Alina Lazor

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review 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.

While the Board found the child had a mental disorder and had made threats of self-harm, it concluded that the requirement that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate had not been met.

The application for release was granted.

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 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The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered the child returned to the applicants' care.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 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 applicants, long-term foster parents of an 11-year-old child with autism and other special needs, requested the child's removal during a crisis but quickly changed their minds.

The respondent Society removed the child and placed him in an agency foster home, arguing that section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act did not apply because the applicants initiated the removal.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found it had jurisdiction, determining that the Society made the ultimate decision to remove the child and failed to provide the mandatory written notice.

On the merits, the Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to be returned to the applicants' care with appropriate supports, emphasizing the child's long-term attachment to the applicants and the Society's failure to adequately explore respite and relief options.

The applicant sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the admitting psychiatrist had limited information and could not explain the link between the applicant's behaviour and a disorder of emotion, thought, or cognition.

The Board concluded that the applicant did not have a mental disorder as defined by the Child and Family Services Act, as there was no evidence of a gross impairment of her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The application for release was granted.

The applicant child sought review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had been placed in foster care and subsequently involuntarily admitted to a hospital following suicidal threats and erratic behaviour.

The Board reviewed the statutory criteria for emergency admission and found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired his capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board concluded that the child posed a serious risk of harm to himself and required a secure environment for stabilization and treatment.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant child sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board assessed whether the statutory criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired his judgment, leading to substantial threats of serious bodily harm to himself.

Concluding that the secure treatment program was necessary and that no less restrictive method was appropriate, the Board denied the application for release.

The applicants, foster parents, applied under section 61(7.1) of the Child and Family Services Act to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child from their care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that it was in the child's best interests to be returned to the applicants' foster care with appropriate supports.

The Board rescinded the removal decision, ordered the child's return, and outlined specific steps for the society to implement, including securing specialized supports, appointing a clinical consultant, and transitioning the child's schooling.

The applicant sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Child and Family Services Review Board assessed whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder, had made substantial threats of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

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 respondent Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction to hear an application under section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board determined that it has jurisdiction and will proceed to hear the application.

Reasons for the decision will follow with the decision on the merits.

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 applicants, the maternal grandparents of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Society's refusal of their application to adopt the child.

The Society refused the application prior to completing a homestudy, citing concerns about the grandparents' commitment to adoption versus grand-parenting.

The Board found that the grandparents' preferred role was to be grandparents and that their primary concern was ensuring family contact.

Given the Society's commitment to an openness arrangement with the child's new adoptive family, the Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to confirm the Society's refusal.

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 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 Applicant foster mother applied for a review of the Society's decision to remove four foster children from her care.

The removal occurred after the foster father sexually touched one of the foster daughters and the Applicant minimized the incident and intended to have the foster father return to the home.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application despite the removal being for risk.

The Board concluded that returning the children to the Applicant's care was not in their best interests due to the risk of emotional and physical harm and the children's expressed wishes not to return.

The Society's decision to remove the children was confirmed.