Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant mother filed complaints against the Children and Family Services of York Region regarding its investigation into her allegations that the father sexually abused their child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints relating to the Society's handling of a tape recording and its failure to provide reasons, finding it lacked jurisdiction because those issues had been dealt with in prior court proceedings.

The Board also dismissed a complaint about file inaccuracies because the applicant had not exhausted the Society's internal complaint procedure.

Finally, the Board dismissed the complaint that the Society failed to give the applicant an opportunity to be heard, finding that the Society had met with her and adequately explained its actions.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society of Toronto under section 68.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the Society failed to hear his concerns regarding his children in foster care.

The Board dismissed the complaint regarding the children's placement in the same foster home, finding the Society adequately investigated the father's concerns of an inappropriate relationship.

However, the Board found the Society failed to hear the father's concerns regarding his exclusion from the children's Plan of Care and certain issues regarding his son's care, including access to pornography and conflicts with the foster mother.

As the father had now received reasons through the hearing process, no further remedy was ordered.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the children's aid society failed to provide reasons for seeking crown wardship of her child without access.

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the issue had already been decided by the court in the child protection proceedings.

The Board found that the society's reasons for seeking crown wardship were squarely before the court during the summary judgment motion, which resulted in a crown wardship order.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act and granted the society's motion.

The applicant grandmother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding the respondent Society's handling of her request for a kin placement of her grandchild.

The Society argued the application was identical to one previously dismissed by the Board in 2008.

The Board found that the subject matter of the complaint had already been decided and that there were no new circumstances involving the Society.

The application was dismissed.

The mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board to review complaints against the Society following the apprehension of her child.

The Society brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues were before the court in a Crown Wardship proceeding.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding it had jurisdiction to hear the complaints.

The Board held that its mandate to review whether the Society listened to the mother and provided reasons for its decisions is distinct from the court's mandate to make substantive child protection and access decisions.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's investigation into allegations of excessive use of force against his children.

The Applicant argued the Society failed to hear his concerns regarding parental alienation, failed to conduct a proper investigation, and failed to notify his Native Band promptly.

The Board found that the Society failed to follow mandatory child protection standards during its investigation by not interviewing other adults in the home, thereby failing to hear the Applicant.

The Board ordered a note reflecting this decision be placed on the Applicant's file.

The remaining complaints regarding reasons for decisions and Band notification were dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding services she received from the Women Abuse program at the Jewish Family and Child Service.

The Board held an oral hearing to determine whether it had jurisdiction over the matter.

The Board found that its jurisdiction under the Child and Family Services Act is limited to complaints regarding services sought or received from a Children's Aid Society.

Because the complaint related to a community service program rather than the child protection arm of the agency, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the application.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions regarding the placement and treatment of her children in care.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the matters were before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the Society, not the court, was the decision-maker regarding specific placements and services.

On the merits, the Board found the Society failed to comply with its statutory obligations to listen to the applicant and provide reasons for its decisions regarding foster care, group home placement, access, and kinship options.

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

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board regarding a decision of the respondent society's Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP).

The applicant alleged that the ICRP failed to hear his 39 complaints, failed to address them in its written summary, and was improperly constituted.

The Board found that while the ICRP was properly constituted under the legislation, it failed to hear the applicant's concerns and failed to provide a written summary that addressed them.

The Board ordered the society to conduct a new ICRP meeting to hear all concerns and to provide a detailed written summary with reasons for its decisions.

The applicants sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a two-year-old child with special needs.

The applicants had recently adopted the child's half-sister.

The Society argued it was in the child's best interests to be adopted by her foster parents, who had cared for her since birth.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the applicants could better meet the child's need for individualized attention and that placing the siblings together was in the child's best interests.

The applicants requested the Board review the respondent Society's written reasons for its involvement with their family to determine compliance with a previous Board order.

The Board found that the Society's reasons lacked sufficient detail regarding the specific concerns about the applicants' ability to parent, how those concerns were investigated, and the conclusions reached.

The Board held that the Society failed to comply with the previous order and directed the Society to provide detailed answers to specific questions within 14 days.

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

The admitting facility argued the child met the criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act due to depression and risky behaviors, including unprotected sex and running away.

The Board found that while the child had a provisional diagnosis of depression, her behaviors were a reaction to her parents' separation and did not constitute a mental disorder that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board concluded the criteria for admission were not met and ordered the child's release.

The 10-year-old applicant child applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres.

The child had a history of severe physical aggression, violent outbursts, and complex mental health issues, including PTSD and ADHD.

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

Finding that the child had a mental disorder, posed a substantial threat of serious bodily harm, required the secure program to prevent harm, had appropriate treatment available at the facility, and had exhausted less restrictive community alternatives, the Board concluded all criteria were met and denied the application for release.

The 15-year-old applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to be released from a secure treatment program.

The applicant argued that her admission was invalid due to a procedural defect on the admission form and that she did not meet the statutory criteria for secure treatment.

The Board found that the admission form was validly signed by a delegated psychiatrist.

The Board also found that the applicant met all five criteria for emergency admission under the Child and Family Services Act, noting her substantial disorder of emotional processes, threats of self-harm, and the lack of less restrictive community alternatives.

The application for release was denied.

The applicants filed complaints against the Halton Children's Aid Society regarding the care of their 15-year-old son under a Temporary Care Agreement.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to comply with its statutory obligations to involve the parents in a Plan of Care meeting and to listen to their concerns about a specific social worker.

The Board also found that the Society failed to provide accurate reasons for refusing to extend the Temporary Care Agreement beyond the child's sixteenth birthday.

However, the Board dismissed complaints regarding the provision of therapeutic services and the handling of sexual assault allegations against the child.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent failed to provide reasons for a decision regarding the assignment of a worker in a Woman Abuse program.

The respondent argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction because the services were provided by a community agency, not a 'society' under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the Woman Abuse program was a community program outside the mandate of a children's aid society.

Consequently, the Board concluded it did not have jurisdiction to hear the application and dismissed it.

The Applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the internal complaints process conducted by the Children's Aid Society.

The Applicant alleged that the Society formed a negative opinion of him without giving him an opportunity to be heard, which negatively impacted his custody proceedings.

The Board found that the Society's internal complaints review panel erred in concluding that the Applicant's concerns were outside its mandate.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a clear and detailed written response to the Applicant's concerns.

The applicant grandmother applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Catholic Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt her four-year-old grandson.

The child had been in foster care and a previous kinship adoption had broken down.

The Society had matched the child with a new adoptive family of a different cultural background who were ready immediately.

The majority of the Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that the child's immediate need for a secure, permanent placement outweighed the benefits of a culturally matched placement with the grandmother, given the delay required to assess her application.

A dissenting member would have rescinded the decision to allow the grandmother's application to proceed.

The applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to provide reasons for obtaining an Adoptability Report and that the report contained inaccuracies.

The Society was seeking a court order to make the child a Crown ward for the purpose of adoption, and the Adoptability Report was prepared for and was before the court in that proceeding.

The Board dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act because the subject of the complaint was an issue currently before the court.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking a review of the respondent Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) process and decision.

The applicant alleged that the Society failed to adequately investigate historical allegations of sexual abuse concerning her daughters and that the ICRP's written summary did not meaningfully address her concerns.

The Board found that while the ICRP provided the applicant a full opportunity to be heard, the resulting written summary lacked sufficient detail regarding the Society's investigations and conclusions.

The Board directed the Society to provide the applicant with a detailed written explanation of its reasoning and decision-making regarding the historical abuse allegations.