OCFSRB 2018

The applicant, who is seeking to adopt her half-sister, alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with three terms of a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

The terms related to the home study process, expediting the adoption application, and expanding access visits.

Following a teleconference hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society had adequately explained the home study process, expedited the application by commencing a concurrent home study, and committed to increasing access visits.

The Board concluded that the society was in compliance with the settlement agreement.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for the apprehension of her children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a documentary review after the applicant refused to stop recording a teleconference hearing.

The Board found that the Society had provided detailed and meaningful reasons for its actions, noting that disagreement with the reasons does not constitute non-compliance.

The complaint of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant, a custodial parent, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to respond to her complaints, refused to proceed with them, and failed to hear her concerns or provide reasons for decisions made during a child protection investigation involving her daughter at the other parent's home.

The Board found that the Society failed to respond to the applicant's complaints in a timely manner and refused to proceed with them.

Furthermore, the Board concluded that the Society made no meaningful attempts to engage with the applicant or permit her to express her concerns, thereby failing to provide her with an opportunity to be heard or satisfactory reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to invite the applicant to an Internal Complaint Review Panel and provide a letter acknowledging its failures.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to protect the child's health.

The applicant acknowledged that the concerns were currently before the court and awaiting a settlement conference.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, it lacks jurisdiction to review a complaint if the subject matter is already before the court.

The applicant mother filed a complaint under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons regarding alleged abuse of her child by the father during access visits.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society met its obligations in most respects, having conducted multiple investigations and communicated its focus on the custody dispute rather than child protection.

However, the Board found the Society failed to adequately hear the applicant or provide reasons regarding a specific bathing concern and the closing of the file.

As explanations were provided during the hearing, no further orders were made.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a term of their settlement agreement, which required the society to explain the reasons for apprehending the applicant's grandchild in 2008.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing to determine compliance.

The Board found that the society had provided a meaningful response explaining that the apprehension was necessary due to an ongoing police investigation and concerns about the child's care while with her biological father.

The Board concluded the society complied with the agreement and dismissed the applicant's complaint.

The applicant filed an application alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her service concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her child.

A hearing was scheduled, but the applicant did not attend.

The respondent informed the adjudicator that the child had been placed with his father pursuant to a court order, and the applicant had indicated she would not attend.

As the applicant made no attempt to contact the tribunal to explain her non-attendance, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear her concerns regarding the welfare of her children and their interactions with their fathers, particularly concerning unverified allegations of sexual abuse by one father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide reasons on some issues, such as the refusal to require supervised access.

However, the Board ordered the Society to provide written explanations for other issues, including its refusal to conduct home visits immediately following access, its delay in facilitating birthday access, and its failure to explain changes in assigned workers.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement reached during mediation.

A teleconference hearing was held to address the alleged non-compliance.

During a private discussion with the adjudicator, the applicant agreed that the respondent had addressed the issues in the settlement agreement and raised a new issue that occurred after mediation.

The adjudicator advised the applicant that the new issue could be the subject of a new application.

As the applicant agreed the respondent was in compliance, the file was closed as settled.

The applicant, the maternal aunt of two young children in extended society care, sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt them.

The children had been living with a kinship/foster caregiver for a year and had strong ties to their paternal extended family.

The Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that moving the children to the applicant's care would disrupt their stable environment, sever their established parental bond with their current caregiver, and cause significant emotional harm, and that remaining in their current placement was in their best interests.

The applicant, a community member, filed an application expressing concerns about the care and services provided to three children by the respondent society.

The applicant and his family were not acquaintances of the children and had not received services from the society.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, an applicant must be seeking or receiving services to be eligible to file a complaint.

Since the applicant did not meet this requirement, the application was ineligible for review.

The applicant mother brought an application to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her concerns regarding her child's welfare while in the father's care.

The mother had reported multiple head injuries sustained by the child during unsupervised access visits.

The Board reviewed the Society's actions, including its investigations, safety checks, and communications with medical professionals.

The Board concluded that the Society had meaningfully engaged with the mother, investigated her concerns, and provided sufficient reasons for its decision not to require supervised access.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed a non-compliance complaint regarding a settlement agreement reached with the children's aid society concerning her child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a hearing to determine if the society had complied with the terms of the agreement.

The Board reviewed the society's responses to the applicant's concerns, including explanations regarding an abuse investigation and a worker's comments.

The Board found that the society had fully complied with the terms of the settlement agreement and dismissed the non-compliance complaint.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother of a child involved with the respondent society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

She raised concerns about the society's file management practices and an alleged staff conflict of interest.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that the applicant was not seeking or receiving services from the society herself, and had obtained the file information through a separate court proceeding rather than a direct disclosure request.

Consequently, the complaint fell outside the Board's jurisdiction.

The applicant alleged that the respondent Society failed to comply with the terms of a settlement agreement regarding child protection matters.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing to determine compliance.

The Board found that the Society had provided adequate reasons for its decisions regarding the assignment of workers, the reversion to supervised access visits due to domestic incidents, and the expectations for community resources.

The complaint of non-compliance was dismissed.

The appellant sought an extension of time to appeal a school board's decision to expel his son.

The appeal was filed two and a half months after the statutory 30-day deadline.

The appellant argued the delay was justified because the school board failed to provide adequate reasons for the expulsion.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the appeal, finding that the adequacy of the school board's reasons was irrelevant to the de novo appeal process and that the delay prejudiced the school board's need for certainty and stability.

The applicant, previously declared a vexatious litigant by the Board, sought leave to file a new application against the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The Board found that the new application did not set out details of a service-related complaint but instead duplicated complaints made to other bodies and repeated previously identified vexatious behaviour.

The Board concluded the application was an abuse of process and denied leave to file the new application.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns about an individual living in the same home as his children who had been charged with sexual assault, and failed to provide reasons for closing its investigation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society failed to make meaningful attempts to engage with the applicant and failed to provide reasons for its decision that the children were not at risk.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant within 30 days.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her two children in care.

The Board reviewed nine specific issues raised by the mother, including medical care, access visits, and religious upbringing.

The Board found that the Society had provided timely and detailed reasons for its decisions and actively listened to the mother's suggestions.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant, a police officer, filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for sharing child abuse investigation information with his employer and failed to involve him in developing his service plan.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints.

The Board found the society was mandated to share information with the police service under an existing protocol, and that the limitations placed on the applicant's involvement in the service plan were reasonable given the finding of extreme child abuse and the complex family dynamics.