Sheena Scott

The applicant brought an application for a review of a residential placement under section 36(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The parties appeared before the Board and settled the matter.

On consent of the parties, the Board closed the file as settled and issued a confidentiality order.

The applicants, long-term foster parents of an 11-year-old child with autism and other special needs, requested the child's removal during a crisis but quickly changed their minds.

The respondent Society removed the child and placed him in an agency foster home, arguing that section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act did not apply because the applicants initiated the removal.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found it had jurisdiction, determining that the Society made the ultimate decision to remove the child and failed to provide the mandatory written notice.

On the merits, the Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to be returned to the applicants' care with appropriate supports, emphasizing the child's long-term attachment to the applicants and the Society's failure to adequately explore respite and relief options.

The applicants, who were kinship foster parents to their niece, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decisions to remove the child from their care, refuse their adoption application, and allegedly fail to provide reasons for these decisions.

The Society had removed the child due to concerns about the foster father's unacknowledged alcohol abuse and its impact on the family, which the foster mother had minimized.

The Board confirmed the Society's decisions, finding that while there was a strong family bond, the applicants could not meet the child's emotional and developmental needs due to the unresolved alcohol issues.

The Board also found that the Society had provided adequate reasons for its decisions.

The applicants, foster parents, applied under section 61(7.1) of the Child and Family Services Act to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a child from their care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that it was in the child's best interests to be returned to the applicants' foster care with appropriate supports.

The Board rescinded the removal decision, ordered the child's return, and outlined specific steps for the society to implement, including securing specialized supports, appointing a clinical consultant, and transitioning the child's schooling.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the apprehension of her child by the Children's Aid Society.

The child had previously been found in need of protection by the court, placed in the father's care, and an access order was made.

The Board determined it had no jurisdiction to hear the application under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, as the issues raised regarding custody and access had already been decided by the court.

The applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decisions to refuse their application to adopt a child and to remove the child from their foster/kin home.

The Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed the Society's refusal of the adoption application and the removal of the child.

The Board reserved its decision on whether the applicants were provided with reasons for the Society's decision, with full reasons to follow.

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

The child argued that the statutory criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments, resulting in substantial threats of serious bodily harm to herself and others.

Concluding that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate, the Board determined all criteria were met and denied the application for release.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a complaint against the society for refusing her as a kin placement for her grandson.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was already before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found that the issue of the applicant's suitability as a kin caregiver, including her child welfare history and a parenting capacity assessment, was squarely before the court.

Consequently, under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board determined it had no jurisdiction to hear the application.

The respondent Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction to hear an application under section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board determined that it has jurisdiction and will proceed to hear the application.

Reasons for the decision will follow with the decision on the merits.

The Applicants, the grandfather and uncle of a child, filed an application alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests under s. 68.1(4) 5 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that while the Society adequately explained a delay in providing DNA test results, it failed to provide reasons for several other significant decisions.

These included denying the uncle access to the child, contacting hospitals and landlords without notice, and attending the Applicants' home unannounced.

The application was granted in part, and the Society was ordered to provide detailed written explanations for its decisions.

The applicants, former foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding a young woman residing with them and maintained inaccurate documents in their file.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that the complaint regarding file inaccuracies required the applicants to first exhaust the Society's internal complaints process.

Regarding the young woman, the Board determined the applicants were not seeking or receiving services for themselves, as they had no parental relationship with the adult woman who was the actual recipient of the Society's services.

The applicant, a grandfather, filed a complaint against the respondent Society alleging that it failed to hear his service concerns regarding a worker's alleged bias and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was merely a referral source.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the applicant was receiving a child welfare service as a caregiver in the home where the children resided.

On the merits, the Board found that the Society met some of its obligations but failed to provide meaningful reasons for several decisions affecting the applicant's interests.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons addressing specific questions about its handling of the applicant's complaints.

The applicant brought an application under s. 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act regarding the implementation of a previous Board decision.

The Board reviewed whether the Society had complied with three previous orders.

The Board found that the Society complied with the orders relating to the service plan and email accommodation policy.

However, the Society failed to comply with the order to investigate and assess the impact of inconsistent access and domestic violence on the child.

The Board ordered the Society to consult with the child's therapist and provide a written explanation of its assessment.

The applicants, former foster parents, sought a review of the removal of a foster child from their care.

Following a pre-hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed it had jurisdiction to proceed to a hearing.

The Board issued interim orders directing a children's aid society to produce documents relating to the investigation and removal of the foster child to the applicants' counsel and the respondent.

The Board also ordered the sharing of the child's file with the child's counsel and set a deadline for all parties to exchange documents intended to be admitted in evidence.

The Applicant, an employee of the Society, was caring for her brother's foster child under a safety plan.

Following allegations of sexual abuse against the brother, the Society removed the child from the Applicant's care and investigated her for risk of emotional harm and sexual abuse.

The Applicant brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions during the investigation.

The Board found that the Society breached its statutory obligation under s. 68.1(4)5 of the Child and Family Services Act by failing to provide sufficient information to allow the Applicant to understand how and why decisions were made, and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons.

The applicants, the maternal grandparents of the child, 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 refused the application prior to completing a homestudy, citing concerns about the grandparents' commitment to adoption versus grand-parenting.

The Board found that the grandparents' preferred role was to be grandparents and that their primary concern was ensuring family contact.

Given the Society's commitment to an openness arrangement with the child's new adoptive family, the Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to confirm the Society's refusal.

The applicant child sought a review of his admission to a secure treatment program by the respondent treatment centre.

The child had a history of running away from foster placements and engaging in self-harm.

The Board refused to admit hearsay medical documents tendered by the respondent, as the admitting psychiatrist was not available for cross-examination.

The Board found that the respondent failed to establish on a balance of probabilities that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission, as required by section 124(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Consequently, the Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant brought an application regarding the implementation of a previous Board decision that ordered two Children's Aid Societies to investigate her service concerns about racial discrimination.

The Board found that while Guelph complied with the order to hear from the applicant, neither Society complied with the orders to properly investigate the racial discrimination concerns.

The Board concluded its role in the matter but granted the applicant permission to use a redacted version of the decision in her upcoming application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to respond to or provide reasons regarding her reports that her children were being abused during access visits.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had already been decided by the court in previous child protection proceedings.

The Board agreed, finding that the court had previously examined the Society's response to the abuse allegations and made findings of fact.

As the subject matter of the complaint had been decided by the court, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the services she received from the Society, alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her child's access visits with the father.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its obligations in several areas, including communication, investigating the father's residences, and addressing the child's well-being during specific access incidents.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons and address the Applicant's concerns, while dismissing other complaints.