OCFSRB 2016

The self-represented applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa.

She alleged the Society failed to listen to her service concerns regarding her assigned worker and failed to provide reasons for cancelling a final access visit with her child, who had been made a Crown ward.

The Board dismissed the applicant's allegations of torture and falsified drug tests.

However, the Board upheld the complaints regarding the Society's failure to adequately respond to her request for a change of worker and its failure to provide sufficient reasons for cancelling the final access visit.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written explanations for these decisions.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging that it failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her son, who was a society ward living in a group home.

The concerns related to the child's school lateness, hygiene, delayed dental surgery, and access to medical records.

The Board found that the society had communicated primarily with the child's grandmother, who was the primary contact and caregiver prior to apprehension, in accordance with the child's wishes.

The Board concluded that the society met its statutory obligations to hear concerns and provide reasons, and dismissed the application.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging that a worker coached his son to refuse a visit and that the society failed to investigate his concerns regarding his son's access to inappropriate emails.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the coaching allegation, finding the worker appropriately assisted the child in expressing his feelings.

However, the Board upheld the complaint regarding the society's failure to communicate and provide reasons for its decisions regarding the email issue, ordering the society to provide a written explanation of its follow-up actions.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the society failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons for decisions regarding her 7-year-old son.

The child was apprehended after expressing suicidal ideation at school, which the mother refused to have medically assessed.

The Review Board found that the society adequately explained the reasons for the apprehension and addressed most of the mother's concerns regarding the foster care placement, including water quality, minor injuries, and second-hand smoke.

While the society initially failed to address the mother's concerns about the child's diet, it made efforts to do so after the application was filed.

The Board made no orders but noted the society's commitment to exploring a foster placement closer to the mother's residence.

The applicant, a childcare worker, sought a review of a decision by the Children's Aid Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP), which upheld a finding that she had placed children at risk of harm.

The applicant alleged the ICRP failed to hear her side of the story and did not provide adequate reasons.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the ICRP's decision lacked sufficient reasons, failed to consider the daycare's internal policies, and did not assess whether the investigation complied with Child Protection Standards.

The Board redirected the matter to the ICRP for further review.