John F. Spekkens

The child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the five criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder causing severe mood swings and aggressive behaviour, posed a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program was the only appropriate and effective less restrictive method available.

The application for release was denied.

The Applicant, the maternal grandmother of a child placed with paternal grandparents, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding her request for a kinship placement.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the service concerns as the Applicant was not a 'parent' under the Act at the relevant time.

However, the Board allowed the application in part, finding the Society breached the Act by providing inconsistent messages and failing to provide clear reasons for its placement decisions between December 2011 and May 2012.

The applicants, who had fostered the child for nearly three years, applied to adopt him.

The Children's Aid Society refused the application based on a SAFE homestudy that raised concerns about the applicants' home condition, finances, and other personal factors.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the refusal.

The Board found that the Society's concerns were either unfounded or overstated, and that the applicants had successfully met the child's significant developmental needs.

Emphasizing the importance of continuity of care and the strong bond formed, the Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to be adopted by the applicants.

The Society's decision was rescinded and the child was ordered placed for adoption with the applicants.

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

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the child be placed for adoption with the applicants, with reasons to follow.

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

The child had a history of escalating dangerous behaviours, including self-harm, cutting, and climbing to dangerous heights at night.

The Board applied the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act and found that the child had a mental disorder that caused a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself.

The Board concluded that the secure treatment program would be effective in preventing further harm, that appropriate treatment was available, and that no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The child's application for release was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to respond to his complaint in a timely manner and failed to hear his concerns regarding the unauthorized access of his confidential adoption file by his former spouse, a society employee.

The Board found that the society breached its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by failing to respond to the complaint within the required timeframe and by failing to meaningfully investigate and communicate with the applicant regarding the privacy breach.

The application was allowed in part, though no further orders were necessary as the society validated the applicant's allegations during the hearing.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the internal complaints process of the Toronto Children's Aid Society.

The Applicant had complained about past practices relating to the adoption of her child in 1970, and current practices regarding access to her records and staff conduct.

The Board found that the Society failed to follow the statutory complaints process, failed to hear the Applicant's concerns, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions, except regarding inaccuracies in her file.

The Board ordered the Society to reconvene the Internal Complaint Review Panel to properly address the Applicant's concerns and provide a detailed summary with meaningful reasons.

The Applicant sought a review of the Durham Children's Aid Society's decision to remove four foster children from her kinship foster home.

The Board considered the best interests of the children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the Applicant had significant financial instability, failed to disclose her methadone use, allowed an unapproved caregiver with a history of substance abuse and mental health issues to reside in the home, and failed to utilize resources to address the children's special needs.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to remove the children, concluding it was not in their best interests to be returned to the Applicant's care.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's internal complaints process.

The applicant alleged the society failed to follow the statutory process, hear her concerns regarding her child's placement, and provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the society failed to comply with statutory timelines and failed to adequately hear the applicant or provide reasons on three of her five complaints.

The Board ordered the society to reconvene its internal complaint review panel to address the outstanding issues and provide proper reasons.

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

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the five criteria for admission under section 124(2) were met.

The Board ruled on a preliminary issue, refusing to admit medical records as business records without the testimony of a psychiatrist, citing procedural fairness.

Ultimately, based on the evidence of the child's escalating aggressive behaviour, self-harm, and threats to others, the Board found that all five criteria were met.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Applicant, a 16-year-old youth in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his residential placement at a structured facility.

The Society argued the facility was necessary due to his history and need for structure.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the matter, as the placement was a child welfare placement despite the youth's probation order.

The Board concluded that the facility's restrictive rules, use of restraints, and lack of community integration were no longer in the youth's best interests.

The Board ordered the Applicant discharged from the facility and directed the Society to find a less restrictive placement.

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 Board reviewed evidence of the child's escalating suicidal ideation and self-harming behaviours.

The Board found that all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act were met, including that the child had a mental disorder, posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding alleged assaults on his son by his ex-wife's partner and a criminal background check.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had met with the applicant, heard his concerns, and provided adequate written reasons for its decisions not to re-open the 2007 investigation and not to take further action on the 2011 allegation.

The application was dismissed.

The 15-year-old applicant applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board reviewed the evidence of the child's escalating high-risk behaviours, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and hallucinations.

The Board found that all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act were met, including that the child has a mental disorder, poses a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment is appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The child, a Crown ward, was admitted to a secure treatment centre following incidents of self-harm, property damage, and leaving her group home without permission.

She applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release.

The Board granted the application, finding that the child did not meet the criteria for emergency admission under s. 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Specifically, there was insufficient clinical evidence to establish that the child had a mental disorder, and her behaviours did not demonstrate a substantial disorder grossly impairing her judgment.

The Board also noted that less restrictive, non-secure residential treatment settings were appropriate and had not been adequately explored.

The child Applicant and her former adoptive parents filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton regarding the child's removal from a kinship placement with her former foster parents.

The Applicants alleged that the Society failed to hear their concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions not to return the child to the kinship placement or to the former adoptive parents.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to comply with its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act to communicate with the Applicants, hear their concerns, and provide complete explanations.

The Board ordered the Society to provide meaningful written explanations to both Applicants.

The applicant child sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under section 124 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board ruled that Youthdale's admission records were inadmissible without a psychiatrist available for cross-examination, citing procedural fairness and section 7 of the Charter.

On the merits, the Board found that the child did not meet the criteria for admission because there was insufficient evidence that she suffered from a mental disorder at the time of admission.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant appealed a decision by the school board to expel her son from all of its schools following his involvement in the robbery of another student's iPod.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the pupil had committed robbery, which is an expellable offence under the Education Act.

Considering the pupil's history of progressive discipline and the unacceptable risk his continued presence posed to the safety of others, the Board upheld the expulsion from all schools.