Diane B. Skrow

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The agreement required the respondent to review new evidence, conduct a fresh investigation if warranted, and review concerns regarding the child's developmental delays.

The tribunal reviewed the steps taken by the respondent, including conducting a fresh investigation and providing referral information, and found that the respondent had fulfilled all five terms of the agreement.

The application was dismissed and the file was closed.

The applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to hear his concerns regarding their handling of his son's suicidal ideation and related investigations.

The applicant raised five specific issues, including the respondent's failure to inform him of the suicidal ideation, dismissing his evidence, blaming him without investigation, discouraging court action, and a worker's inappropriate use of the word 'Nazi'.

The Board reviewed the evidence and found that the respondent had actively listened to, discussed, and addressed the applicant's concerns in all instances, even though the applicant disagreed with the respondent's conclusions.

The application was dismissed.

The Halton Children's Aid Society brought a contested motion seeking to place the child, S.A.R., in the temporary care and custody of the father, M.D.R., subject to supervision, and to supervise the mother's, M.A.R.'s, parenting time.

The Society alleged emotional harm and risk of emotional harm to the child due to the mother's persistent, unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father and her coaching of the child.

The court found that the Society met its onus, concluding that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's unsupervised care, citing the mother's repeated unverified allegations, coaching, mental health issues, and the child's therapist's concerns.

The motion was granted, placing the child with the father and ordering supervised access for the mother.

A mother brought an urgent motion during the COVID-19 pandemic seeking to suspend the father's in-person access with the children due to health and safety concerns.

The mother reported that she and the children exhibited COVID-19 symptoms, and the father's parents had recently returned from international travel.

The court found that most of the mother's requests were not urgent but determined that temporary suspension of in-person access was warranted based on the children's health circumstances and the father's failure to provide information regarding COVID-19 safety measures.

The court ordered that in-person access be suspended temporarily and replaced with virtual contact via Skype, FaceTime, and telephone, pending further determination of urgency.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide his four-year-old son with an adequate opportunity to be heard during a child protection investigation, and that the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) failed to hear him or provide adequate reasons for dismissing his complaint.

The investigation was initiated after the child told a teacher that he and his father made bombs in their basement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the child protection worker asked some closed and complex questions, the interview overall provided the child with a meaningful opportunity to be heard.

The Board also found that the ICRP properly heard the applicant and provided sufficient reasons for its decision.

The application was dismissed.

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

The applicant subsequently informed the Board that she would not attend the mandatory pre-hearing and refused to withdraw her complaint.

After the applicant failed to attend the scheduled pre-hearing teleconference, the respondent requested that the application be dismissed as abandoned.

The Board dismissed the application as abandoned and noted that the applicant's communications violated the Board's rules regarding courtesy and respect.

The applicant, a supervisor at a foster home provider, filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The respondent society challenged the CFSRB's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was merely a collateral interviewee during a child protection investigation and did not seek or receive services.

The adjudicator found that because the respondent conducted a child welfare check on the applicant and made a decision with verified child protection concerns against her, she was in receipt of services.

The CFSRB determined it had jurisdiction to hear the application regarding the society's failure to provide reasons for a decision affecting her interests.

The applicant brought a motion requesting that the respondent children's aid society be directed to disclose certain documents and that the hearing date be adjourned.

The requested documents related to allegations under section 120(4)3 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which the Board had previously found ineligible to proceed to a hearing.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that the requested documents were not arguably relevant to the eligible allegations and therefore fell outside the direction for disclosure.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging that a caseworker inappropriately attended a Violence Threat Risk Assessment (VTRA) meeting concerning his daughter without his consent, and that the society failed to verify inaccurate information about pending criminal charges against him.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the caseworker attended the VTRA meeting solely as an observer to collect information and did not participate in any decision-making that would trigger the applicant's right to be heard under section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

Furthermore, the Board accepted that the inaccurate information regarding criminal charges did not factor into the society's investigation or decisions.

This is a child protection trial involving two adolescent children who were found to be in need of protection due to ongoing domestic violence, physical abuse, emotional abuse, and controlling behaviour by the father towards both the mother and children.

The court found that the children suffered serious emotional harm including anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The mother was granted sole custody of the children.

The father was denied access to the children, and a restraining order was imposed prohibiting him from contacting or coming within 500 metres of the mother and children.

The court rejected the father's request for joint custody and reunification efforts, finding that the children's clearly expressed wishes not to have contact with their father should be respected, and that the father had demonstrated no insight into the harm he caused and remained unwilling to engage appropriately with professionals.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard and a failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests, contrary to section 15(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The complaint centered on the society's attendance at a school threat assessment meeting, receipt of information from the school, and a requirement that the applicant present a letter outlining mental health concerns to a hospital doctor.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the society's receipt of information did not constitute a decision affecting the applicant's interests, and that the applicant was provided a meaningful opportunity to be heard and given reasons regarding the hospital requirement.

