to the hearing, but concluded that adequate explanations were provided during the hearing itself.

The Board made no further order but recommended the Society review its complaint information protocols.

The applicants, the paternal grandfather and step-grandmother of a child taken into care, filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society for failing to provide reasons for not considering them as a kinship placement.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicants were not parents or persons seeking services.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because assessing a kin placement is a service under the Child and Family Services Act, and the decision affected the applicants' interests.

On the merits, the Board found the Society failed to provide timely explanations to the applicants about why they were not considered for kinship placement, noting the Society's apology during the hearing.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear him or provide reasons for decisions regarding joint counselling, access visit designates, and community access visits.

The Board found that the Society failed to provide reasons to the Applicant on these issues at the time of his application, and failed to give him an opportunity to tell his story.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint regarding the Society's refusal to proceed with an Internal Complaints Review Panel, finding the Society properly determined the issue was ineligible because it was before the Court.

The Applicant, the maternal grandmother of two children in the care of the Society, filed a complaint alleging the Society failed to listen to her or provide explanations regarding several issues, including the placement of her grandson in a non-Jewish foster home, his removal from a hospital, his drug use, and his school attendance.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to provide reasons or explanations regarding the foster home placement, the hospital removal, and the drug use allegations, ordering the Society to provide written reasons.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding treatment participation, disrespectful comments, and school absenteeism.

The respondents, grandparents of two children, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the applicant Society's response to their reports of child abuse.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the grandparents had not sought or received a service from the Society.

The Board granted the motion, finding that making a referral about child protection concerns does not constitute seeking or receiving a service under the Child and Family Services Act, and therefore the Board had no jurisdiction to hear the application.

The applicant, an employee of the respondent Society, was the subject of an anonymous child protection referral that was transferred to another agency due to a conflict of interest.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its handling of the referral.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, which was dismissed.

On the merits, the Board found that the Society had adequately answered most of the applicant's questions through correspondence and meetings.

While the Society failed to provide written reasons regarding its file disclosure protocol and a misunderstanding about how the referral was routed, the Board declined to order a remedy because detailed explanations were provided during the hearing.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by Child and Family Services of Timmins and District.

The applicants alleged that the agency failed to provide reasons for decisions and an opportunity to be heard regarding the delayed reopening of their file, the coding used for reassessment, a breach of confidentiality with the applicants' employer, and an unauthorized conversation with their 16-year-old daughter.

The Board found in favour of the applicants, concluding that the agency failed to listen to their concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the agency to provide detailed written reasons for its actions within 30 days.