Denyse Diaz

The Applicant foster mother applied for a review of the Society's decision to remove four foster children from her care.

The removal occurred after the foster father sexually touched one of the foster daughters and the Applicant minimized the incident and intended to have the foster father return to the home.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application despite the removal being for risk.

The Board concluded that returning the children to the Applicant's care was not in their best interests due to the risk of emotional and physical harm and the children's expressed wishes not to return.

The Society's decision to remove the children was confirmed.

The Applicant mother filed a complaint against the Society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her child, a Crown ward.

The Applicant raised issues concerning the Society's communication about the child's potential return to her care, the reasons preventing the return, and the child's relocation with his foster family to another county.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the Society had clearly communicated its position not to support the child's return and had adequately explained the reasons for the child's relocation.

The applicant previously succeeded in a complaint against the respondent children's aid society, resulting in an order for the society's internal complaint review panel to reconvene within 30 days.

The parties subsequently wrote to the Board requesting an extension of time to reconvene the panel and seeking clarification on whether the panel could review past practices and whether the confidentiality order permitted sharing the decision with support persons.

The Board issued a supplementary decision extending the timeline, confirming the panel's mandate to review past practices, and revising the confidentiality order to allow the decision to be shared with society personnel, the panel, and the applicant's support person.

The child applicant sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under s. 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had been discharged the previous day after a finding that he did not suffer from a mental disorder, but was re-admitted following a severe deterioration in his behaviour.

The Board rejected the child's argument that the matter was res judicata, finding this was a de novo hearing regarding the new admission.

The Board also ruled that clinical documents and incident reports could not be admitted without their authors available for cross-examination.

On the merits, the Board found that all five criteria for emergency admission under s. 124(2) were met, including that the child suffered from a mental disorder and presented a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to himself.

The application for release was dismissed.

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 father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests regarding his children in care.

The review board found it had jurisdiction to hear the service-related complaints despite an ongoing child protection application before the court.

The board upheld the applicant's complaints regarding the society's failure to provide reasons about worker qualifications, the initial apprehension and placement decisions, medical care, and access to the provincial advocate.

The society was ordered to provide written explanations and medical information to the applicant.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society, alleging a failure to provide an opportunity to be heard and reasons for decisions regarding access visitation, comments made by a worker, and a request for a new worker.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the access and comments complaints, as they were either decided by the court or not previously raised with the Society.

However, the Board found it had jurisdiction over the request for a new worker.

On the merits, the Board held that the Society failed to comply with its statutory obligations to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its decision not to change the worker, ordering the Society to provide written reasons.

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 applicants sought a review of the society's decision to permanently remove three foster children from their home, later narrowing their request to the return of one child.

The society had removed the children due to verified child protection concerns, specifically a lack of supervision and the primary caregiver's personal problems.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the applicants failed to adequately supervise the children on numerous occasions and that the primary caregiver's personal challenges prevented her from meeting the child's mental and emotional needs.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests not to be returned to the applicants' home and confirmed the society's decision.

The applicant youth applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his residential placement.

During the course of the proceedings, the youth was placed under a deferred custody order pursuant to the Youth Criminal Justice Act.

The Board determined that under section 34 of the Child and Family Services Act, placements governed by the Youth Criminal Justice Act are excluded from the definition of residential placement.

Consequently, the Board lost jurisdiction to hear the matter and dismissed the application.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by the Society.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the issues were before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in D.D., the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the service-related complaints (1-11) because they were not substantive child protection issues decided by or before the court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaint 12, which was an employment matter subject to the Labour Relations Act.

The applicant sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a seven-year-old child who had been placed with her for adoption.

The Society removed the child after investigations into the applicant's behaviour raised concerns about her mental health.

A parenting capacity assessment diagnosed the applicant with a paranoid personality trait and delusional disorder.

The Board found the assessment credible and concluded that the applicant's untreated mental health issues posed significant psychological risks to the child.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the adoption placement was not in the child's best interests.

The Applicant filed a complaint against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests regarding her infant son.

The Board found that the Society met its obligations in most instances, including her request for support prior to apprehension, concerns about her son's constipation and clothing, and requests for information.

However, the Board found that the Society failed to properly communicate with the Applicant regarding her concerns about her son's skin rash and her request for a change in family services worker.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging the Society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding a child protection investigation involving his son.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complaints were identical to those raised in 2005, triggering transitional provisions.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the applicant had not engaged the formal written complaint procedure in 2005.

On the merits, the Board found the Society failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decisions, ordering the Society to provide detailed written reasons.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding supervised access and the children's safety with their mother.

The society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues of access and custody were currently before the court.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding it has jurisdiction to review whether the society met its statutory obligations to listen to the applicant and provide reasons for its own discretionary decisions, distinct from the court's determinations on custody and access.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear his concerns regarding his children in foster care.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the children's placement in the same foster home, finding the Society adequately investigated the father's concerns of an inappropriate relationship.

However, the Board found the Society failed to hear the father's concerns regarding his exclusion from the children's Plan of Care and certain issues regarding his son's care, including access to pornography and conflicts with the foster mother.

As the father had now received reasons through the hearing process, no further remedy was ordered.

The mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review complaints against the Society following the apprehension of her child.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in a Crown Wardship proceeding.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

The Board held that its mandate to review whether the Society listened to the mother and provided reasons for its decisions is distinct from the court's mandate to make substantive child protection and access decisions.

The applicants requested the Board review the respondent Society's written reasons for its involvement with their family to determine compliance with a previous Board order.

The Board found that the Society's reasons lacked sufficient detail regarding the specific concerns about the applicants' ability to parent, how those concerns were investigated, and the conclusions reached.

The Board held that the Society failed to comply with the previous order and directed the Society to provide detailed answers to specific questions within 14 days.

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

The admitting facility argued the child met the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act due to depression and risky behaviors, including unprotected sex and running away.

The Board found that while the child had a provisional diagnosis of depression, her behaviors were a reaction to her parents' separation and did not constitute a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board concluded the criteria for admission were not met and ordered the child's release.