Ruth Ann Schedlich

The applicants applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of a Children's Aid Society decision refusing their application to adopt a two-year-old child.

The Society had approved both the applicants and another family as adoptive parents, but chose the other family because they had previously adopted the child's half-sibling.

The Board found that the child had special needs, including a global developmental delay, and that the applicants were better equipped to address these needs and to maintain the child's existing relationship with her maternal grandmother.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered that the child be placed for adoption with the applicants.

The applicant filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board against the Children's Aid Society of Algoma, alleging that the Society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for its decisions regarding the interviewing of her children and an investigation into a child attending her daycare.

The Board found that the Society's Internal Complaint Review Panel had properly heard the applicant's concerns and provided adequate reasons for its actions.

The Board noted that the applicant was not entitled to be heard regarding the daycare child as she was not the parent, but the Society had nonetheless provided written reasons.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to rescind the children's aid society's decision refusing her application to adopt her nephew, a Crown ward.

The society refused to proceed with a homestudy due to the applicant's significant child welfare history, which included verified reports of neglect and parent-child conflict involving her own children.

The Board found that the applicant lacked insight into her past parenting issues and had not demonstrated any positive change in her parenting abilities.

Concluding that the applicant could not meet the child's physical, mental, and emotional needs, the Board determined that the placement was not in the child's best interests and confirmed the society's decision.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society regarding its handling of her child protection concerns about the children's father.

She alleged the Society failed to investigate promptly, limited the scope of its investigation, and failed to hear her or provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society adequately heard the applicant and provided reasons for its ultimate investigation conclusions.

However, the Board found the Society failed to provide reasons at the time it initially decided not to investigate her original complaint.

As fulsome reasons were provided during the hearing, the Board made no further order and dismissed the remaining complaints.

The applicants filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging that the Society failed to hear their service concerns and did not provide reasons for decisions regarding the safety of their child in the care of the biological father.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society had held multiple meetings with the applicants to address their concerns and explain its decisions.

The Board concluded that the Society appropriately focused on the child's wellbeing and had provided the required explanations.

The application was dismissed.

The applicant filed an application alleging that the Children's Aid Society failed to provide her with an opportunity to be heard regarding her concerns about a social worker and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Board found that the Society had responded to the applicant's concerns in a variety of ways, including scheduling regular phone contact, assigning a new worker, and attempting to address the concerns through discussions with a supervisor.

The Board concluded that the Society met its obligations under the Child and Family Services Act and dismissed the application.

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 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 child applied for a review of his emergency admission to a secure treatment program at Youthdale Treatment Centres under section 124(9) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board reviewed the evidence of the child's escalating behaviours, including threats of self-harm, threats to others, substance abuse, and repeated AWOLs from less restrictive placements.

The Board found that the child had a mental disorder and met all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act.

The application for release was dismissed.

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

The Society had imposed conditions requiring supervised access and a psychiatric assessment after the mother was briefly hospitalized.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society failed to consult the mother before imposing conditions, failed to properly address her concerns about her baby's health, and failed to assist her when she experienced delays in obtaining the required psychiatric assessment.

The Board ordered the Society to provide a detailed written explanation to the mother regarding these failures.

The Applicant mother filed an application with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to hear her concerns and provide reasons for decisions affecting her interests.

The Board found that the society met its obligations regarding the reduction of access visits and timely responses from workers.

However, the Board found that the society failed to meet its obligations regarding the disclosure of confidential drug test results to the mother's sister and failing to address concerns about the child's health, specifically a burn scar and the use of cloth diapers.

The society was ordered to provide detailed written reasons on these issues.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear his concerns regarding parental alienation syndrome, gender bias, and a conflict of interest involving his ex-wife, and failed to provide reasons for its decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the society did not meaningfully engage with the applicant's concerns or provide adequate explanations for its actions.

The Board ordered the society to provide a detailed written explanation addressing the applicant's concerns, its conflict of interest policy, and its position on parental alienation syndrome.

The Applicant, a foster mother, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt two young sisters who had been in her care.

The Society had matched the children with another family, citing a preference for a two-parent home with employment income rather than foster per diem income.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision, finding that the Applicant had successfully met the children's special needs, provided a stable and loving home, and had sufficient financial means.

The Board ordered that the children be placed for adoption with the Applicant as it was in their best interests.

The applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society, alleging it failed to hear him and failed to provide reasons for decisions affecting his interests.

The Society had investigated the father's concerns about the mother and child, during which the mother made allegations of domestic violence against the father.

The Society verified the domestic violence allegations and wrote a letter to a doctor stating the mother had a history of domestic violence and the father posed a serious risk, without giving the father an opportunity to be heard or providing reasons for these decisions.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found in favour of the applicant, concluding the Society breached its duties under the Child and Family Services Act, and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its decisions.

The 14-year-old applicant applied for a review of her emergency admission to a secure treatment program at the respondent facility.

The Board considered whether the applicant met the criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, specifically whether she had a mental disorder.

The Board found insufficient evidence to establish a mental disorder, noting the absence of a medical diagnosis and finding that the applicant's behavioural issues and conflicts with her mother did not demonstrate a gross impairment of her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

As the first criterion was not met, the Board ordered the applicant's release.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Hamilton Children's Aid Society regarding its handling of child protection investigations involving his son.

He alleged the Society failed to hear his concerns about the maternal family, failed to explain its finding that the child was at risk of emotional harm in his care, and failed to address his complaints about a specific worker.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the Society adequately heard and explained its decisions regarding the emotional harm finding and the subsequent investigation into the maternal family.

However, the Board found the Society failed to hear the Applicant's concerns about the worker and ordered the Society to provide detailed written reasons for its decision to keep the worker on the file.

The Applicant father filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging it failed to hear his concerns regarding the care of his sons by his ex-spouse, and failed to consult him or provide reasons when it apprehended his sons following his ex-spouse's arrest.

The Child and Family Services Review Board dismissed the complaints regarding the Society's response to his earlier concerns, finding the Society had investigated and communicated its findings.

However, the Board found the Society breached the Child and Family Services Act by failing to give the Applicant an opportunity to be heard regarding a safety plan before apprehending the children, ordering the Society to provide written reasons for this failure.

The applicant sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt two children.

The applicant, a close friend of the children's biological mother, argued she should be considered a kinship placement.

The Society opposed the application, citing concerns that the applicant would not maintain boundaries between the children and the biological mother, who had been denied access due to child protection concerns.

The Board affirmed the Society's decision, finding that the children's best interests were served by remaining with their current foster parents, who provided continuity of care, supported their Native culture, and posed no safety risks regarding the biological mother.

The applicant mother filed an application against the children's aid society, alleging it failed to hear her and provide reasons for its decisions during a four-month child protection investigation.

The investigation was initiated after the applicant received a mental health diagnosis following the birth of her child, but was ultimately closed with no protection concerns found.

At the hearing, the parties reached a consent resolution.

The Board ordered the society to provide a written report detailing the reasons for all of its decisions affecting the applicant during the investigation.