Jay Sengupta

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's refusal to place her medically fragile infant nephew with her for adoption.

The applicant had previously adopted the child's two older half-siblings, who also have special needs.

The Board considered the child's significant medical and developmental challenges resulting from prenatal drug and alcohol exposure, as well as the applicant's current parenting demands and diminished support system.

The Board concluded that the applicant would not be able to meet the complex needs of the child and confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement.

The Applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's refusal to place a medically fragile child with them for adoption.

The child had previously been in their foster care but was removed after the Applicants refused to accept a minor adjustment to the child's feeding schedule recommended by a medical specialist.

The Board found that the child was thriving in her current foster placement and that the Applicants' extreme reaction to medical advice demonstrated a lack of openness to expert opinions.

Concluding that continuity of the current environment was in the child's best interests, the Board confirmed the Society's decision.

The Applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

The Society had reversed its initial decision to place the child with the Applicants after learning that one of the Applicants had been criminally charged with a historical sexual assault relating to a former adult client.

The Board found that the risk of disruption to the child's continuity of care was low and that the Applicants were well-suited to meet the child's needs.

The Board concluded it was in the best interests of the child to be placed with the Applicants and rescinded the Society's refusal.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

After a multi-day hearing, the Board considered the best interests of the child and confirmed the society's decision to refuse the adoption placement.

Written reasons were to follow.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child.

Following a hearing, the Board determined that it was in the best interests of the child to be placed for adoption with the applicants.

The Board rescinded the society's refusal under subsection 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act and ordered the child to be placed with the applicants.

The applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the statutory criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

While the Board found the child had a mental disorder and had made threats of self-harm, it concluded that the requirement that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate had not been met.

The application for release was granted.

The applicant child sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The facility failed to provide direct medical evidence or the testimony of the admitting psychiatrist to establish that the child had a mental disorder within the meaning of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the behavioural evidence presented was insufficient to prove a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought, or cognition grossly impairing the child's capacity to make reasoned judgments.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the criteria for emergency admission were not met and ordered the child's release.