Diane 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 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.

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.