Richard Linley

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 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, a former foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's Internal Complaints Review Panel decision.

The applicant alleged that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decision to close her foster home following a child protection investigation.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was given ample opportunity to express her concerns during the internal review process and that the Society had provided written reasons for its decisions.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to provide her an opportunity to be heard regarding what she and her partner needed to do to present a joint parenting plan.

The Board found that the Society had sent contradictory messages to the Applicant regarding its expectations for joint parenting.

The Board ordered the Society to respond in writing to the Applicant's complaint by outlining its specific expectations for steps or services the couple must undertake to present a joint parenting plan.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the Society's decision to remove a foster child who had been in her care for over six years.

The child was a kinship placement.

The Society removed the child after discovering the applicant's husband had relapsed into substance abuse and the applicant had also used marijuana.

The Board found that while the child had strong emotional ties to the foster family, the protection concerns justified the removal.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to remove the child, noting the public interest in ensuring foster homes meet safety standards.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society portrayed him in its records as a child abuser and a risk to his children without giving him an opportunity to be heard.

The Society did not attend the hearing.

The Board found that the Applicant had not been given the opportunity to be heard regarding the allegations as required under section 2(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board ordered the Society to conduct an Internal Complaint Review Panel meeting to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to be heard.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's failure to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions related to access visits and communications.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issues of access and disclosure were already before the Court.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding it had jurisdiction because the Applicant was complaining about the Society's process, communications, and treatment of her, rather than the substantive issues of access and disclosure which were before the Court.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board after the Children's Aid Society refused their application to adopt a child and closed their file.

The applicants alleged that the Society failed to provide them with understandable reasons for its decision.

The Board found that while the Society attempted to provide reasons, the written reasons were insufficient and failed to afford the applicants enough information to fully understand the decision.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons in language understandable to the applicants within three months.