3 total
Applications to review child removal dismissed; children were not in extended society care.
The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent society's decision to remove children from her care.
The respondent provided evidence that the children were under customary care agreements and had never been the subject of an extended society care order.
The applicant conceded the lack of jurisdiction.
The Board dismissed the applications, finding that a precondition for a review under section 109(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 is that the children must have been in extended society care.
Grandparents obtained supervised interim contact after parental deference was rejected.
The moving grandparents sought interim contact with their grandchildren after the children's father terminated all contact following prolonged family conflict after the mother's death.
The court held that parental deference was not warranted because a positive pre-existing relationship existed, the father's decision imperilled that relationship, and the termination of contact was arbitrary within the Giansante framework.
Applying the second-stage best interests analysis under the Children’s Law Reform Act, the court found that gradual restoration of contact would benefit the children despite ongoing conflict and mental health concerns.
The motion was partially granted through supervised access centre visits and limited unsupervised electronic contact with one child.
Board rescinds CAS decision to remove biracial child from long-term foster parents for transracial adoption concerns.
The applicants, who had fostered a four-year-old child since birth, sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove the child from their care and refuse their adoption application.
The child had significant developmental delays and was at risk for Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder.
The Society intended to place the biracial child with another family who had adopted the child's half-sister, arguing the other family could better meet the child's racial and cultural needs.
The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the applicants had met all of the child's needs, including her racial and cultural needs.
The Board concluded that removing the child from the only parents she had known would disrupt her secure place in the family and be contrary to her best interests.
