OCFSRB 2020

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

After failing to attend a scheduled pre-hearing teleconference, the applicant repeatedly requested extensions of time due to health and housing issues but failed to provide a current mailing address or an estimated timeframe for her participation as directed.

The Board concluded that the applicant had abandoned her application and dismissed it.

The applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing their application to adopt their two foster children, who had lived with them since shortly after birth.

The Society had approved an adoption plan from another family who had previously adopted the children's half-sisters, prioritizing sibling reunification.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's refusal, finding that the children had formed a secure attachment to the applicants and that the risks of disrupting this continuity of care outweighed the benefits of placing them with half-siblings they barely knew.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, seeking reasons for decisions made by the respondent Society regarding his child in care.

Following a pre-hearing mediation, a Settlement Agreement was reached requiring the Society to answer five questions.

Before the Society responded, the applicant sent emails objecting to the agreement because it did not return the child to his care.

The Board found that the applicant made no allegation of non-compliance regarding the Society's provision of reasons, and noted that the Board has no jurisdiction over child protection placement decisions.

The file was closed.

The applicant filed an application under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant repeatedly failed to attend scheduled case management teleconferences and provided excuses that the adjudicator found not credible.

After being warned that failure to communicate with the Board could result in dismissal, the applicant did not respond.

The Board found the application was abandoned and dismissed it.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's actions and decisions concerning her grandchildren.

The respondent society submitted that the applicant had not sought or received services from it, as she was not assessed as a kinship caregiver.

The applicant failed to provide written submissions challenging this position.

The Board found that the applicant's complaints were not about services she sought or received, but rather about the society's actions regarding her grandchildren.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 against the respondent children's aid society.

The respondent argued the CFSRB lacked jurisdiction under section 120(8)(a) because child protection proceedings were currently before the court.

The CFSRB found that while two issues regarding child placement and protection concerns were before the court and thus outside its jurisdiction, the remaining four issues regarding the society's communication and treatment of the applicant were separate and distinct.

The CFSRB dismissed the first two issues and directed the remaining issues to proceed.

The applicant, the maternal grandmother of the child, filed a complaint against the respondent Children's Aid Society alleging a failure to provide reasons for a decision affecting her interests.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicant was a referent, not a service recipient.

The Board agreed, finding that the applicant did not have legal custody of the child and had not received any prescribed services from the respondent.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the respondent children's aid society regarding issues of access, custody, and the child's care in a foster home.

The respondent argued that the issues were either already decided by or currently before the Superior Court of Justice, and thus excluded from the Board's jurisdiction under s. 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board agreed, finding that the issues related to custody, access, and child protection were before the court.

The Board also found that a complaint regarding the society's failure to investigate a threat by a former teacher was premature, as it was filed only one day after the report was made.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a complaint under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

Following a pre-hearing teleconference, the respondent provided written responses to the applicant's questions.

The applicant subsequently expressed disagreement with the responses but did not allege that the respondent failed to provide them.

The adjudicator found that the Act does not permit the Board to determine the merits of the respondent's reasons, nor does an applicant's disagreement invalidate the fact that reasons were provided.

The application was dismissed as there was no ongoing allegation of non-compliance.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging bias, misrepresentation, and failure to protect her child from abuse.

The society argued the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the courts.

The adjudicator agreed, finding that the applicant's concerns regarding bias, false documents, and child protection had been raised in ongoing court proceedings since 2015.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety pursuant to section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The applicant, a former foster parent, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking to quash a society's decision verifying that she caused physical harm to a former foster child.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to review the substantive decisions of the society or to grant the requested remedy of quashing the verification decision.

Furthermore, the statutory right to be heard applies only to children, young persons, and their parents, not to foster parents.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her complaint.

The applicant alleged the society did not follow its complaint review process or timelines.

The Board dismissed the application because the applicant had not first made a written complaint to the society using the required formal complaint form, rendering the application ineligible for review under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's investigation and records concerning alleged abuse and parental conflict.

The respondent argued the issues were matters of custody and access best addressed in Family Court.

The Board found that the issues raised in the complaint, including allegations of abuse and the respondent's verification letters, were already before the Family Court.

Consequently, pursuant to section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the complaint and dismissed the application.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board, which was placed on hold pending ongoing court proceedings.

Despite multiple Case Management Directions requesting details about the nature and stage of the court proceedings to determine if the Board had jurisdiction under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the applicant failed to provide the required information.

The adjudicator concluded the applicant had effectively abandoned the application and dismissed it.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of her child's apprehension, access, and custody.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the court.

The Board found that 12 of the 13 issues raised were not separate and distinct from the substantive issues placed before the court in various proceedings since 2015, and the remaining issue fell outside its jurisdiction as it involved a complaint by a non-parent who did not receive a service.

The application was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, raising historical concerns and access issues regarding her grandchild.

The Board found that the issues had already been addressed in a previous decision, were currently before the court, or did not relate to a service sought or received from the respondent society.

The application was dismissed as ineligible for review.

The applicant, a transitional support counsellor, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board complaining about the unprofessional conduct of a society worker toward the applicant and her client.

The Board determined that the complaint was ineligible for review under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant was not seeking or receiving services within the meaning of the Act, nor did she fall within the category of persons entitled to be heard under section 15(2).

The application was dismissed.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent children's aid society's handling of child protection concerns and internal complaints.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already before the court.

The Board found that all eight issues raised by the applicant, including allegations of abuse by the mother and the society's conduct, had been presented and addressed in various court proceedings.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's actions concerning her grandchildren.

A previous identical application was dismissed because the applicant was not seeking or receiving services from the society.

The Board found nothing in the new application to alter the previous analysis and dismissed the application as ineligible for review.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking the return of her two sons, who had been removed from her care by the respondent children's aid society.

The applicant acknowledged that the issue of whether her sons would be returned to her was currently before the court, with a hearing adjourned to July 2020.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that section 120(8)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 bars the Board from reviewing a complaint if the subject matter is an issue that has been decided by or is currently before the court.