Catherine Bickley

The applicant, a former foster mother of the child, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to refuse her adoption application.

The respondent had notified the applicant that another adoptive applicant was matched with the child.

The Board found that the application was filed within the 10-day statutory time limit under section 192 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board directed that the matter proceed to a hearing and scheduled a teleconference to address preliminary issues and set timelines.

The applicants filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the respondent society's investigations.

The parties reached a settlement agreement at a pre-hearing.

The applicants subsequently alleged that the respondent failed to comply with the agreement by providing unsatisfactory answers to agreed-upon questions.

The tribunal found that the respondent had answered the questions as required and therefore complied with the settlement agreement, closing the file.

The applicants, foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after their foster child was removed from their care.

They alleged the children's aid society failed to give them a chance to be heard and failed to follow its complaint review process.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that foster parents do not fall within the definition of 'parent' under the Act for the purposes of the right to be heard, and the applicants had not filed their complaint in the required format.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board after their foster child was removed from their home.

The applicant alleged that the society failed to give them an opportunity to be heard when decisions affecting their interests were made, contrary to section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the right to be heard under section 15(2) is limited to children, young persons, and their parents.

As the definition of 'parent' in the Act does not include foster parents, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the application.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove a foster child who had lived continuously in the applicant's home for over two years.

The child was removed without the required 10 days' written notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application was filed within the statutory 10-day period and directed that the matter proceed to an expedited hearing.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's proposed removal of two children who had lived in her home for over two years.

The applicant had only received verbal notice of the removal, whereas the statute requires 10 days' written notice.

The Board issued an interim decision scheduling an initial hearing to determine whether it has jurisdiction to proceed with the application in the absence of written notice.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The applicant was subject to a criminal release order prohibiting contact with the respondent.

The Board directed the applicant to provide evidence that the non-contact condition had been varied and to cease sending abusive emails.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and continued to send numerous abusive emails.

The Board dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicants, who are foster parents, applied to review the respondent Society's refusal of their adoption application.

The proposed adoptive parents, with whom the Society planned to place the child, requested to be added as parties to the proceeding.

The Society opposed the request, arguing the issue was strictly between the Society and the foster parents.

The Board granted the request, finding that the proposed adoptive parents' participation was necessary to decide the child's best interests, as the hearing would involve a comparison of the two potential placements.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a foster child who had lived continuously in the applicant's home for over two years.

The Board found that the application was filed within 10 days of the applicant receiving written notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board determined the application was eligible to proceed to a hearing and issued directions for a teleconference.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the removal of an 18-year-old youth from their home.

The respondent Children's Aid Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction on the basis that the youth was no longer a child under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and the extended society care order had expired.

The Board agreed, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the youth had reached the age of majority.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, who had been foster parents to a child for almost two years, applied to adopt the child but were refused by the respondent children's aid society on the basis that another family met the child's racial and religious needs.

The applicants filed an application for review with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Board found that the application was filed within the statutory 10-day period and was therefore eligible to proceed to a hearing.

The Board issued directions for a teleconference to set timelines and identify preliminary issues.

The applicants, who are foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

They disagreed with the respondent society's plan to enter into a customary care agreement with another family and raised concerns about their interactions with a worker.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that as foster parents, the applicants were providing a service to the society rather than seeking or receiving services, making their complaint ineligible for review.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to adequately ensure her safety when she was a child.

The Board found that the applicant had not made a formal written complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel as required by section 119(1) of the Act and section 56 of Ontario Regulation 156/18.

Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the application.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

After the applicant failed to attend a scheduled pre-hearing teleconference and did not respond to attempts to contact her, the adjudicator concluded that the application had been abandoned.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about her child's wellbeing while in the father's care and her dissatisfaction with the children's aid society's response.

The Board found that the applicant had not made a written complaint to the society in the required form as mandated by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

Consequently, the Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the application and dismissed it.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent society's decision to remove a foster child from their care.

The child had lived continuously with the applicant for over two years.

The society removed the child without providing the required 10 days' written notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found the application eligible to proceed to a hearing and issued directions for a teleconference and document filing.

The applicants, foster parents of a child, sought a review of the respondent society's decision to remove the child and refuse their adoption application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the child had not lived with the applicants continuously for two years prior to the notice of removal.

Furthermore, the application was filed outside the mandatory 10-day statutory timeline for reviewing an adoption refusal.

The applicants, who were foster parents to a child, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the removal of the child from their home following an investigation by the respondent society.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board held that the right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is limited to children, young persons, and their parents, and the definition of 'parent' in the Act does not include foster parents.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent society failed to follow its complaint review process.

The Board noted that the applicant had not made a written complaint to the society in the required form, as mandated by section 119(1) of the Act and section 56 of Ontario Regulation 156/18.

Because a formal written complaint is a prerequisite for the Board's review under section 120(4), the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

A pre-hearing teleconference was scheduled after the parties failed to reach a settlement at mediation.

The applicant failed to attend the pre-hearing and did not respond to the Board's attempts to contact him by telephone and email.

Consequently, the adjudicator concluded that the application was abandoned and dismissed it.