OCFSRB 2007

The applicants sought to review a decision by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto refusing their application to adopt the biological half-sister of their adopted daughter.

The refusal was based on a negative homestudy conducted by a worker with whom the applicants had a previous negative relationship.

The Board found that the homestudy lacked objectivity and that the notes and data upon which it was based were unavailable.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered a new homestudy to be conducted by a third party in the best interests of the child.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to respond to her complaints regarding a former foster parent's ongoing, unauthorized contact with her daughter.

The Board conducted a written review and found that the Society had actively investigated and responded to the applicant's oral complaints, even though the applicant disagreed with the Society's actions.

As the applicant had not filed a written complaint with the Society, there was no requirement to trigger the formal internal complaint review procedure.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions to place his name on the Child Abuse Register, to remove it, and for keeping his file open.

The applicant had been acquitted of criminal charges related to a child abuse allegation, after which his name was removed from the Register.

The Board found that the Society's initial letter informing the applicant of his placement on the Register lacked adequate reasons and ordered the Society to provide full written reasons detailing the factual basis and social work methodology used.

The Board made no orders regarding the removal decision or the status of the file.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against two Children's Aid Societies regarding their investigation into allegations against her son.

The Societies brought a preliminary motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the complaint was made prior to November 30, 2006, and thus fell under the transitional provisions of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the complaint was indeed made before the legislative change and that the Societies' internal complaint review procedures had been engaged.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint and granted the Societies' motion.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decision regarding an alleged suicide note written by the children's mother.

Following a hearing on the merits, the Board found that while the society had addressed other concerns, it had not provided reasons regarding its follow-up actions on the note.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant within three months.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to give her an opportunity to be heard when it apprehended her daughter following a report of the applicant's suicide threat.

The applicant argued the Society should have accepted her alternative plan to place the child with a friend over the weekend.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint, finding the Society acted in a timely fashion, gave the applicant ample opportunity to be heard, and appropriately investigated and implemented a placement with the friend a few days later.

The applicant brought a complaint to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions to place his name on the Child Abuse Register, to subsequently remove it, and to keep his file open.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, noting that the decision to place the applicant's name on the Register occurred before the Board acquired jurisdiction over such matters on December 1, 2006.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to review all three decisions, reasoning that procedural fairness required reviewing the initial placement decision in conjunction with the subsequent removal decision, especially since the applicant could not practically complain earlier due to pending criminal charges of which he was ultimately acquitted.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society refused to proceed with his complaint and failed to provide reasons for its decision that his children were not at risk.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant had not filed a formal internal complaint and that the issues were already before the court in a custody and access proceeding.

The Board dismissed the first complaint because no formal internal complaint was filed, but assumed jurisdiction over the second complaint, finding that child protection issues requiring urgent response are distinct from custody and access matters and were not before the court.