Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to provide reasons for its decision to contact his friend.

The society's worker had contacted the friend after receiving a report that her granddaughter was visiting the applicant unsupervised, while his access to his own children was supervised.

The Board found that the worker had provided sufficient explanation to the applicant during their telephone conversation, given her limited knowledge of his file and the fact that no specific personal information was disclosed.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant, a 14-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release from an emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the child suffered from a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments, resulting in substantial threats of serious bodily harm to herself and others.

Concluding that the secure treatment program was necessary and no less restrictive method was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application for release.

The Applicant, the maternal grandmother of a child placed with paternal grandparents, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Society failed to hear her service concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions regarding her request for a kinship placement.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over the service concerns as the Applicant was not a 'parent' under the Act at the relevant time.

However, the Board allowed the application in part, finding the Society breached the Act by providing inconsistent messages and failing to provide clear reasons for its placement decisions between December 2011 and May 2012.

The applicant, a youth in the care of the Children's Aid Society, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The Board reviewed the evidence of the youth's escalating self-harming and aggressive behaviours, as well as her mental health challenges.

The Board found that all statutory criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met, including that the youth had a mental disorder, posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The Applicant mother filed a complaint against the Society under the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding her child, a Crown ward.

The Applicant raised issues concerning the Society's communication about the child's potential return to her care, the reasons preventing the return, and the child's relocation with his foster family to another county.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the Society had clearly communicated its position not to support the child's return and had adequately explained the reasons for the child's relocation.

The applicant, a 13-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review her emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

The child had a history of severe substance abuse, running away, self-harm, and a serious suicide attempt.

The Board found that the child met all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, including having a mental disorder that caused her to attempt or threaten serious bodily harm, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

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

The child had a history of aggressive and self-harming behaviours, including suicide attempts, and had been diagnosed with a learning disability, intermittent explosive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the child met all the statutory criteria for emergency admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, including having a mental disorder that caused a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself or others, and that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa regarding its alleged failure to follow court orders concerning reintegration and access to his children, and alleging that a crown wardship order was based on false testimony.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were decided by or before the courts.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding it had no jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act to review complaints about matters that have been decided by or are currently before the court.

The applicants, foster parents to two special needs boys, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the children's removal by the Durham Children's Aid Society.

The Society removed the children after substantiating allegations that the foster mother used inappropriate physical discipline, including banging the older boy's head on the floor.

The Board found that the foster mother had used physical force and that there was a risk of future physical harm.

Concluding that the children's physical and emotional needs could not be met in the foster home, the Board determined it was not in their best interests to be returned and confirmed the Society's decision to remove them.

The applicant grandmother filed an application under the Child and Family Services Act regarding service complaints about the respondent society's handling of her request for contact with her granddaughter.

Following a preliminary decision confirming the Board's jurisdiction, a hearing on the merits commenced.

Prior to the completion of the hearing, the parties reached an agreement and the applicant withdrew her application.

The file was subsequently closed.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to provide reasons for its decision not to return her nephew to her care pending a treatment placement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a hearing on the merits.

The Board found that the society had provided the applicant with sufficiently detailed and timely reasons during multiple meetings and phone calls, explaining why the group home was better equipped to handle the child's needs and addressing the applicant's health and safety.

The application was dismissed.

The Applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to listen to her concerns regarding her child's safety while living with the father, and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

Following an oral hearing, the Board found that the Society failed to adequately investigate and communicate with the Applicant regarding several safety concerns, including the child's alcohol use, school absences, and a stalking incident.

The Board also found the Society failed to include the Applicant in planning for the child's placement after apprehension.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for its decisions on these matters.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent society's failure to follow the internal complaint process and provide reasons for its decision following an investigation.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the matter.

The Board determined that the society failed to comply with the mandatory timelines and procedures under the Child and Family Services Act and Regulation 494/06, including failing to determine eligibility and establish an Internal Complaints Review Panel.

The Board ordered the society to immediately comply with the complaint review procedure and proceed with a hearing.

The applicants, who had fostered the child for nearly three years, applied to adopt him.

The Children's Aid Society refused the application based on a SAFE homestudy that raised concerns about the applicants' home condition, finances, and other personal factors.

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the refusal.

The Board found that the Society's concerns were either unfounded or overstated, and that the applicants had successfully met the child's significant developmental needs.

Emphasizing the importance of continuity of care and the strong bond formed, the Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to be adopted by the applicants.

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

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 a child.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the child be placed for adoption with the applicants, with reasons to follow.

The applicant grandmother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear her concerns, provide reasons for decisions, and comply with complaint review procedures regarding her grandchildren's care and a worker's conduct.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that while the Society appropriately responded to requests for help with one grandchild, it failed to hear concerns or provide reasons regarding the safety of the younger grandchild following an alleged assault.

The Board also found the Society failed to comply with the statutory internal complaint review procedures.

The Board ordered the Society to provide detailed written explanations and engage its complaint review process.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society regarding its handling of her mental health issues, a community caregiver investigation that led to the suspension of her driver's license, and her unemployment.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the application, finding that the society met its statutory obligations under the Child and Family Services Act to hear the applicant's concerns and provide reasons for its decisions at each step of its involvement.

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

The child had a history of escalating dangerous behaviours, including self-harm, cutting, and climbing to dangerous heights at night.

The Board applied the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act and found that the child had a mental disorder that caused a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to himself.

The Board concluded that the secure treatment program would be effective in preventing further harm, that appropriate treatment was available, and that no less restrictive method was appropriate.

The child's application for release was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to respond to his complaint in a timely manner and failed to hear his concerns regarding the unauthorized access of his confidential adoption file by his former spouse, a society employee.

The Board found that the society breached its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act by failing to respond to the complaint within the required timeframe and by failing to meaningfully investigate and communicate with the applicant regarding the privacy breach.

The application was allowed in part, though no further orders were necessary as the society validated the applicant's allegations during the hearing.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding an investigation conducted by the respondent children's aid society.

The Board found that while the applicants did receive a child welfare service in the form of an investigation, it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application.

Because the applicants had commenced a civil action in the Superior Court of Justice raising the same issues regarding the society's conduct during the investigation, the matter was 'before the court' under section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act.