Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, alleging the society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding her children's care.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society did not fully exercise its legislated responsibility to hear the applicant or provide reasons for its decisions following a March 2014 meeting.

The Board ordered the society to arrange a face-to-face meeting to hear the applicant's concerns and to provide written reasons for any subsequent decisions.

A second complaint regarding the worker's behaviour was dismissed as being beyond the Board's mandate.

The applicant, a paternal grandmother, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Children's Aid Society's handling of referrals she made concerning her grandchild's mother.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction.

The Board determined that its jurisdiction to hear complaints from non-parents is limited to individuals who have sought or received services from the Society.

Because the applicant merely made a referral and did not seek or receive services for herself, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

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

The applicant alleged that the society failed to properly hear her concerns regarding inaccuracies in her file and failed to provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the society had met its obligations to hear the applicant and provide written reasons for its conclusions, with the exception of one outstanding issue regarding the removal of a child's name from the record.

The Board ordered the society to provide a written decision and reasons on that specific issue within 14 days.

The applicant grandparents applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the children's aid society failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision to reduce and subsequently terminate their access to their grandchildren.

The Board found that while the society made bona fide efforts to explain its decision, it failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the child welfare history and family conflict it relied upon.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed written explanation answering specific questions to fulfill its statutory obligation.

The Applicant filed a complaint against the Halton Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for its decisions during a child abuse investigation.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed four specific complaints, including the Society's interview of the child at school and alleged inaccuracies in its records.

The Board found that the Society had adequately heard the Applicant's concerns and provided detailed reasons for its decisions.

The complaints within the Board's mandate were dismissed, and the Applicant was directed to the Internal Complaint Review Procedure for record inaccuracy claims.

The Applicant sought a compliance decision regarding a previous Board order requiring the Society to move her to a treatment foster home, consult with her about the placement, and refer her to a children's health program.

The Board found that the Society failed to comply with the placement and consultation aspects of the order, as the new foster home did not meet the criteria for a treatment foster home and the Society did not adequately consider the Applicant's views.

The Board found the Society did comply with the referral requirement.

The Board issued further orders directing the Society to locate an appropriate treatment foster home and properly consult with the Applicant.

The Applicant, a mother whose child was subject to a crown wardship order with no access, brought an application alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her or provide reasons regarding the child's out-of-province kin placement and its communications with police.

The Society argued it was not obliged to consult the Applicant due to the crown wardship order and child protection concerns.

The Board found that the Society failed to meet its statutory obligations to hear the Applicant and provide reasons regarding the kin placement and her service concerns about the police.

The Board ordered the Society to receive and genuinely consider the Applicant's written input regarding the kin placement and to provide a detailed written response.

The 14-year-old applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The admission was sought due to his violent and aggressive behaviour at home, which led to his apprehension by the Children's Aid Society.

The Board found that while the applicant had a mental disorder and posed a risk of harm, the criterion requiring that no less restrictive method of treatment be appropriate was not met.

The applicant's behaviour had stabilized in an open custody facility prior to admission, and alternative non-secure treatment options had not been adequately explored.

The Board ordered the applicant's release.

The applicant grandfather sought to review the Society's refusal of his application to adopt his grandchild.

The Society brought a motion to dismiss the application for lack of jurisdiction, arguing the child was not yet a Crown ward and therefore not available for adoption.

The Board found it had jurisdiction under section 144(1) of the Child and Family Services Act, as the provision does not require the child to be a Crown ward before a refusal can be reviewed.

However, because a summary judgment motion for Crown wardship was scheduled for the following month, the Board adjourned the application to avoid planning in a vacuum.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society failed to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her son's care in a foster home.

The Board found that the Society failed to meaningfully engage with the Applicant regarding her concerns about her son's daily care, improperly directed her not to criticize the foster parents, and continued to videotape her access visits without valid consent while refusing to provide her with copies.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its decisions regarding the videotaping.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns or provide explanations for decisions affecting her interests, specifically by ignoring a letter she faxed.

The Board found that the Society breached its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by failing to respond to the Applicant's letter, even though a child protection application was being prepared.

However, because the Society apologized and provided reasons prior to the hearing, the Board declined to issue a formal order.

The applicants, experienced foster parents, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove a nine-year-old foster child from their care.

The child, who had complex special needs and trauma, had lived with the applicants for three years and developed a strong attachment to them.

The Society argued the child was thriving in a new placement with improved sleep and independence.

The Board found that breaking the child's emotional bonds with the applicants could jeopardize his future relationships and place him at serious risk of losing his attachment gains.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered the child returned to the applicants' care.

Two sets of applicants commenced separate applications under s. 144 of the Child and Family Services Act regarding the adoption refusal of the same child.

On consent of all parties, the Board ordered that the applications be joined and proceed together to a hearing.

The Board also issued a confidentiality order prohibiting the disclosure of any Board documents or information outside of the proceedings.

The Applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions to keep her file open and refuse her a copy of a video recording.

The Board found that the Society did not engage in meaningful discussion with the Applicant regarding her concerns that referrals were malicious, nor did it provide adequate reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations and reasons to the Applicant.

The Applicant, a youth in care, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under section 36 of the Child and Family Services Act for a review of her residential placement at a group home.

The Applicant sought to be moved closer to her family and to a placement that better addressed her needs and cultural heritage.

The Society argued the group home was necessary due to the Applicant's sexualized behaviour and trauma.

The Board found that the group home was not an appropriate placement, as it failed to meet the Applicant's clinical, cultural, and emotional needs, and ordered her discharged to a less restrictive treatment foster home closer to her community.

The applicant, father of a Crown Ward, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the respondent society's Internal Complaints Review Panel (ICRP) process.

The applicant alleged the ICRP failed to adequately address his concerns regarding access, information sharing, and proper process.

The Board found the ICRP process deficient, as the written summary provided to the applicant lacked detail and failed to demonstrate his concerns were heard or to provide adequate reasons for the society's decisions.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed written explanation addressing each of the applicant's specific concerns.

The Child and Family Services Review Board issued an order following a hearing regarding the Children's Aid Society of Simcoe County's refusal of the applicants' application to adopt a child.

The Board confirmed the Society's refusal of the adoption application and its decision to remove the child from the adoption placement with the applicants pursuant to section 144(11) of the Child and Family Services Act.

Written reasons for the decision were to follow.

The Applicant mother filed an application alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to hear her or provide reasons for its decisions regarding a child protection referral she made about her child's father.

The Board found that the Society failed to hear the Applicant during the investigation process, ignored mandatory standards to observe the child with the father, and failed to provide meaningful reasons for its decision to verify risk based on custody conflict rather than the mother's allegations.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons answering specific questions about its investigation and verification decisions.

The Applicant filed an application under section 36(1) of the Child and Family Services Act to review her residential placement.

Following a multi-day hearing, the Child and Family Services Review Board ordered the Applicant discharged from her current group home.

The Board directed the Society to place the Applicant in a treatment foster home with necessary support services and to consult her regarding the new placement.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to hear his concerns or provide reasons regarding the use of his and his deceased mother's information in court proceedings.

The Society brought a motion to dismiss the application, arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were subject to an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the court ruled on the admissibility of the documents, it did not decide the service-related issues of whether the Society met its statutory obligations to hear the Applicant and provide reasons.