Mary Wong

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Halton Children's Aid Society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Society had imposed conditions requiring supervised access and a psychiatric assessment after the mother was briefly hospitalized.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to consult the mother before imposing conditions, failed to properly address her concerns about her baby's health, and failed to assist her when she experienced delays in obtaining the required psychiatric assessment.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the mother regarding these failures.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear him and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Society had investigated the father's concerns about the mother and child, during which the mother made allegations of domestic violence against the father.

The Society verified the domestic violence allegations and wrote a letter to a doctor stating the mother had a history of domestic violence and the father posed a serious risk, without giving the father an opportunity to be heard or providing reasons for these decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found in favour of the applicant, concluding the Society breached its duties under the Child and Family Services Act, and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its decisions.

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

The applicant alleged the society failed to follow the statutory process, hear her concerns regarding her child's placement, and provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the society failed to comply with statutory timelines and failed to adequately hear the applicant or provide reasons on three of her five complaints.

The Board ordered the society to reconvene its internal complaint review panel to address the outstanding issues and provide proper reasons.

The child, a 12-year-old with a history of severe mood swings and violent behaviour, applied for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

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

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats to cause serious bodily harm to himself and his mother, and that the secure treatment program would be effective in preventing such harm.

The Board also concluded that appropriate treatment was available at the facility and that no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The 14-year-old applicant applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at the respondent facility.

The Board considered whether the applicant met the criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, specifically whether she had a mental disorder.

The Board found insufficient evidence to establish a mental disorder, noting the absence of a medical diagnosis and finding that the applicant's behavioural issues and conflicts with her mother did not demonstrate a gross impairment of her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

As the first criterion was not met, the Board ordered the applicant's release.

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

The Board held a hearing to determine whether the five criteria for admission under section 124(2) were met.

The Board ruled on a preliminary issue, refusing to admit medical records as business records without the testimony of a psychiatrist, citing procedural fairness.

Ultimately, based on the evidence of the child's escalating aggressive behaviour, self-harm, and threats to others, the Board found that all five criteria were met.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Hamilton Children's Aid Society regarding its handling of child protection investigations involving his son.

He alleged the Society failed to hear his concerns about the maternal family, failed to explain its finding that the child was at risk of emotional harm in his care, and failed to address his complaints about a specific worker.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society adequately heard and explained its decisions regarding the emotional harm finding and the subsequent investigation into the maternal family.

However, the Board found the Society failed to hear the Applicant's concerns about the worker and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its decision to keep the worker on the file.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests regarding his children in care.

The review board found it had jurisdiction to hear the service-related complaints despite an ongoing child protection application before the court.

The board upheld the applicant's complaints regarding the society's failure to provide reasons about worker qualifications, the initial apprehension and placement decisions, medical care, and access to the provincial advocate.

The society was ordered to provide written explanations and medical information to the applicant.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear his concerns regarding the care of his sons by his ex-spouse, and failed to consult him or provide reasons when it apprehended his sons following his ex-spouse's arrest.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints regarding the Society's response to his earlier concerns, finding the Society had investigated and communicated its findings.

However, the Board found the Society breached the Child and Family Services Act by failing to give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding a safety plan before apprehending the children, ordering the Society to provide written reasons for this failure.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear him or provide reasons for decisions regarding joint counselling, access visit designates, and community access visits.

The Board found that the Society failed to provide reasons to the Applicant on these issues at the time of his application, and failed to give him an opportunity to tell his story.

However, the Board dismissed the complaint regarding the Society's refusal to proceed with an Internal Complaints Review Panel, finding the Society properly determined the issue was ineligible because it was before the Court.

The 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 reviewed evidence of the child's escalating suicidal ideation and self-harming behaviours.

The Board found that all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act were met, including that the child 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 foster mother sought a review of the Society's decision to remove a special needs child who had been in her care for over seven years.

The Society proposed removal after learning the applicant's teenage sons occasionally cared for the child while the applicant worked.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the application was moot because the applicant had temporarily returned the child under duress; the Board dismissed the motion.

On the merits, the Board found the child's needs were well met by the applicant, there was no evidence of risk, and it was in the child's best interests to remain in the applicant's care.

The Society's decision was rescinded.

The applicant sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt two children.

The applicant, a close friend of the children's biological mother, argued she should be considered a kinship placement.

The Society opposed the application, citing concerns that the applicant would not maintain boundaries between the children and the biological mother, who had been denied access due to child protection concerns.

The Board affirmed the Society's decision, finding that the children's best interests were served by remaining with their current foster parents, who provided continuity of care, supported their Native culture, and posed no safety risks regarding the biological mother.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear his concerns or provide reasons for refusing to write a letter supporting his request for unsupervised access to his children.

The Board held a hearing and reviewed the communications between the parties.

The Board found that the society had met with the applicant, heard his requests, and provided clear written reasons explaining why it required supervised access to assess his parenting capacity and would not support unsupervised access while criminal charges were pending.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, a foster mother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the society's decision to remove a special needs child who had been in her care for over seven years.

The society proposed the removal because the applicant's teenage sons were assisting with the child's care while the applicant worked, which the society deemed inappropriate.

The Board found that the child was well cared for, had a strong bond with the foster family, and was not at risk of harm.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to remain with the applicant and rescinded the society's decision to remove the child.

The Applicant, the maternal grandmother of two children in the care of the Society, filed a complaint alleging the Society failed to listen to her or provide explanations regarding several issues, including the placement of her grandson in a non-Jewish foster home, his removal from a hospital, his drug use, and his school attendance.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to provide reasons or explanations regarding the foster home placement, the hospital removal, and the drug use allegations, ordering the Society to provide written reasons.

The Board dismissed the complaints regarding treatment participation, disrespectful comments, and school absenteeism.

The 15-year-old applicant applied for a review of her 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 high-risk behaviours, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and hallucinations.

The Board found that all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act were met, including that the child has a mental disorder, poses a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment is appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society, alleging the society failed to listen to her concerns and provide explanations regarding six issues, including the children's safety during access visits, her mental health, and her status as a victim of domestic violence.

The Board found that the society adequately addressed her concerns regarding the children's safety during access visits with the father.

However, the Board found in favour of the applicant on the remaining issues, concluding the society failed to provide adequate written reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the society to provide detailed written explanations to the applicant for those specific issues.

The applicants, who had been foster parents for over 25 years, challenged the Society's decision to remove a 17-year-old foster child with developmental delays from their home.

The Society had decided to close the foster home due to a breakdown in trust arising from disputed mileage claims and conflicts regarding another foster child.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the removal because it stemmed from a foster home closure.

The Board found it had jurisdiction under section 61 of the Child and Family Services Act.

On the merits, the Board determined that the child had bonded with the applicants, made significant developmental progress in their care, and wished to remain with them.

Finding no evidence that the child's needs were unmet, the Board concluded that remaining in the home was in the child's best interests and ordered the Society not to carry out the removal.

The child, a Crown ward, was admitted to a secure treatment centre following incidents of self-harm, property damage, and leaving her group home without permission.

She applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release.

The Board granted the application, finding that the child did not meet the criteria for emergency admission under s. 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Specifically, there was insufficient clinical evidence to establish that the child had a mental disorder, and her behaviours did not demonstrate a substantial disorder grossly impairing her judgment.

The Board also noted that less restrictive, non-secure residential treatment settings were appropriate and had not been adequately explored.