Carole Jenkins

The applicant, a 16-year-old sibling of five children in foster care, filed an application alleging the respondent society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for restricting her in-person access to her siblings.

The society had suspended in-person access due to COVID-19 protocols and offered virtual access instead.

The adjudicator found that the society had provided a detailed response acknowledging the applicant's concerns and had given meaningful reasons for its decision based on pandemic restrictions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants filed complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the apprehension of their children, sibling access, and the placement of the male applicant on the Child Abuse Register.

The respondent children's aid society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in child protection proceedings.

The Board agreed, finding that all issues raised in the complaints were squarely before the court, and dismissed the applications pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant, the adult sister of five children in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for its decision to terminate her in-person access and deny her request for unsupervised outdoor access.

The Board found that the Society did not provide meaningful reasons, as it relied on the applicant's father to relay information and failed to explain why access needed to be supervised or how outdoor access contravened COVID-19 restrictions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant filed two complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues raised in the complaints were already before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board reviewed the materials and found that all the issues raised by the applicant, including concerns about access, disclosure, and staff conduct, had been presented to the court.

Consequently, the Board concluded it was precluded from reviewing the complaints under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and dismissed the applications.