OCFSRB 2013

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 mother filed a complaint against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

She alleged that the Society failed to give her an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding three incidents involving the foster family and one incident involving alleged racist comments by a Society employee.

The Board found that the Society failed to properly communicate its follow-up actions to the applicant regarding two of the foster family incidents and the employee incident.

However, because the Society provided the necessary explanations to the applicant after she filed her complaint with the Board, the Board declined to make any orders.

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 sought a review of an Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) decision regarding his complaints against the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton.

He alleged that the Society's files contained inaccuracies and that the Society failed to address his service concerns or provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that several file entries were inaccurate or in dispute, ordering the Society to place Notices of Disagreement in the applicant's file.

The Board also found that the Society failed to answer four of the applicant's seventeen questions regarding service concerns, ordering the Society to provide written responses to those specific questions.

The applicants filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging that the Society failed to hear their service concerns and did not provide reasons for decisions regarding the safety of their child in the care of the biological father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had held multiple meetings with the applicants to address their concerns and explain its decisions.

The Board concluded that the Society appropriately focused on the child's wellbeing and had provided the required explanations.

The application was dismissed.

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 pupil appealed an expulsion decision to the Child and Family Services Review Board.

Prior to the hearing, the parties resolved the appeal and entered into Minutes of Settlement.

The Board issued a consent order confirming the settlement, which changed the expulsion from all of the respondent's schools to an expulsion from the pupil's school only, and directed that the pupil's record be amended accordingly.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto regarding an internal complaints review process (ICRP) related to a child protection investigation.

The applicant alleged that he was not heard at the ICRP and disagreed with the Society's decisions, including the placement of his children and his removal from the home following domestic violence charges.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the Society had complied with its statutory obligations by providing the applicant with an opportunity to be heard and meaningful explanations for its decisions.

The applicant brought an application under section 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act, seeking review of an Internal Complaints Review Panel decision.

The applicant raised concerns regarding inaccuracies in the Society's file and the Society's failure to address service concerns or provide reasons for its decisions.

Following a hearing, the Board issued an interim order directing the Society to provide written answers to four specific questions raised by the applicant regarding the child protection worker's observations and the Society's investigation steps.

The Board reserved its decision on the alleged file inaccuracies.

The appellant appealed the expulsion of his son from all schools of the respondent school board.

The pupil had been expelled after allegedly threatening to kill another student.

The Board found that the school board's policy regarding the alleged misconduct was permissive rather than mandatory regarding suspensions.

Under the Education Act, a pupil can only be expelled for an activity if the school board's policy mandates a suspension for that activity.

Consequently, the Board quashed the expulsion and ordered the pupil's record expunged.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to provide reasons for its decision to contact his friend.

The society's worker had contacted the friend after receiving a report that her granddaughter was visiting the applicant unsupervised, while his access to his own children was supervised.

The Board found that the worker had provided sufficient explanation to the applicant during their telephone conversation, given her limited knowledge of his file and the fact that no specific personal information was disclosed.

The application was dismissed.

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, the maternal grandmother of a child placed with paternal grandparents, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding her request for a kinship placement.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the service concerns as the Applicant was not a 'parent' under the Act at the relevant time.

However, the Board allowed the application in part, finding the Society breached the Act by providing inconsistent messages and failing to provide clear reasons for its placement decisions between December 2011 and May 2012.

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 mother filed a complaint against the Society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her child, a Crown ward.

The Applicant raised issues concerning the Society's communication about the child's potential return to her care, the reasons preventing the return, and the child's relocation with his foster family to another county.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the Society had clearly communicated its position not to support the child's return and had adequately explained the reasons for the child's relocation.

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 applicants, foster parents to two special needs boys, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the children's removal by the Durham Children's Aid Society.

The Society removed the children after substantiating allegations that the foster mother used inappropriate physical discipline, including banging the older boy's head on the floor.

The Board found that the foster mother had used physical force and that there was a risk of future physical harm.

Concluding that the children's physical and emotional needs could not be met in the foster home, the Board determined it was not in their best interests to be returned and confirmed the Society's decision to remove them.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa regarding its alleged failure to follow court orders concerning reintegration and access to his children, and alleging that a crown wardship order was based on false testimony.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were decided by or before the courts.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act to review complaints about matters that have been decided by or are currently before the court.