John F. Spekkens

The applicant, a grandmother and former foster parent, alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a Settlement Agreement requiring it to provide reasons for various child protection decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a hearing in writing to review the Society's compliance under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board found that the Society had provided adequate written reasons for its decisions regarding investigations, respite care, and placement.

The Board noted that the applicant's disagreement with the reasons did not constitute non-compliance.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for its decisions regarding access visits and the placement of her children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a compliance hearing and reviewed the society's written responses.

The Board found that the society had provided clear, relevant, and adequate reasons for its decisions, fulfilling its obligations under the agreement and section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicants, great aunt and uncle of the child, applied to review the respondent society's decision to remove the child from their foster home.

The society removed the child on an emergency basis due to historical sexual abuse allegations against the uncle, which were known when the home was initially approved.

The Board found that the society contravened the Child, Youth and Family Services Act by failing to provide the required 10 days' notice and by conducting a flawed investigation.

However, because 13 months had passed and the child was now placed with his biological father, the Board concluded it was not in the child's best interests to be returned to the applicants.

The removal was confirmed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement resolving a prior application.

The agreement required the society to provide reasons for its decisions.

The adjudicator reviewed the written submissions and found that the society had provided timely, comprehensive, and clearly articulated reasons as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The adjudicator noted that the tribunal's mandate is to determine whether reasons were provided, not to review the decisions themselves.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing their application to adopt their two foster children, who had lived with them since shortly after birth.

The Society had approved an adoption plan from another family who had previously adopted the children's half-sisters, prioritizing sibling reunification.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's refusal, finding that the children had formed a secure attachment to the applicants and that the risks of disrupting this continuity of care outweighed the benefits of placing them with half-siblings they barely knew.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking reasons for decisions made by the respondent Society regarding his child in care.

Following a pre-hearing mediation, a Settlement Agreement was reached requiring the Society to answer five questions.

Before the Society responded, the applicant sent emails objecting to the agreement because it did not return the child to his care.

The Board found that the applicant made no allegation of non-compliance regarding the Society's provision of reasons, and noted that the Board has no jurisdiction over child protection placement decisions.

The file was closed.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

Following a pre-hearing teleconference, the respondent provided written responses to the applicant's questions.

The applicant subsequently expressed disagreement with the responses but did not allege that the respondent failed to provide them.

The adjudicator found that the Act does not permit the Board to determine the merits of the respondent's reasons, nor does an applicant's disagreement invalidate the fact that reasons were provided.

The application was dismissed as there was no ongoing allegation of non-compliance.

The applicant grandmother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding her grandchild, as required by a prior settlement agreement.

The Board reviewed the written correspondence between the parties and found that the Society had provided clear answers and reasons for its actions on all five terms of the agreement.

The Board dismissed the complaint, noting its mandate does not extend to determining the clinical wisdom or validity of the Society's decisions.

The applicant father filed a complaint alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons and explanations for its decisions regarding the care of his three children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing to review the Society's response letter.

The Board found that the Society provided substantive information, explanations, and practical suggestions addressing all six terms of the agreement, including issues related to the mother's parenting, counselling, discipline, and medical appointments.

The Board concluded the Society met its obligations under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and dismissed the allegation of non-compliance.

The applicant, a long-term foster mother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing her application to adopt two children in her care.

The Society intended to place the children for adoption with a kin family who shared the children's Métis heritage.

The Board considered the best interests of the children under section 179(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

While acknowledging the strong attachment between the children and the applicant, the Board confirmed the Society's decision, emphasizing the importance of preserving the children's cultural identity and placing them with kin.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging the society failed to hear his concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding his children.

Following a documentary hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint.

The Board found that the applicant had ample opportunity to express his views to the society and that the society had adequately provided explanations and context for its actions and decisions.

The Applicant alleged that the Peel Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a Settlement Agreement reached during mediation.

The Agreement required the Society to answer 10 questions regarding its handling of the Applicant's child protection case, which involved allegations of parental alienation and high-conflict separation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the Society's written responses and found that the Society had provided substantive answers and explanations for each of the 10 terms.

Although the Applicant strongly disagreed with the Society's actions and explanations, the Board held that disagreement does not invalidate the reasons provided.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons and explanations regarding his child protection file.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had provided substantive information and explanations regarding the outstanding issues, including the requirement for phallometric testing prior to unsupervised access.

The Board concluded that the Society met its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, and closed the file as settled.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring the Society to provide reasons and explanations for certain decisions regarding child safety and access.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing to determine compliance.

The Board found that while the Society was late in providing a written response to one term, it had provided substantive reasons and explanations verbally and in a follow-up letter, causing no undue prejudice.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for its adoption placement decisions regarding three siblings.

The society provided its written response one week after the agreed-upon compliance date.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the society breached the agreement regarding the timing of the response, the applicant suffered no prejudice.

The Board further found that the content of the society's written response, supplemented by oral explanations during the teleconference, fulfilled its obligations under the settlement agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for various decisions regarding her grandchildren.

A non-compliance teleconference was scheduled, but the applicant failed to attend.

The adjudicator proceeded in her absence and reviewed the written materials.

The adjudicator found that the Society had provided adequate reasons and explanations for each of the seven terms in the agreement, as required by section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for not disclosing information about her former partner's children.

The Society explained that it was prohibited from sharing the information under the Children's Law Reform Act because the applicant was not a parent.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society met its obligation to provide reasons under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act and dismissed the allegation of non-compliance.

The applicant alleged that the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring the Society to provide reasons for its decisions regarding child protection investigations.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing and found that the Society had provided substantive and detailed answers to the applicant's questions, thereby meeting its obligations under the agreement and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicants, who had fostered the child since she was 17 days old, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Society's refusal of their application to adopt the child.

The Society had refused the application in favour of a permanency plan with the child's extended family members.

The Board considered the best interests of the child, including her special needs, her strong attachment to the applicants, and her Indigenous heritage.

The Board found that disrupting the child's primary attachment to the applicants would not be in her best interests, rescinded the Society's refusal, and directed the Society to place the child with the applicants for adoption.

The applicant grandparent filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding the suspension, location, and scheduling of access visits with his grandchild, who has autism.

The Society presented evidence, including letters and case notes, demonstrating it had repeatedly explained that access was restricted due to the child's escalating behavioural issues at school following visits.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had met its statutory obligations by providing adequate verbal and written reasons for its decisions.

The application was dismissed.