Lorna King

The Applicant, an African Canadian foster mother, alleged that the Oxford and Guelph Children's Aid Societies failed to hear her or provide reasons during an investigation into her foster home, and that racial discrimination played a role.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Societies failed to meet their statutory obligations to hear the Applicant and provide sufficient reasons for their decisions, particularly when she raised concerns about racial prejudice.

The Board ordered the Societies to meet with the Applicant, re-evaluate their findings, investigate the allegations of racial discrimination, and provide detailed written reasons.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The applicant argued that he did not meet the statutory criteria for admission, specifically regarding having a mental disorder, causing or threatening serious bodily harm, and the availability of less restrictive treatment.

The Board found that the applicant suffered from a severe anxiety disorder that grossly impaired his judgment, had exhibited escalating physical aggression towards his mother, and required a locked setting for assessment and treatment.

The Board concluded that all criteria for emergency admission were met and dismissed the application for release.

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

The Board reviewed the five criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder causing severe mood swings and aggressive behaviour, posed a substantial risk of serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program was the only appropriate and effective less restrictive method available.

The application for release was denied.

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

The Board reviewed the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder, had attempted to cause serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was denied.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard regarding her concerns about a social worker and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the Society had responded to the applicant's concerns in a variety of ways, including scheduling regular phone contact, assigning a new worker, and attempting to address the concerns through discussions with a supervisor.

The Board concluded that the Society met its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act and dismissed the application.

The applicant, a youth in the care of the Children's Aid Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the evidence of the youth's escalating self-harming and aggressive behaviours, as well as her mental health challenges.

The Board found that all statutory criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, including that the youth had a mental disorder, posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant, a 13-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a history of severe substance abuse, running away, self-harm, and a serious suicide attempt.

The Board found that the child met all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, including having a mental disorder that caused her to attempt or threaten serious bodily harm, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant child requested a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a history of aggressive and self-harming behaviours, including suicide attempts, and had been diagnosed with a learning disability, intermittent explosive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the child met all the statutory criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, including having a mental disorder that caused a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself or others, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant grandmother filed an application under the Child and Family Services Act regarding service complaints about the respondent society's handling of her request for contact with her granddaughter.

Following a preliminary decision confirming the Board's jurisdiction, a hearing on the merits commenced.

Prior to the completion of the hearing, the parties reached an agreement and the applicant withdrew her application.

The file was subsequently closed.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to provide reasons for its decision not to return her nephew to her care pending a treatment placement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a hearing on the merits.

The Board found that the society had provided the applicant with sufficiently detailed and timely reasons during multiple meetings and phone calls, explaining why the group home was better equipped to handle the child's needs and addressing the applicant's health and safety.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear her concerns, provide reasons for decisions, and comply with complaint review procedures regarding her grandchildren's care and a worker's conduct.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the Society appropriately responded to requests for help with one grandchild, it failed to hear concerns or provide reasons regarding the safety of the younger grandchild following an alleged assault.

The Board also found the Society failed to comply with the statutory internal complaint review procedures.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations and engage its complaint review process.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding her requests for assistance in re-uniting with her granddaughter.

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant was merely a spokesperson for the child's mother and had not sought or received a service in her own right.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding that the applicant had sought and received a child welfare service separate from her advocacy for the mother, and that she had a direct interest in her family bond with her granddaughter that was affected by the society's decisions.

The applicant child applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

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).

The respondent did not provide medical evidence or testimony from the admitting psychiatrist, and the child's behavioural issues, including persistent absences without leave, did not demonstrate a gross impairment of her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The appellant appealed the respondent school board's decision to expel his son.

The respondent initially brought a motion on mootness but subsequently withdrew it and advised it would not lead evidence on the appeal.

On consent, the Board ordered that the expulsion be quashed and the pupil's record be expunged.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society failed to hear him and failed to provide reasons regarding a child protection investigation involving his son.

The Society refused to participate in the hearing on the merits.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by concluding the investigation without notifying or interviewing the Applicant, and by failing to provide meaningful reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the Applicant.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent society, alleging it failed to follow the legislated internal complaints review procedure and failed to hear him or provide reasons regarding an investigation into his family.

The Board found that the applicant, as a parent under the Act, had a right to be heard and to receive reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Board concluded that the society failed to comply with the statutory complaints process, failed to hear the applicant's concerns about the referral source, and failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The society was ordered to proceed with the complaint according to the legislation and provide a detailed written explanation of its investigation.

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

The applicant alleged the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons regarding its handling of video evidence and Polaroid pictures related to her ex-husband's behaviour.

The Board found that the Society followed the statutory process and adequately addressed the video evidence concerns.

However, the Board found the Society failed to hear the applicant and provide reasons regarding the Polaroid pictures, ordering the Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel to reconvene to address this specific issue.

The Applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Board found that the society met its obligations regarding the reduction of access visits and timely responses from workers.

However, the Board found that the society failed to meet its obligations regarding the disclosure of confidential drug test results to the mother's sister and failing to address concerns about the child's health, specifically a burn scar and the use of cloth diapers.

The society was ordered to provide detailed written reasons on these issues.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against two Children's Aid Societies, alleging they failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons regarding allegations of physical abuse of his children in a foster home.

The Oxford Society, which received the initial disclosure, referred the matter to the Guelph Society as the foster home was in its jurisdiction.

The Board found that the Oxford Society fulfilled its obligations by hearing the Applicant and referring the matter.

However, the Board found that the Guelph Society failed to hear the Applicant, failed to return his calls, and failed to provide detailed reasons for its decision not to verify the abuse allegations despite the children's credible disclosures.

The Board ordered the Guelph Society to provide detailed written reasons and to meet with the Applicant.

The Applicant sought a review of the Durham Children's Aid Society's decision to remove four foster children from her kinship foster home.

The Board considered the best interests of the children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the Applicant had significant financial instability, failed to disclose her methadone use, allowed an unapproved caregiver with a history of substance abuse and mental health issues to reside in the home, and failed to utilize resources to address the children's special needs.

The Board confirmed the Society's decision to remove the children, concluding it was not in their best interests to be returned to the Applicant's care.