Judy Finlay

The applicant applied for a review of her placement under section 36(1) of the Child and Family Services Act.

During the hearing, a witness testified that a psychiatrist had dictated a consulting note for the applicant's file.

The Child and Family Services Review Board ordered the witness to provide a copy of the consulting note to the society, and for the society to produce it to the Board and the applicant's counsel.

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 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, a 16-year-old crown ward, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her residential placement at a facility located over three hours from her home community.

The Applicant sought to be moved closer to her family and supports to assist her transition to independence.

The Children's Aid Society argued she needed to remain at the current facility to stabilize.

The Board found that the current placement was not in the Applicant's best interests due to the distance from her family, her special needs, and the negative environment at the facility.

The Board ordered the Applicant discharged from the current placement and moved to a placement closer to her family, preferably a treatment foster home.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Family and Children's Services of Guelph and Wellington County regarding its handling of her child protection concerns about the child's father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the Society properly handled the internal complaints process and the initial investigation, it failed to meet its statutory obligations during a subsequent investigation.

Specifically, the Society failed to hear the applicant's concerns, involve her in safety planning, or provide reasons for its decisions regarding the child's safety, adult conflict, and her request for a change of worker.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations to the applicant for its decisions.

The applicants, the paternal grandfather and step-grandmother of a child taken into care, filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society for failing to provide reasons for not considering them as a kinship placement.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicants were not parents or persons seeking services.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because assessing a kin placement is a service under the Child and Family Services Act, and the decision affected the applicants' interests.

On the merits, the Board found the Society failed to provide timely explanations to the applicants about why they were not considered for kinship placement, noting the Society's apology during the hearing.