Child and Family Services Review Board

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding its refusal to allow him access to his children, its failure to interview him, and inaccurate information in its files, following the withdrawal of sexual assault charges against him.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters were subject to a separate Director's hearing regarding the Child Abuse Register.

The Board dismissed the jurisdictional motion, finding the complaints related to the Society's files and processes, not the Register itself.

On the merits, the Board found the Society breached the applicant's right to be heard by failing to interview him for its risk assessment, and ordered the Society to conduct an internal review of the file inaccuracies and provide the applicant an interview and written reasons for its decisions.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to act when she raised concerns that her son had been sexually abused.

The respondent brought a motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8) of the Child and Family Services Act because the issues were currently before the court in a related Crown wardship proceeding.

The Board dismissed the motion, finding that while the court would decide custody and access, the specific issue of whether the respondent provided the applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding her abuse concerns was not a matter to be decided by the court.

The Board affirmed its jurisdiction to hear the complaint on its merits.

The applicant filed complaints against the Children's Aid Society regarding the apprehension of his daughter and poor communication.

The Board found that communication had significantly improved and the parties were working productively together, resolving that issue.

Regarding the apprehension, the Board held that the Society appropriately delayed identifying itself until it was safe to do so, given historical concerns and drug use involving the applicant's partner.

The complaints were dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Simcoe County regarding the handling of his child protection case.

The children had previously been made Crown Wards without access following a 63-day trial in the Superior Court of Justice.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the issues raised had already been dealt with by the Court.

The Board agreed, finding that all of the applicant's complaints regarding the child protection worker and the Society's actions were either considered during the trial or fell outside the Board's statutory jurisdiction under the Child and Family Services Act.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society regarding the care and apprehension of her child.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction because the matters raised were before the Court in a Crown wardship application.

The Board held that while it lacked jurisdiction over issues directly before the Court, such as custody, access, and the accuracy of court filings, it retained jurisdiction to review whether the Society followed proper procedures in hearing the applicant's concerns and providing reasons for its decisions.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society failed to hear their concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting their interests.

The society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the matters were currently before the court in a related protection application.

The Board dismissed the society's motion, finding that while the court had jurisdiction over the care and custody of the children, the Board retained jurisdiction to hear complaints regarding the society's failure to provide services, hear concerns, and provide reasons for its decisions.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society failed to investigate his concerns regarding the abuse and parental alienation of his daughters.

The Society brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the matters were currently before the Court in an access dispute.

The Board dismissed the Society's motion, finding that while the Court was dealing with access and the best interests of the children, the Board's jurisdiction pertained to how the Society responded to the father's complaints, which was not a matter before the Court.

The applicants filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board after the Children's Aid Society refused their application to adopt a child and closed their file.

The applicants alleged that the Society failed to provide them with understandable reasons for its decision.

The Board found that while the Society attempted to provide reasons, the written reasons were insufficient and failed to afford the applicants enough information to fully understand the decision.

The Board ordered the Society to provide written reasons in language understandable to the applicants within three months.

The applicants, foster parents to a three-year-old child since birth, appealed the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove the child from their care.

The Society proposed removal after discovering the applicants failed to report that their biological daughter had been sexually abused by a cousin, raising concerns about their parenting capacity and judgment.

Relying on expert evidence regarding attachment theory, the Board found that removing the child would cause severe emotional trauma.

The Board directed the Society not to carry out the removal, concluding it was in the child's best interests to remain with the applicants, though they required additional support to improve their parenting skills.

The applicant father filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent children's aid society discriminated against him by imposing supervised access and withholding contact information for his children.

The respondent brought a preliminary motion arguing the Board lacked jurisdiction under section 68.1(8)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act because the matters were currently before the court in a status review application.

The Board granted the motion in part, finding it lacked jurisdiction over the terms of access and disclosure of contact information, as those issues were before the court.

However, the Board retained jurisdiction to hear the complaint regarding the respondent's facilitation of visits and its obligation to allow the applicant to be heard regarding the services provided.

The applicant, whose child is a Crown ward, filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to communicate with her adequately and did not provide her an opportunity to be heard regarding her concerns.

Following a hearing on the merits, the Board found that the Society had made a thorough effort to keep the applicant informed, responded to her inquiries in a timely manner, and provided requested documents.

The Board concluded that the Society complied with its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act and dismissed the complaint.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board seeking the return of her children, alleging the children's aid society failed to comply with a court order.

The Board dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction, noting that the issue of custody had already been decided by the court when the applicant consented to Crown wardship without access.

Furthermore, the society did not contravene the court decision as the court had not ordered the children returned to the applicant.

The applicants sought to review a decision by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto refusing their application to adopt the biological half-sister of their adopted daughter.

The refusal was based on a negative homestudy conducted by a worker with whom the applicants had a previous negative relationship.

The Board found that the homestudy lacked objectivity and that the notes and data upon which it was based were unavailable.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered a new homestudy to be conducted by a third party in the best interests of the child.

The applicant mother filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board, alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to respond to her complaints regarding a former foster parent's ongoing, unauthorized contact with her daughter.

The Board conducted a written review and found that the Society had actively investigated and responded to the applicant's oral complaints, even though the applicant disagreed with the Society's actions.

As the applicant had not filed a written complaint with the Society, there was no requirement to trigger the formal internal complaint review procedure.

The complaint was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the respondent Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions to place his name on the Child Abuse Register, to remove it, and for keeping his file open.

The applicant had been acquitted of criminal charges related to a child abuse allegation, after which his name was removed from the Register.

The Board found that the Society's initial letter informing the applicant of his placement on the Register lacked adequate reasons and ordered the Society to provide full written reasons detailing the factual basis and social work methodology used.

The Board made no orders regarding the removal decision or the status of the file.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board against two Children's Aid Societies regarding their investigation into allegations against her son.

The Societies brought a preliminary motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the complaint was made prior to November 30, 2006, and thus fell under the transitional provisions of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the complaint was indeed made before the legislative change and that the Societies' internal complaint review procedures had been engaged.

Consequently, the Board concluded it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint and granted the Societies' motion.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the children's aid society failed to provide reasons for its decision regarding an alleged suicide note written by the children's mother.

Following a hearing on the merits, the Board found that while the society had addressed other concerns, it had not provided reasons regarding its follow-up actions on the note.

The Board ordered the society to provide written reasons to the applicant within three months.

The applicant filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to give her an opportunity to be heard when it apprehended her daughter following a report of the applicant's suicide threat.

The applicant argued the Society should have accepted her alternative plan to place the child with a friend over the weekend.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaint, finding the Society acted in a timely fashion, gave the applicant ample opportunity to be heard, and appropriately investigated and implemented a placement with the friend a few days later.

The applicant brought a complaint to the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to provide reasons for its decisions to place his name on the Child Abuse Register, to subsequently remove it, and to keep his file open.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, noting that the decision to place the applicant's name on the Register occurred before the Board acquired jurisdiction over such matters on December 1, 2006.

The Board found it had jurisdiction to review all three decisions, reasoning that procedural fairness required reviewing the initial placement decision in conjunction with the subsequent removal decision, especially since the applicant could not practically complain earlier due to pending criminal charges of which he was ultimately acquitted.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging the Children's Aid Society refused to proceed with his complaint and failed to provide reasons for its decision that his children were not at risk.

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the applicant had not filed a formal internal complaint and that the issues were already before the court in a custody and access proceeding.

The Board dismissed the first complaint because no formal internal complaint was filed, but assumed jurisdiction over the second complaint, finding that child protection issues requiring urgent response are distinct from custody and access matters and were not before the court.