Mary Wong

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

The facility argued the admission was necessary due to the Child's aggressive behaviours and risk of self-harm.

The Board found that while the Child had a mental disorder, the facility failed to prove that he had caused or threatened serious bodily harm, or that no less restrictive treatment method was appropriate.

The Board granted the application and ordered the Child's release.

The applicant sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the admitting psychiatrist had limited information and could not explain the link between the applicant's behaviour and a disorder of emotion, thought, or cognition.

The Board concluded that the applicant did not have a mental disorder as defined by the Child and Family Services Act, as there was no evidence of a gross impairment of her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The application for release was granted.

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

The child had been placed in foster care and subsequently involuntarily admitted to a hospital following suicidal threats and erratic behaviour.

The Board reviewed the statutory criteria for emergency admission and found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired his capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board concluded that the child posed a serious risk of harm to himself and required a secure environment for stabilization and treatment.

The application for release was denied.

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

The Board assessed whether the statutory criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired his judgment, leading to substantial threats of serious bodily harm to himself.

Concluding that the secure treatment program was necessary and that no less restrictive method was appropriate, the Board denied the application for release.

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 applicant sought a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Child and Family Services Review Board assessed whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the applicant suffered from a mental disorder, had made substantial threats of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

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 a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The admission was sought due to her history of running away, high-risk behaviours, and a recent brief hospitalization.

The Board found that the evidence, including testimony from the admitting psychiatrist, did not establish that the child had a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments at the time of admission.

Because the first statutory criterion under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act was not met, the Board ordered the child's release.

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

The Board considered whether the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, specifically whether the Child had a mental disorder, whether she posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others, and whether a less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The Board found that the Child's conduct disorder grossly impaired her judgement, leading to high-risk behaviours including running away, self-harm, and joyriding.

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

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

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

The Board found that the facility did not present sufficient evidence to establish that the youth had a mental disorder as defined by the Act, because his capacity to make reasoned judgments was not grossly impaired.

The Board granted the application and ordered the youth's release.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of a Children's Aid Society decision refusing their application to adopt a two-year-old child.

The Society had approved both the applicants and another family as adoptive parents, but chose the other family because they had previously adopted the child's half-sibling.

The Board found that the child had special needs, including a global developmental delay, and that the applicants were better equipped to address these needs and to maintain the child's existing relationship with her maternal grandmother.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the child be placed for adoption with the applicants.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding its handling of her child protection concerns about the children's father.

She alleged the Society failed to investigate promptly, limited the scope of its investigation, and failed to hear her or provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society adequately heard the applicant and provided reasons for its ultimate investigation conclusions.

However, the Board found the Society failed to provide reasons at the time it initially decided not to investigate her original complaint.

As fulsome reasons were provided during the hearing, the Board made no further order and dismissed the remaining complaints.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the children's aid society's decision refusing her application to adopt her nephew, a Crown ward.

The society refused to proceed with a homestudy due to the applicant's significant child welfare history, which included verified reports of neglect and parent-child conflict involving her own children.

The Board found that the applicant lacked insight into her past parenting issues and had not demonstrated any positive change in her parenting abilities.

Concluding that the applicant could not meet the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs, the Board determined that the placement was not in the child's best interests and confirmed the society's decision.

The applicant, a 14-year-old 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 that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments, resulting in substantial threats of serious bodily harm to herself and others.

Concluding that the secure treatment program was necessary and no less restrictive method was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application for release.

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 filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding its handling of her mental health issues, a community caregiver investigation that led to the suspension of her driver's license, and her unemployment.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the society met its statutory obligations under the Child and Family Services Act to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its decisions at each step of its involvement.

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 child applied for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board reviewed the evidence of the child's escalating behaviours, including threats of self-harm, threats to others, substance abuse, and repeated AWOLs from less restrictive placements.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder and met all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act.

The application for release was dismissed.

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.