Family and Matrimonial Law

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove a child from her care.

The child had lived with the applicant for approximately 53 days.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because section 109(7) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 requires the child to have lived continuously with the foster parent for two years to be eligible for a review.

The applicant, who acted as an access supervisor for her godchild and niece/nephew, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society.

She alleged poor communication, sharing of inaccurate information, and safety concerns regarding the children's access with their mother.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it ineligible for review because the applicant provided a service to the society rather than seeking or receiving a service from it, as required by sections 119 and 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's apprehension of her two children, their placement, and the denial of access to the grandparents.

The respondent argued that the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in child protection proceedings.

The adjudicator found that the issues raised in the complaint were squarely before the court, triggering the jurisdictional bar under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging a conflict of interest regarding the presence of the respondent's former Executive Director on its Board of Directors.

The respondent clarified that the former Executive Director was not on its Board.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the complaint did not relate to a service sought or received by the applicant, but rather to the internal structure and processes of the respondent.

The applicants sought a review of the respondent's decision to refuse their application to adopt their foster child.

They brought a motion seeking an order to allow an expert to conduct an attachment assessment of the child.

The respondent opposed the assessment, arguing that section 98 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 applied and that its own staff could provide better information.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that section 98 did not apply to a section 192 proceeding and concluded that the proposed assessment would assist the hearing panel.

The motion was granted, but the request for costs was denied as the Board lacked the authority to award them.

The Father (applicant) sought costs of $65,000 after successfully obtaining sole custody in a motion to change.

The Mother (respondent) argued for no costs due to her modest means and the resolution of some issues prior to trial.

The court, applying Rule 24(11) of the Family Law Rules and s. 131(1) of the Courts of Justice Act, found the Father presumptively entitled to costs but reduced the amount to $30,000, payable over six years, considering the parties' compromises, the Mother's financial situation, and the importance but not excessive complexity of the issues.

The court declined to deem the costs as additional support enforceable by the Family Responsibility Office.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing their application to adopt two high-needs children.

The Society had removed the children from the applicants' foster care due to concerns about communication, the applicants' ability to work with the Society, and the impact on the applicants' other special-needs child.

The Board found that the communication issues stemmed from the applicant's neurological deficits and stressful circumstances, not malicious intent.

Concluding that the applicants had the capacity to meet the children's complex needs and that the children required continuity and a secure family relationship, the Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered the children placed with the applicants for adoption.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt two children.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the children be placed for adoption with the applicants, with the transfer to be completed by a specified date.

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 father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society of Toronto failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding his children in care.

The Board found that the Society failed to invite the Applicant to plan of care meetings, failed to consult him on schooling and health issues, and failed to engage in meaningful communication regarding access visits and his request for a new worker.

The Board ordered the Society's Director to meet with the Applicant to discuss his concerns and provide written reasons for its decisions.

The self-represented applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process conducted by the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The applicant raised numerous concerns regarding supervised access, file disclosures, redacted emails, and alleged violations of his children's rights.

The Board found that the Society's written responses to the applicant's concerns lacked sufficient detail and failed to demonstrate that he was adequately heard.

The Board ordered the Society to provide comprehensive written explanations, policies, and unredacted files (subject to specific privilege claims) to the applicant.

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 applicants, who had fostered two children with special needs for seven years, applied to adopt them.

The children's aid society refused the application, citing concerns about the foster mother's disciplinary methods, the breakdown of the relationship with the kin family, and the applicants' approach to child-rearing, proposing instead to place the children with kin.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the society's decision, finding that the children were deeply bonded to the applicants, their complex needs were being met, and their best interests required the continuity and permanence of remaining in the only home they had known.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her mental health assessment and her ex-partner's statements.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written review and found that the Society had made sufficient efforts to engage the applicant and provide her with opportunities to be heard.

The Board dismissed the application, noting it lacked jurisdiction over the concurrent custody and access proceedings.

The applicants sought a review of the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto's decision to refuse their application to adopt two children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the children be placed for adoption with the applicants.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's handling of referrals she made concerning her grandchild's mother.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board determined that its jurisdiction to hear complaints from non-parents is limited to individuals who have sought or received services from the Society.

Because the applicant merely made a referral and did not seek or receive services for herself, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Internal Complaints Review Panel process conducted by the respondent society.

The applicant alleged that the society failed to properly hear her concerns regarding inaccuracies in her file and failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the society had met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide written reasons for its conclusions, with the exception of one outstanding issue regarding the removal of a child's name from the record.

The Board ordered the society to provide a written decision and reasons on that specific issue within 14 days.

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 filed a complaint against the Halton Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions during a child abuse investigation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed four specific complaints, including the Society's interview of the child at school and alleged inaccuracies in its records.

The Board found that the Society had adequately heard the Applicant's concerns and provided detailed reasons for its decisions.

The complaints within the Board's mandate were dismissed, and the Applicant was directed to the Internal Complaint Review Procedure for record inaccuracy claims.

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.