Heather Gibbs

The child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child argued that the statutory criteria for emergency admission were not met.

The Board heard evidence regarding the child's recent suicide attempt, high-risk behaviors while absent without leave from her group home, and mental health diagnoses.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired her judgment and that she had attempted to cause bodily harm to herself.

The Board concluded that the secure treatment program was necessary and appropriate, and that no less restrictive method was available.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that his child was adopted without his consent while he was out of the country.

The respondent Children's Aid Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter had already been decided by the Superior Court of Justice.

The Board found that the issues raised by the applicant were the subject of court orders and that under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, it does not have jurisdiction to review matters decided by a court.

The complaint was dismissed.

The appellant mother appealed the school board's decision to expel her 15-year-old son from all schools within the board.

The student had brought a BB gun to school, kept it in his locker, and used it to threaten another student in class.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the statutory criteria for expulsion and mitigating factors.

The Board found that the student possessed a weapon at school, which significantly disrupted the school climate, and that no mitigating factors lessened the severity of the conduct.

The expulsion from all board schools was upheld.

The applicants filed a complaint against the Peel Children's Aid Society regarding the termination of residential placement funding for a Crown ward upon her turning 18.

The applicants alleged the Society failed to provide adequate notice, reasons, or transitional planning, and denied them an opportunity to be heard.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the termination of funding was not a discretionary decision, the Society's communication and planning were seriously inadequate.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its failure to conduct concurrent planning in the six months leading up to the ward's 18th birthday.

The applicant brought a preliminary motion regarding disclosure during a hearing under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant argued that key documents had not been disclosed by the respondent society.

Both parties consented to an adjournment until further disclosure took place and the applicant's complaints were more clearly specified.

The Board ordered the society to make best efforts to locate and disclose specific case notes and records, and ordered the applicant to provide a clear list of enumerated complaints.

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.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard regarding his children's safety.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the issues were already decided by or before the court.

The Board found that the applicant's concerns regarding child safety, access, and information were subject to existing court orders and ongoing family court proceedings.

The Board granted the Society's motion and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society of Toronto's internal complaint review procedure regarding the care of his autistic daughter, a Crown ward.

The Applicant raised concerns about medication, the child's emotional state, foster home care, and access to medical reports.

The Board found that the Society complied with all statutory timeframes for the complaint process and provided the Applicant with ample opportunities to be heard and reasons for its decisions.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, former foster parents of the child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's refusal of their application to adopt the child.

The Society had removed the child and closed the applicants' foster home due to alleged discrepancies in mileage claims, but later cited safety concerns regarding the birth mother's knowledge of the applicants.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application.

However, applying the best interests of the child test, the Board concluded that the long-term safety and security risks posed by the birth family's knowledge of the applicants outweighed the child's attachment to them.

The Society's decision to refuse the adoption application was confirmed.

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.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it impeded his access to his children by advising his ex-wife to screen his calls and by failing to adequately encourage his adolescent children in foster care to visit him.

The Board found that the society had no control over the mother's use of an answering machine and had appropriately responded to the applicant's concerns.

Regarding the adolescent children, the Board concluded the society had fulfilled its statutory duty to hear the applicant's concerns and had made reasonable efforts to facilitate contact, despite the children's refusal.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

She alleged that the Society failed to hear her concerns about a case worker, failed to provide information and reports regarding her child's injuries while in foster care, and pressured her into signing a Temporary Care Agreement without explaining its impact or allowing her to revisit the decision.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint regarding the case worker but upheld the complaints regarding the lack of information and the circumstances surrounding the Temporary Care Agreement.

The Board ordered the Society to revise its communication processes, provide the requested reports, and assist the mother in understanding the requirements to bring her child home.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, raising concerns about the services received, the behaviour of a social worker, and inaccuracies in their file.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to discipline the Society's employee, as such matters fall under the Labour Relations Act.

Regarding the file inaccuracies, specifically the use of the word 'terrorist', the Society agreed to append a Notice of Disagreement to the applicants' file.

As the Society had addressed the concerns and agreed to the Notice of Disagreement, the Board made no further remedial orders.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding its refusal to allow him access to his children, its failure to interview him, and inaccurate information in its files, following the withdrawal of sexual assault charges against him.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were subject to a separate Director's hearing regarding the Child Abuse Register.

The Board dismissed the jurisdictional motion, finding the complaints related to the Society's files and processes, not the Register itself.

On the merits, the Board found the Society breached the applicant's right to be heard by failing to interview him for its risk assessment, and ordered the Society to conduct an internal review of the file inaccuracies and provide the applicant an interview and written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to act when she raised concerns that her son had been sexually abused.

The respondent brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act because the issues were currently before the court in a related Crown wardship proceeding.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the court would decide custody and access, the specific issue of whether the respondent provided the applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding her abuse concerns was not a matter to be decided by the court.

The Board affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaint on its merits.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Simcoe County regarding the handling of his child protection case.

The children had previously been made Crown Wards without access following a 63-day trial in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues raised had already been dealt with by the Court.

The Board agreed, finding that all of the applicant's complaints regarding the child protection worker and the Society's actions were either considered during the trial or fell outside the Board's statutory jurisdiction under the Child and Family Services Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society regarding the care and apprehension of her child.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters raised were before the Court in a Crown wardship application.

The Board held that while it lacked jurisdiction over issues directly before the Court, such as custody, access, and the accuracy of court filings, it retained jurisdiction to review whether the Society followed proper procedures in hearing the applicant's concerns and providing reasons for its decisions.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to investigate his concerns regarding the abuse and parental alienation of his daughters.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the matters were currently before the Court in an access dispute.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding that while the Court was dealing with access and the best interests of the children, the Board's jurisdiction pertained to how the Society responded to the father's complaints, which was not a matter before the Court.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society discriminated against him by imposing supervised access and withholding contact information for his children.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the matters were currently before the court in a status review application.

The Board granted the motion in part, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the terms of access and disclosure of contact information, as those issues were before the court.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the respondent's facilitation of visits and its obligation to allow the applicant to be heard regarding the services provided.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to respond to her complaints regarding a former foster parent's ongoing, unauthorized contact with her daughter.

The Board conducted a written review and found that the Society had actively investigated and responded to the applicant's oral complaints, even though the applicant disagreed with the Society's actions.

As the applicant had not filed a written complaint with the Society, there was no requirement to trigger the formal internal complaint review procedure.

The complaint was dismissed.