Jennifer Scott

The 14-year-old Aboriginal applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his residential placement, seeking to be moved closer to his home and family.

The applicant had complex needs including ADHD, substance abuse issues, and a history of self-harm, and the current facility was failing to provide adequate cultural programming, individual counselling, or other recommended supports.

Despite finding that the current facility was not meeting the applicant's physical, emotional, and cultural needs, the Board confirmed the placement because no alternative residential placements were available.

The Board strongly recommended that the society transition the applicant to a therapeutic foster home with appropriate Aboriginal programming within three months.

The applicants, paternal grandparents of a child in care, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Society's refusal to consider them for a kinship placement and denial of access.

At the jurisdiction hearing, the Society conceded the Board had jurisdiction to review the complaints.

The parties subsequently met and resolved the issues, with the applicants receiving a satisfactory explanation regarding the kinship placement and securing access to their grandchild during their son's visits.

The Board concluded no further order was required.

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 15-year-old applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to be released from a secure treatment program.

The applicant argued that her admission was invalid due to a procedural defect on the admission form and that she did not meet the statutory criteria for secure treatment.

The Board found that the admission form was validly signed by a delegated psychiatrist.

The Board also found that the applicant met all five criteria for emergency admission under the Child and Family Services Act, noting her substantial disorder of emotional processes, threats of self-harm, and the lack of less restrictive community alternatives.

The application for release was denied.

The applicants filed complaints against the Halton Children's Aid Society regarding the care of their 15-year-old son under a Temporary Care Agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to comply with its statutory obligations to involve the parents in a Plan of Care meeting and to listen to their concerns about a specific social worker.

The Board also found that the Society failed to provide accurate reasons for refusing to extend the Temporary Care Agreement beyond the child's sixteenth birthday.

However, the Board dismissed complaints regarding the provision of therapeutic services and the handling of sexual assault allegations against the child.

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

The Applicant alleged that the Society formed a negative opinion of him without giving him an opportunity to be heard, which negatively impacted his custody proceedings.

The Board found that the Society's internal complaints review panel erred in concluding that the Applicant's concerns were outside its mandate.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a clear and detailed written response to the Applicant's concerns.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking a review of the respondent Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) process and decision.

The applicant alleged that the Society failed to adequately investigate historical allegations of sexual abuse concerning her daughters and that the ICRP's written summary did not meaningfully address her concerns.

The Board found that while the ICRP provided the applicant a full opportunity to be heard, the resulting written summary lacked sufficient detail regarding the Society's investigations and conclusions.

The Board directed the Society to provide the applicant with a detailed written explanation of its reasoning and decision-making regarding the historical abuse allegations.

The applicant appealed the Toronto District School Board's decision to expel her special needs son from all schools following an incident where he pushed a vice principal.

The Child and Family Services Review Board quashed the expulsion, finding that the incident—a simple assault—did not fall within the mandatory suspension and expulsion provisions of section 310 of the Education Act.

Furthermore, the Board held that even if the incident had qualified, mitigating factors under Ontario Regulation 472/07, including the pupil's special needs, his Individual Education Plan, and the lack of risk to the safety of others, rendered expulsion an inappropriate disciplinary response.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove two foster children from her home.

The children had lived with the applicant for over five years.

The Society removed the children after the applicant requested relief due to the older child's escalating behavioural issues.

The Board found that the older child's behaviours were exacerbated by a lack of appropriate supports and that the younger child was negatively impacted by the removal.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered the immediate return of the younger child and the graduated return of the older child once necessary supports were implemented.

The applicant father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review three complaints against the children's aid society: failure to consider kinship placements, placement of children in an unapproved foster home, and harassment.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had already been decided by the court or through other statutory decision-making processes.

The Board found that it lacked jurisdiction to hear any of the complaints, as the kinship and foster home issues had been addressed in prior child protection proceedings and director's reviews, and the harassment complaint lacked particulars and had been addressed through the society's internal complaint process.

The applications were dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint against the society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging that the society failed to provide reasons for its decision to attend his home and attempt to remove his children.

The Board found that the society acted on a court's direction but failed to communicate the reasons for its actions to the applicant.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons for its decisions regarding the events in question.

The applicant father applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent Children's Aid Society's handling of his complaints.

The applicant alleged the Society failed to conduct a protection investigation regarding his son, sent a damaging letter, maintained inaccurate files, and failed to establish an Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP).

The Board dismissed the first two complaints, finding the Society provided adequate reasons for its decisions, and found it lacked jurisdiction over the file inaccuracy complaint.

However, the Board found the Society failed to hold an ICRP as requested and ordered the Society to arrange one within 14 days.

The appellant father appealed the school board's decision to expel his 13-year-old son from all schools for allegedly possessing a weapon and threatening another student.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the student possessed a pocketknife and a razor blade but did not use them to threaten others, instead using them to insinuate self-harm.

The Board also found that the student's online messages did not constitute a threat.

Concluding that the student's actions were a cry for help due to serious emotional needs rather than a safety risk, the Board quashed the expulsion, ordered the student reinstated, and directed that the expulsion be expunged from his record.

The applicant, the biological father of three children, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining that the respondent Society failed to proceed with his complaint regarding inaccuracies in his file.

The applicant had previously written to the Society to complain about inaccuracies in a letter detailing the results of an investigation and requested that his complaint be directed to the Internal Complaint Review Procedure (ICRP).

The Board found that the Society had not resolved the complaint or forwarded it to the ICRP.

The Board ordered the Society to proceed with the applicant's complaint in accordance with the ICRP within fourteen days.

The appellant appealed a school board decision to expel his 17-year-old son from all schools of the board after the son threatened another student with a knife.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the infraction was extremely serious, the school board failed to properly consider mitigating factors.

The Board concluded that the student did not pose an unacceptable risk to other schools and that an expulsion from all schools would negatively impact his ability to graduate.

The Board varied the decision to an expulsion from the student's home school only.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging it refused to investigate his concerns that his daughter was suffering emotional harm due to alienation from him and his family.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction as the applicant was not receiving services.

The Board found it had jurisdiction over the failure to investigate complaint, but not over alleged inaccuracies in another family's file.

On the merits, the Board dismissed the complaint, finding the Society properly heard the applicant's concerns but correctly concluded that his lack of access was a custody matter for the courts, not a child protection issue requiring a new investigation.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's handling of her case, which resulted in her son being made a Crown Ward.

She had previously made the same complaints to the Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP).

The Board dismissed the application, finding that under section 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act, its jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the ICRP's procedure and decision-making process, not re-determining the merits of the underlying complaints or ordering reunification.