Child and Family Services Review Board

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.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing their application to adopt two high-needs children.

The Society had removed the children from the applicants' foster care due to concerns about communication, the applicants' ability to work with the Society, and the impact on the applicants' other special-needs child.

The Board found that the communication issues stemmed from the applicant's neurological deficits and stressful circumstances, not malicious intent.

Concluding that the applicants had the capacity to meet the children's complex needs and that the children required continuity and a secure family relationship, the Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered the children placed with the applicants for adoption.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt two children.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the children be placed for adoption with the applicants, with the transfer to be completed by a specified date.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Children's Aid Society sought the admission due to the applicant's violent and aggressive behaviours towards his family and caregivers.

The Board found that the applicant had a mental disorder that grossly impaired his ability to make reasoned judgments, had caused serious bodily harm to his brother, and required a secure environment for assessment and stabilization.

The Board concluded that the statutory criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met and denied the application for release.

The appellant appealed the Dufferin-Peel Catholic District School Board's decision to expel the pupil from all of its schools.

On consent of the parties, the Child and Family Services Review Board ordered that the expulsion be changed to apply only to St. Francis Xavier Secondary School, and that any record of the expulsion be amended accordingly.

The Applicant father filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society of Toronto failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding his children in care.

The Board found that the Society failed to invite the Applicant to plan of care meetings, failed to consult him on schooling and health issues, and failed to engage in meaningful communication regarding access visits and his request for a new worker.

The Board ordered the Society's Director to meet with the Applicant to discuss his concerns and provide written reasons for its decisions.

The self-represented applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process conducted by the respondent Children's Aid Society.

The applicant raised numerous concerns regarding supervised access, file disclosures, redacted emails, and alleged violations of his children's rights.

The Board found that the Society's written responses to the applicant's concerns lacked sufficient detail and failed to demonstrate that he was adequately heard.

The Board ordered the Society to provide comprehensive written explanations, policies, and unredacted files (subject to specific privilege claims) to the applicant.

The applicant child sought a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The facility failed to provide direct medical evidence or the testimony of the admitting psychiatrist to establish that the child had a mental disorder within the meaning of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the behavioural evidence presented was insufficient to prove a substantial disorder of emotional processes, thought, or cognition grossly impairing the child's capacity to make reasoned judgments.

Consequently, the Board concluded that the criteria for emergency admission were not met and ordered the child's release.

The applicants, who had fostered two children with special needs for seven years, applied to adopt them.

The children's aid society refused the application, citing concerns about the foster mother's disciplinary methods, the breakdown of the relationship with the kin family, and the applicants' approach to child-rearing, proposing instead to place the children with kin.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the society's decision, finding that the children were deeply bonded to the applicants, their complex needs were being met, and their best interests required the continuity and permanence of remaining in the only home they had known.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her mental health assessment and her ex-partner's statements.

The Child and Family Services Review Board conducted a written review and found that the Society had made sufficient efforts to engage the applicant and provide her with opportunities to be heard.

The Board dismissed the application, noting it lacked jurisdiction over the concurrent custody and access proceedings.

The applicants sought a review of the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto's decision to refuse their application to adopt two children.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the children be placed for adoption with the applicants.

Reasons for the decision were to follow.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process conducted by the respondent society.

The applicants complained that the society failed to provide sufficient reasons for its decision to close their home as a foster home.

The Board found that the ICRP process did not provide the applicants with sufficient reasons that addressed their challenges to the validity of the society's decision.

However, the Board declined to order the society to provide further reasons, as the underlying issues were addressed in a concurrent hearing regarding the placement of the child.

The applicant sought his medical records from the respondent Society relating to a brief period in care following a car accident in his youth.

He required the records for an application to the Ontario Hepatitis C Assistance Plan.

The Society maintained it had no medical records in his file.

The Board found that while the Society met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide reasons in 2011, it failed to do so in 2014 when it did not provide a full copy of his file upon request.

However, as the Society subsequently conducted thorough searches and confirmed no medical records existed, the Board made no order, but permitted the applicant to use the decision to assist with his assistance plan application.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Huron-Perth Children's Aid Society failed to respond to their concerns about the safety and care of their children in foster care.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants had raised the exact same service concerns in a motion before the court seeking the return of their children.

The Board agreed, finding that under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, it has no jurisdiction to hear complaints involving matters that are already before the court.

The application was dismissed.

The applicants, a father and stepmother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the children's aid society failed to hear their concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding the mother's care of the children.

The Board found that the society initially failed to meet its obligations to investigate and communicate effectively regarding allegations of parental alienation, exposure to conflict, and other child protection concerns.

However, the society later met its obligations by developing a service plan.

The Board ordered the society to provide written explanations for several outstanding issues and to develop a communication plan with the applicants.

The applicants, who previously adopted the child's older biological sister, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Society's decision refusing their application to adopt the child.

The Society had supported placing the child with a kinship family after a court ordered temporary placement with them.

The Board found that the Society placed too much weight on the temporary court order and failed to adequately consider the kinship family's history of child protection involvement, financial instability, and parenting limitations.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to be placed for adoption with the applicants, allowing the child to grow up with her biological sister in a stable environment.

The Society's decision was rescinded and the child was ordered placed with the applicants.