A lawyer representing a mother in an unrelated child protection trial brought a motion seeking the release of a transcript of an assessor's evidence from a prior trial in this proceeding.

The lawyer alleged the assessor misrepresented her qualifications and sought to use the transcript to challenge the assessor's credibility in the unrelated trial.

The court reconsidered its initial dismissal of the motion, finding that under s. 87(10) of the CYFSA, a court order is required to release a transcript to non-parties, including a judge in another proceeding.

The court granted the release of the redacted transcript and the assessor's CV to the judge, parties, and counsel in the unrelated trial, finding a legitimate need and probative value that outweighed any potential harm, given the privacy safeguards in place.

The mother brought a motion to change her existing Monday access visits to include overnight access.

The Children's Aid Society and the father consented to the general outline of expanded access but proposed 24 conditions.

The court granted the mother's motion to change, permitting unsupervised overnight access visits each Monday from 3:20 p.m. until Tuesday at 9:00 a.m., subject to comprehensive terms and conditions addressing home maintenance, Society supervision, child safety, parental conduct, and restrictions on third-party involvement.

The court dismissed one proposed condition regarding evidence of stability without prejudice.

A child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act in which the Halton Children's Aid Society sought a finding that a child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(f) and (g) due to emotional harm caused by parental conflict, particularly the mother's unfounded allegations of abuse against the father.

The Society sought placement of the child in the father's custody with supervised access for the mother.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or, alternatively, joint and equally shared custody.

The court found the child was in need of protection, placed the child in the father's exclusive care and custody, and ordered supervised access for the mother under a one-year supervision order.

In a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined that two children continue to be in need of protection and made an order for crown wardship with permanent placement in a kinship foster home with the maternal aunt and uncle.

The mother sought return of the children to her care subject to society supervision, while the father sought return to his sole custody without supervision.

The court found that neither parent could adequately care for the children due to the mother's multiple health conditions and parenting deficits, and the father's refusal to acknowledge substance abuse issues, violence, and his complete lack of contact with the children.

The court approved the society's plan for crown wardship with the children remaining in the stable kinship placement where they were thriving, while maintaining supervised access with the mother and discretionary supervised access with the father.

A 13-year-old child commenced a child welfare proceeding against her parents and the local children's aid society, seeking a finding that she and her siblings were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act.

The father moved to dismiss the application as an abuse of process and for failure to raise a genuine issue for trial.

The court found that the child had commenced the proceeding under the influence of her mother as a tactical measure to interfere with concurrent Superior Court custody proceedings.

The court dismissed the application, finding it was an abuse of process and raised no genuine issue for trial.

A motion brought by the Children's Aid Society to suspend direct access between a seven-year-old child in care and his mother, and to restrict access to written communication only.

The child had experienced significant trauma from domestic violence and parental substance abuse.

Following apprehension, the child exhibited severe behavioral and emotional dysregulation, with escalations occurring before and after access visits with his mother.

The court found that the child's circumstances had changed dramatically since the initial temporary access order, and that direct access was contributing to his crisis.

The motion was granted, suspending direct access and permitting only written correspondence screened by the society.

A mother sought costs against a Children's Aid Society following the withdrawal of a child protection application.

The Society had commenced proceedings seeking supervision of the child, who had Crohn's disease, after the mother sought alternative naturopathic treatment and refused to cooperate with the Society's investigation.

The court dismissed the costs motion, finding that while the mother was a strong advocate for her child, the Society acted reasonably in investigating concerns raised by medical professionals and in seeking a minimally intrusive court order to compel cooperation.

The Society reassessed its position once information was provided and withdrew the application at the third court appearance.

A child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking temporary care and custody of two young children (ages 3 and 4) based on allegations of emotional harm caused by the mother's approach to the older child's gender expression.

The mother had begun socially transitioning the child to a female identity based on the child's expressed gender variant preferences.

The father opposed the placement and alleged the mother was forcing the child to be a girl against his wishes.

The court found that while there was a risk of emotional harm, it was caused by parental conflict rather than either parent's conduct alone.

The court determined the children could be adequately protected under a supervision order in the mother's care and returned the children to both parents under the custody and access regime that existed prior to intervention, subject to strict supervision and compliance with expert recommendations.

A child protection agency sought an order dispensing with service of child protection documents on the respondent father, arguing that service would place the child and mother at grave risk of harm.

The father had a history of serious violence, including aggravated assault of a child resulting in brain and abdominal injuries, and had been incarcerated.

The court rejected the application to dispense with service, finding that the Family Law Rules do not permit dispensing with service based on best interests of the child alone.

However, the court ordered that service proceed with protective safeguards, including redaction of identifying information about the mother and child, restriction of the father's access to the court file, and a separate hearing date without the mother and child present.