Daniel McSweeney

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, a former foster parent, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a breakdown in negotiations for a customary care agreement.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant was neither a parent nor a service recipient under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, and therefore did not have a right to have the complaint reviewed.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging that workers acted improperly by supporting his 16-year-old daughter's decision to leave home and reside with her boyfriend's family.

The Applicant claimed he was denied the opportunity to be heard and was not provided reasons for the workers' decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint, finding that the 16-year-old daughter had voluntarily withdrawn from parental control and was receiving services separate and distinct from any services provided to the Applicant.

Consequently, the Applicant was not a service recipient with respect to the daughter's interactions with the workers and had no right to be heard or receive information about those services without the daughter's consent.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding complaints of abuse while her children were in their father's care, and sought the expungement of certain records.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant had not first submitted a formal complaint to the respondent society's Internal Complaints Review Panel as required by the legislation.

The Board also noted it lacked jurisdiction over the contents of child protection records, which falls under the purview of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding concerns about a young person residing with her and the respondent society's lack of communication and support.

The applicant had sent a letter of complaint to the society but did not use the prescribed formal complaint form for the Internal Complaints Review Panel.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to review the application because the applicant had not made a formal complaint pursuant to section 119 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and Ontario Regulation 156/18.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a kin care provider, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking assistance in obtaining documents from the respondent society to apply for financial and program supports for the children in her care.

The applicant alleged that the society refused to proceed with her complaint.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant had not submitted a formal complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel using the prescribed form as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and Ontario Regulation 156/18.

The applicant, the stepfather of the child, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board (CFSRB) alleging that the respondent society refused to proceed with his complaint and failed to follow its complaint review process.

The CFSRB found that the applicant had not submitted a formal complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel using the prescribed form as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and Ontario Regulation 156/18.

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

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services received from the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the complaint should be dismissed as the issues were already decided by the court in family proceedings.

The Board found that while the applicant's concerns regarding child abuse and parenting were squarely before the court and thus excluded from review under s. 120(8) of the CYFSA, the service-related issues regarding staff interactions and French language services were not before the court.

The Board dismissed the first issue but allowed the service-related issues to proceed.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

He alleged that he was not given an opportunity to be heard regarding custody and access of his child, and that the society failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing and dismissed the complaint.

The Board found that the society had communicated with the applicant on multiple occasions, heard his concerns, and explained its positions and the court's orders.

The Board also dismissed allegations regarding false affidavits and placement with the maternal family, noting that the society never sought such a placement and that court documents must be addressed at court.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to follow its complaint review process.

The Board found that the applicant had not made a formal written complaint to the society as required by the legislation.

Consequently, the formal complaints procedure was not engaged, and the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society refused to proceed with her complaint regarding the children's father.

The Board found that the applicant had only made her complaints by telephone and had not submitted the required formal complaint form to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel.

As a formal complaint was not made pursuant to section 119 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and Ontario Regulation 156/18, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to review the application and dismissed it.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to address her concerns regarding the alleged physical abuse of her daughter by the child's father.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 because the issues were already before or decided by the Family Court.

The Board agreed, finding that the issues of custody, access, and the child's well-being had been squarely placed before the Court, which ordered the child to reside with her father.

The complaint was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The respondent argued that the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction under s. 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, as the matters were currently before the court.

The adjudicator found that the issues in the complaint focused on service-related matters and interactions with the respondent's worker, which occurred after the court proceedings and were separate from the custody and access issues before the court.

The CFSRB determined it had jurisdiction to proceed with the review.

The applicant father filed a complaint regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of his concerns about his child's health and the mother's conduct.

The parties entered into a settlement agreement.

The applicant subsequently alleged that the respondent failed to comply with the agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written review and found that the respondent complied with Terms 1 and 2, but failed to comply with Term 4 because it did not provide sufficient reasons for its decision not to open an investigation.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide a detailed written explanation.

The applicant, the paternal grandmother of a child, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the child was subject to abuse and neglect in the mother's care.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act is limited to children, young persons, and their parents.

As the grandmother did not meet the definition of a parent and was not receiving services from the respondent society, the Board had no authority to review the complaint.

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

The applicant failed to attend two scheduled pre-hearing video conferences despite receiving notice, returning a participation agreement, and communicating with the Board via email.

The respondent requested the application be declared abandoned.

The adjudicator found the applicant failed to comply with directions to communicate and participate, and dismissed the application as abandoned.

The applicant, a former foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising concerns about the child's reunification with her birth mother.

The applicant requested the child be returned to her care and undergo assessments.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant is neither a parent nor a recipient of services under the Act, and therefore does not have a right to be heard under section 120(4).

The applicant, a former foster care provider, 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 hear his concerns regarding ongoing training requirements.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the applicant did not have a right to be heard under section 120(4)4 because a foster parent is neither a parent nor a recipient of services within the meaning of the Act.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement resolving a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The Board reviewed the 23 terms of the agreement in writing.

The Board found the respondent complied with 15 terms but failed to fully comply with 8 terms, particularly regarding explanations of how allegations of parental alienation and coaching impacted verification findings, and delays in disclosure.

The Board ordered the respondent to provide further explanations and complete disclosure.

The applicant, a former foster parent, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking the removal of allegations against her and an apology after a child was removed from her care.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the applicant did not meet the definition of a 'parent' under the Act and therefore did not have a right to be heard regarding the decisions affecting the child.