OCFSRB 2013

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 applicant brought a motion before the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Society's failure to investigate child protection concerns and other service issues.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in an ongoing protection application.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear complaints relating to the applicant's right to be heard and to receive reasons under the Child and Family Services Act, but lacked jurisdiction over issues relating to court-ordered access and the Office of the Children's Lawyer.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to proceed with her complaint regarding inaccuracies in her file, failed to hear her service concerns, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the Society failed to hear the applicant, failed to provide reasons for refusing to disclose her file, and failed to process her complaint through the internal complaints review procedure (ICRP).

The Board ordered the Society to provide specific answers to the applicant's questions and to proceed with the ICRP.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding its handling of her concerns about her daughter and grandchild.

The Society brought a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the applicant had not sought or received a service from the Society.

The Board found that making a referral about child protection concerns does not constitute seeking a service for oneself under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board granted the Society's motion and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's failure to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting his access to his children.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the parties were involved in ongoing child protection proceedings before the court.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding that the applicant's complaints related to the Society's exercise of discretion regarding access and home visits, which were separate from the substantive issues before the court.

The Board concluded it had jurisdiction to proceed to a hearing.

The applicant brought an application regarding the implementation of a previous Board decision that ordered two Children's Aid Societies to investigate her service concerns about racial discrimination.

The Board found that while Guelph complied with the order to hear from the applicant, neither Society complied with the orders to properly investigate the racial discrimination concerns.

The Board concluded its role in the matter but granted the applicant permission to use a redacted version of the decision in her upcoming application to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to respond to or provide reasons regarding her reports that her children were being abused during access visits.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues had already been decided by the court in previous child protection proceedings.

The Board agreed, finding that the court had previously examined the Society's response to the abuse allegations and made findings of fact.

As the subject matter of the complaint had been decided by the court, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

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 14-year-old applicant sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while some criteria for admission were met, the requirement under section 124(2)(e) of the Child and Family Services Act—that no less restrictive method of providing appropriate treatment was available—was not satisfied.

The Board noted that appropriate services in a less intrusive setting had not been adequately investigated.

Consequently, the Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant, an access parent, filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto alleging it failed to properly investigate his concerns about his child's care and failed to provide disclosure of the family's file.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

The Board dismissed the allegations regarding the child's care, finding the Society had appropriately heard the applicant and provided reasons for its decisions.

However, the Board found the Society failed to meet its statutory obligations regarding the file disclosure request, as it did not provide a meaningful response or consider the applicant's rights under a court order and the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Board ordered the Society to hear the applicant regarding the disclosure request or provide a redacted file.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the services she received from the Society, alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her child's access visits with the father.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its obligations in several areas, including communication, investigating the father's residences, and addressing the child's well-being during specific access incidents.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons and address the Applicant's concerns, while dismissing other complaints.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Algoma, alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding the interviewing of her children and an investigation into a child attending her daycare.

The Board found that the Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel had properly heard the applicant's concerns and provided adequate reasons for its actions.

The Board noted that the applicant was not entitled to be heard regarding the daycare child as she was not the parent, but the Society had nonetheless provided written reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the respondent children's aid society's refusal to place three children with them for adoption.

Following a hearing, the Board rescinded the society's refusal pursuant to section 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board ordered that the children be placed for adoption with the applicants, with written reasons to follow.

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 applicants filed complaints against the children's aid society regarding a worker's alleged false statements to the court about social media pictures and the removal of their child.

The Board conducted a written review to determine its jurisdiction.

Finding that the subject matter of the complaints related to issues currently before the court in a child protection proceeding, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act and dismissed the applications.

The applicant requested records from the Durham Children's Aid Society relating to her deceased mother, who had been a Crown Ward.

The Society initially agreed to provide the records but later informed the applicant that a court order was required, without providing reasons for the change in decision.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found it had jurisdiction and held that the Society failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed reasons within 10 days.

The Applicant foster mother applied for a review of the Society's decision to remove four foster children from her care.

The removal occurred after the foster father sexually touched one of the foster daughters and the Applicant minimized the incident and intended to have the foster father return to the home.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the application despite the removal being for risk.

The Board concluded that returning the children to the Applicant's care was not in their best interests due to the risk of emotional and physical harm and the children's expressed wishes not to return.

The Society's decision to remove the children was confirmed.

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 applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to enforce a court order granting him access to his daughter.

The society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matter was already before the court for a status review.

The Board agreed, finding that under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, it cannot review complaints about issues that have been decided by or are before the court.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.