OCFSRB 2021

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns regarding the safety of his children and failed to provide reasons for decisions.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in child protection proceedings.

The Board reviewed the court documents and found that all the issues raised in the complaint were indeed before the court.

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, a former foster parent seeking to adopt a child, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent society failed to follow timelines for finalizing the adoption.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the complaint did not relate to a service sought or received under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, but rather to permanency planning timelines.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The applicant was subject to a criminal release order prohibiting contact with the respondent.

The Board directed the applicant to provide evidence that the non-contact condition had been varied and to cease sending abusive emails.

The applicant failed to comply with these directions and continued to send numerous abusive emails.

The Board dismissed the application as an abuse of process.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed a complaint alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding a foster child's permanency plan and return to her biological mother.

The respondent argued the Child and Family Services Review Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were currently before the court in a status review application.

The Board agreed, finding that the issues raised in the complaint, including the impact of Bill C-92 and the timing of the permanency proposal, were squarely before the court.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction under section 120(8) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

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

The Board had previously dismissed the application as abandoned, believing the applicant had failed to provide requested documents.

Upon discovering that the documents had been submitted on time but mislaid due to an administrative error, the Board retracted its dismissal decision and ordered the pre-hearing to continue.

The applicants, who are foster parents, applied to review the respondent Society's refusal of their adoption application.

The proposed adoptive parents, with whom the Society planned to place the child, requested to be added as parties to the proceeding.

The Society opposed the request, arguing the issue was strictly between the Society and the foster parents.

The Board granted the request, finding that the proposed adoptive parents' participation was necessary to decide the child's best interests, as the hearing would involve a comparison of the two potential placements.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The applicant failed to participate in two scheduled pre-hearing teleconferences, citing his mother's medical emergencies.

The adjudicator directed the applicant to provide medical documentation to substantiate these absences.

When the applicant failed to provide the requested documentation or communicate further with the Board, the application was dismissed as abandoned.

The applicant alleged that the respondent children's aid society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring it to provide reasons for its decisions regarding access visits and the placement of her children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a compliance hearing and reviewed the society's written responses.

The Board found that the society had provided clear, relevant, and adequate reasons for its decisions, fulfilling its obligations under the agreement and section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant foster parent filed an application to review the respondent children's aid society's decision to remove a foster child who had lived continuously in the applicant's home for over two years.

The Board found that the application was filed within 10 days of the applicant receiving written notice under section 109(7)(a) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Board determined the application was eligible to proceed to a hearing and issued directions for a teleconference.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the removal of an 18-year-old youth from their home.

The respondent Children's Aid Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction on the basis that the youth was no longer a child under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and the extended society care order had expired.

The Board agreed, finding it lacked jurisdiction because the youth had reached the age of majority.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a maternal aunt providing temporary kinship care for her nephew, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding the child's placement and access, and failed to explain the child's injuries.

The Board dismissed the complaint in writing, finding that the applicant had been provided with adequate written reasons for the society's permanency planning decisions on multiple occasions.

The Board also found it lacked jurisdiction to address the disclosure of the child's personal information regarding his injuries, noting the applicant was not a legal parent and such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the Information and Privacy Commissioner.

The applicant, a foster parent, filed a complaint under section 120(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 regarding the respondent society's plan to transition his 18-year-old foster child to adult protective services.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction.

The Board found that foster parents provide services to the society rather than receive them, and the applicant did not have lawful custody of the child to qualify as a parent under the Act.

The applicants filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Oxford County, alleging the Society failed to give them an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decision to escalate a school referral to a child protection application.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society's investigation was seriously flawed, as it failed to communicate with the parents or hear their side before commencing court proceedings.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a written apology and a clear explanation of the factors it considered in its decision.

The applicants, who had been foster parents to a child for almost two years, applied to adopt the child but were refused by the respondent children's aid society on the basis that another family met the child's racial and religious needs.

The applicants filed an application for review with the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Board found that the application was filed within the statutory 10-day period and was therefore eligible to proceed to a hearing.

The Board issued directions for a teleconference to set timelines and identify preliminary issues.

The applicants, who are foster parents, filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

They disagreed with the respondent society's plan to enter into a customary care agreement with another family and raised concerns about their interactions with a worker.

The Board dismissed the application, finding that as foster parents, the applicants were providing a service to the society rather than seeking or receiving services, making their complaint ineligible for review.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear his concerns regarding abuse, neglect, and parental alienation by the children's mother, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board conducted a written review and found that the respondent had listened to the applicant's concerns on countless occasions, investigated them, and attempted to provide explanations, which the applicant refused to hear.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society under s. 120 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, alleging that the society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding services for his child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written hearing.

The Board found that the society had provided the applicant with multiple opportunities to express his concerns through in-person, telephone, and virtual meetings.

The Board also found that the society had provided adequate oral and written reasons explaining its mandate and its lack of authority over third-party service providers.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear her concerns and investigate allegations of abuse by the children's father.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the subject matter of the complaint was currently before the court in ongoing Children's Law Reform Act proceedings.

The Board found that the applicant had placed all the issues in her complaint before the court through extensive documentary evidence in the family law proceedings.

Consequently, the Board dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 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 children's aid society's handling of a child protection matter.

The respondent argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were currently before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board agreed, finding that all issues raised in the complaint, including timesharing, placement, and the best interests of the children, were subject to a temporary court order and an upcoming settlement conference.

The complaint was dismissed in its entirety for lack of jurisdiction.

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, alleging the respondent society failed to adequately ensure her safety when she was a child.

The Board found that the applicant had not made a formal written complaint to the society's Internal Complaints Review Panel as required by section 119(1) of the Act and section 56 of Ontario Regulation 156/18.

Consequently, the Board lacked jurisdiction to review the application.

The application was dismissed.