Sheena Scott

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Huron-Perth Children's Aid Society failed to respond to their concerns about the safety and care of their children in foster care.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants had raised the exact same service concerns in a motion before the court seeking the return of their children.

The Board agreed, finding that under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, it has no jurisdiction to hear complaints involving matters that are already before the court.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant sought his medical records from the respondent Society relating to a brief period in care following a car accident in his youth.

He required the records for an application to the Ontario Hepatitis C Assistance Plan.

The Society maintained it had no medical records in his file.

The Board found that while the Society met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide reasons in 2011, it failed to do so in 2014 when it did not provide a full copy of his file upon request.

However, as the Society subsequently conducted thorough searches and confirmed no medical records existed, the Board made no order, but permitted the applicant to use the decision to assist with his assistance plan application.

The applicants, a father and stepmother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the children's aid society failed to hear their concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding the mother's care of the children.

The Board found that the society initially failed to meet its obligations to investigate and communicate effectively regarding allegations of parental alienation, exposure to conflict, and other child protection concerns.

However, the society later met its obligations by developing a service plan.

The Board ordered the society to provide written explanations for several outstanding issues and to develop a communication plan 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 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, a youth in the care of the Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 36 of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of her residential placement.

She sought a transfer to a less restrictive placement such as a group home or youth shelter.

The Society argued that the current placement was necessary to address the Applicant's complex mental health needs and to facilitate family reintegration.

The Board found that the current placement was in the Applicant's best interests, given her significant psychiatric needs, the lack of appropriate less restrictive alternatives, and the need for continuity of care.

The application was dismissed and the current placement was confirmed.

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued an interim decision regarding a residential placement review, addressing motions on jurisdiction and the disclosure of Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) records.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to review the child welfare placement despite a purported bail condition.

The Board also provided guidance and suggested wording for future motions to the Youth Court to obtain broader access to YCJA records without improperly delegating screening to the Board.

The Society brought a pre-hearing motion seeking access to Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA) assessments for a residential placement review before the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Youth Court had ordered the records released subject to a further screening order by the Board under the Wagg framework.

The Board held that delegating the screening process to the Board was inappropriate, as the Youth Court has exclusive jurisdiction and expertise under the YCJA to balance privacy and public interest concerns.

However, given the Youth Court's delegation in this specific case, the Board ordered the records released for the hearing subject to strict confidentiality conditions.

The Applicant alleged that the Society failed to comply with a previous Board order requiring it to explain why it did not follow confidentiality policies when sharing documents.

The Board found that the Society's responses did not provide the detailed explanation ordered, but confirmed that no one had turned their mind to the policies at the time.

Given the limits on its enforcement powers under section 68 of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board declined to probe the issue further.

The Board amended its Confidentiality Order to permit the Applicant to use the Board's decisions and refer to information from the proceedings in a civil action against the Society.

The applicant applied for a review of her placement under section 36(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

During the hearing, a witness testified that a psychiatrist had dictated a consulting note for the applicant's file.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered the witness to provide a copy of the consulting note to the society, and for the society to produce it to the Board and the applicant's counsel.

The applicant grandparents sought a review of a decision by the Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) regarding the care of their grandchildren.

They alleged the Society failed to properly act on information about the mother's mental health and her partner's proximity to the children, and that the Society did not follow the legislated complaints process.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the Society failed to meet statutory timelines and improperly included the Executive Director on the ICRP, the applicants were fully heard and provided with meaningful reasons.

The application was dismissed with no orders made regarding the procedural breaches, as they caused no prejudice.

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued an amended confidentiality order regarding an application under section 36 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The order prohibits the sharing or disclosure of Board documents or information outside the proceedings, with specific exceptions.

The Society is permitted to share the decisions with a children's health program and an upcoming foster home.

The applicant may share the decisions with their advocate at the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth, and a redacted version may be shared with counsel for the applicant's mother in the child protection proceedings.

The applicant grandparents applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the children's aid society failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision to reduce and subsequently terminate their access to their grandchildren.

The Board found that while the society made bona fide efforts to explain its decision, it failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the child welfare history and family conflict it relied upon.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed written explanation answering specific questions to fulfill its statutory obligation.

The Applicant sought a compliance decision regarding a previous Board order requiring the Society to move her to a treatment foster home, consult with her about the placement, and refer her to a children's health program.

The Board found that the Society failed to comply with the placement and consultation aspects of the order, as the new foster home did not meet the criteria for a treatment foster home and the Society did not adequately consider the Applicant's views.

The Board found the Society did comply with the referral requirement.

The Board issued further orders directing the Society to locate an appropriate treatment foster home and properly consult with the Applicant.

The Applicant, a mother whose child was subject to a crown wardship order with no access, brought an application alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her or provide reasons regarding the child's out-of-province kin placement and its communications with police.

The Society argued it was not obliged to consult the Applicant due to the crown wardship order and child protection concerns.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its statutory obligations to hear the Applicant and provide reasons regarding the kin placement and her service concerns about the police.

The Board ordered the Society to receive and genuinely consider the Applicant's written input regarding the kin placement and to provide a detailed written response.

Two sets of applicants commenced separate applications under s. 144 of the Child and Family Services Act regarding the adoption refusal of the same child.

On consent of all parties, the Board ordered that the applications be joined and proceed together to a hearing.

The Board also issued a confidentiality order prohibiting the disclosure of any Board documents or information outside of the proceedings.

The Applicant, a youth in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 36 of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of her residential placement at a group home.

The Applicant sought to be moved closer to her family and to a placement that better addressed her needs and cultural heritage.

The Society argued the group home was necessary due to the Applicant's sexualized behaviour and trauma.

The Board found that the group home was not an appropriate placement, as it failed to meet the Applicant's clinical, cultural, and emotional needs, and ordered her discharged to a less restrictive treatment foster home closer to her community.

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued an order following a hearing regarding the Children's Aid Society of Simcoe County's refusal of the applicants' application to adopt a child.

The Board confirmed the Society's refusal of the adoption application and its decision to remove the child from the adoption placement with the applicants pursuant to section 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Written reasons for the decision were to follow.

The Applicant mother filed an application alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her or provide reasons for its decisions regarding a child protection referral she made about her child's father.

The Board found that the Society failed to hear the Applicant during the investigation process, ignored mandatory standards to observe the child with the father, and failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision to verify risk based on custody conflict rather than the mother's allegations.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons answering specific questions about its investigation and verification decisions.

The Applicant filed an application under section 36(1) of the Child and Family Services Act to review her residential placement.

Following a multi-day hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board ordered the Applicant discharged from her current group home.

The Board directed the Society to place the Applicant in a treatment foster home with necessary support services and to consult her regarding the new placement.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a motion on jurisdiction regarding an application under s. 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the formal complaint process was not engaged and that it lacked jurisdiction over a court-appointed counsellor.

However, the Board directed that the matter proceed to a hearing on whether the Society failed to hear the Applicant's service concerns regarding allegations of abuse and medical neglect by the children's mother, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.