Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant, a ten-year-old boy, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program.

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

While acknowledging the applicant's behavioral issues and the mother's difficulties, the Board found no evidence that the applicant had caused or threatened to cause serious bodily harm to himself or others.

Consequently, the Board concluded that criterion 124(2)(b) was not met and ordered the applicant's release.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the services provided by Child and Family Services of Timmins and District.

The applicants alleged that the agency failed to provide reasons for decisions and an opportunity to be heard regarding the delayed reopening of their file, the coding used for reassessment, a breach of confidentiality with the applicants' employer, and an unauthorized conversation with their 16-year-old daughter.

The Board found in favour of the applicants, concluding that the agency failed to listen to their concerns and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board ordered the agency to provide detailed written reasons for its actions within 30 days.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto, alleging the Society failed to give him an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for decisions regarding a child protection investigation involving his son.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the complaints were identical to those raised in 2005, triggering transitional provisions.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the applicant had not engaged the formal written complaint procedure in 2005.

On the merits, the Board found the Society failed to provide the applicant with an opportunity to be heard and failed to provide reasons for its decisions, ordering the Society to provide detailed written reasons.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society regarding access to her children, communication, and counselling.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were already decided by or currently before the courts in a status review proceeding.

The Board agreed, finding that the complaints mirrored the issues raised in the applicant's motion for leave to commence a status review.

The application was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to listen to her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her and her son.

The Society did not attend the hearing, arguing the matters were before the court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints related to the child's apprehension and schooling, as those were governed by a consent order.

However, the Board upheld complaints regarding the Society's failure to provide reasons for not notifying the mother when her son ran away from a foster home, and its failure to hear her concerns about her assigned worker.

The Society was ordered to provide written explanations and an opportunity to be heard.

The applicant, a 15-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The Board assessed whether the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder, had made substantial threats to cause serious bodily harm to herself and others, and that the secure treatment program would be effective and appropriate.

Finding that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate, the Board dismissed the application and upheld the admission.

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

The Board assessed whether the five criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were met.

The Board found insufficient evidence that the child had a mental disorder, that she posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others, or that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

As criteria (a), (b), and (e) were not met, the Board allowed the application and ordered the child's release.

The applicants, who were foster parents to a five-year-old child, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision refusing to consider their adoption application.

The Society had refused the application because the applicants were hesitant to adopt the child's younger brother without financial assistance, citing the Society's philosophy of keeping siblings together.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the child had formed a strong, secure attachment to the applicants over 19 months of care and that separating her from them would cause traumatic loss outweighing the long-term benefits of being placed with her brother.

The 14-year-old Aboriginal applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his residential placement, seeking to be moved closer to his home and family.

The applicant had complex needs including ADHD, substance abuse issues, and a history of self-harm, and the current facility was failing to provide adequate cultural programming, individual counselling, or other recommended supports.

Despite finding that the current facility was not meeting the applicant's physical, emotional, and cultural needs, the Board confirmed the placement because no alternative residential placements were available.

The Board strongly recommended that the society transition the applicant to a therapeutic foster home with appropriate Aboriginal programming within three months.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Halton Children's Aid Society under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Board found the Society failed to provide written reasons for its belief that the applicant consumed alcohol while on medication, and for its refusal to allow her daughter to attend summer camp.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons for these two issues.

A third complaint regarding the child's dietary needs was dismissed as the Board found the Society had provided reasons.

The 14-year-old applicant child was admitted to a secure treatment program on an emergency basis.

She applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for release.

At the hearing, after the respondent presented its evidence, the child brought a motion for non-suit.

The Board granted the motion, finding there was no evidence upon which it could reasonably be found that the child posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself or others, or that no less restrictive method of treatment was appropriate.

The Board ordered the child's release.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society after it temporarily suspended her access to her daughter and placed the child with her father.

The applicant alleged the Society failed to listen to her concerns regarding a conflict of interest, parental alienation, and the basis for its risk assessment, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that despite numerous communications, the applicant did not have a clear understanding of the Society's actions.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a written explanation addressing the applicant's specific concerns.

The applicants, paternal grandparents of a child in care, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the Society's refusal to consider them for a kinship placement and denial of access.

At the jurisdiction hearing, the Society conceded the Board had jurisdiction to review the complaints.

The parties subsequently met and resolved the issues, with the applicants receiving a satisfactory explanation regarding the kinship placement and securing access to their grandchild during their son's visits.

The Board concluded no further order was required.

The applicant father, who had supervised access to his child pursuant to a court order, filed internal complaints against the respondent Society regarding the conduct of the access supervisor.

The Society attempted to resolve the complaints informally rather than following the mandatory internal complaint review procedure under the Child and Family Services Act.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board.

The Board found it had jurisdiction over most of the complaints, as they related to the worker's conduct and exercise of discretion, rather than matters decided by the court.

The Board ordered the Society to immediately comply with the statutory complaint review procedure.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society, alleging the Society removed her children without reason and provided false information to the court.

The Board determined it lacked jurisdiction to hear the application under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act, as the issues raised by the applicant had already been decided by the courts in previous child protection proceedings that resulted in Crown wardship orders.

The Applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a one-year-old child, D.B., who is the half-sibling of their adopted son.

The Society refused the application primarily because the Applicants already had seven children, six with special needs, and the Society believed D.B. might have special needs such as FASD or autism requiring undivided attention.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the Applicants had an exceptional track record of managing their children's special needs, had access to extensive community supports, and could provide D.B. with the significant benefit of a sibling bond.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests to be placed with the Applicants for adoption.

The applicant filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to provide reasons for writing a letter stating it would have concerns if he had unsupervised access to his child.

The parties had previously reached a settlement agreement, but the board found the society had not complied with it.

Following a hearing on the merits, the board concluded that the society failed to provide written reasons for a decision affecting the applicant's interests.

The board ordered the society to provide written reasons addressing specific concerns raised by the applicant.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society alleging it failed to hear his concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding supervised access and the children's safety with their mother.

The society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues of access and custody were currently before the court.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding it has jurisdiction to review whether the society met its statutory obligations to listen to the applicant and provide reasons for its own discretionary decisions, distinct from the court's determinations on custody and access.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the respondent children's aid society, alleging failure to provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over five of the six complaints as they were matters before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the complaint that the respondent failed to provide reasons for not implementing recommendations from an Internal Complaint Review Panel regarding access visits.

The Board upheld this complaint and ordered the respondent to provide written reasons.

The applicant mother filed complaints with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the children's aid society regarding the care of her child and the society's failure to listen to her concerns.

The society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the issues were already before the court in an ongoing status review application.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaints regarding the child's fear of the mother and the reasons for supervised access, as these were before the court.

However, the Board determined it had jurisdiction to review complaints about the mother's alleged alcohol consumption, the child's summer camp attendance, and the child's cultural dietary needs, as the society failed to demonstrate these specific issues were before the court.