2 total
Board confirmed removal of autistic foster child due to funding instability and child having already settled elsewhere.
The Applicant foster parent applied for a review of the Society's decision to remove a severely autistic Crown Ward from her treatment foster home.
The Society removed the child without the required written notice, citing funding concerns and the need for a secure placement.
The Board found that while the Applicant provided appropriate care, the child's placement was tenuous due to funding issues raised by the foster agency.
Considering the child had already been moved to a group home and settled there, the Board concluded it was not in the child's best interests to be moved again and confirmed the removal.
Board has jurisdiction to review foster child removal even if Society failed to provide statutory notice.
The applicant foster parent brought a motion to determine whether the Child and Family Services Review Board had jurisdiction to review the removal of a foster child from her care.
The respondent Society argued that because the child had already been removed, it was no longer a 'proposed removal' under section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act, and thus the Board lacked jurisdiction.
The Board rejected this argument, finding that the Society's failure to provide the required 10-day statutory notice could not operate to deny the foster parent's right to a review.
The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to hear the application on its merits.
