Ruth Ann Schedlich

The applicants sought a review of the society's decision to permanently remove three foster children from their home, later narrowing their request to the return of one child.

The society had removed the children due to verified child protection concerns, specifically a lack of supervision and the primary caregiver's personal problems.

The Child and Family Services Review Board found that the applicants failed to adequately supervise the children on numerous occasions and that the primary caregiver's personal challenges prevented her from meeting the child's mental and emotional needs.

The Board concluded it was in the child's best interests not to be returned to the applicants' home and confirmed the society's decision.

The 15-year-old applicant applied for a review of her 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 high-risk behaviours, self-harm, suicidal ideation, and hallucinations.

The Board found that all five criteria for admission under section 124(2) of the Act were met, including that the child has a mental disorder, poses a substantial threat of serious bodily harm to herself, and that no less restrictive method of treatment is appropriate.

The application for release was dismissed.

The applicant filed a complaint with the Child and Family Services Review Board alleging that the respondent society failed to respond to a letter regarding abuse allegations in foster care.

At the hearing, the Board considered the preliminary issue of whether the society had actually received the letter.

The applicant provided no documentary or corroborating evidence to prove the letter was faxed or received, while the society's logs showed no record of it.

The Board dismissed the complaint, finding the applicant failed to meet the onus of proving the letter was sent and received.

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

The Society brought a motion challenging the Board's jurisdiction, arguing that the issues were before the court in an ongoing child protection proceeding.

Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in D.D., the Board found it had jurisdiction to hear the service-related complaints (1-11) because they were not substantive child protection issues decided by or before the court.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction over complaint 12, which was an employment matter subject to the Labour Relations Act.

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

The Board found that the admission criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act were not met, specifically because there was insufficient evidence that the applicant had a mental disorder at the time of admission.

The Board excluded hearsay medical documents as procedurally unfair since the authors were not available for cross-examination.

The Board ordered the applicant's release.

The applicants sought a review of the Society's decision to refuse their application to adopt their granddaughter.

The Society challenged the Board's jurisdiction, arguing the application was filed outside the 10-day statutory limit and that the issues were already before the court in a child protection proceeding.

The Board found it had jurisdiction, ruling that the 10-day limit was not triggered because the Society's refusal notice failed to adequately inform the applicants of their review rights.

Furthermore, the Board held that its jurisdiction to review an adoption refusal is distinct from the court's jurisdiction in a child protection proceeding.

The child, a 14-year-old ward 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 criteria under section 124(2) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board found that the facility failed to present strong and compelling evidence that the child had a mental disorder at the time of admission.

The evidence demonstrated that the child engaged in serious risky behaviours, but did not have a substantial disorder of emotional processes that grossly impaired her capacity to make reasoned judgments.

The Board ordered the child's release from the secure treatment program.

The applicants, who were the foster parents of a young child, applied for a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt the child.

The society had planned to place the child with her biological siblings, who had been adopted by an employee of the society.

The Board found that the society had a conflict of interest and failed to properly consider the applicants' application.

The Board rescinded the society's decision and ordered that the child remain with the applicants pending a full and fair assessment of their adoption application by an independent children's aid society.

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 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 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 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 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, a foster parent residing in Saskatchewan, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society of Hamilton's decision to refuse her application to adopt a three-year-old child.

The child had previously lived with the applicant in foster care for two years before being moved to Ontario.

The Society refused the adoption due to concerns about delay, sibling contact, and finances.

The Board found that the Society's concerns were unsubstantiated and that the pre-existing bond between the child and the applicant strongly favoured returning the child to her care.

The Board rescinded the Society's decision and recommended the child be placed with the applicant for adoption.

The applicant father filed complaints against the society regarding the apprehension of his special needs son.

The Board found it lacked jurisdiction to hear complaints about the society's alleged refusal to process written complaints and alleged harassment, as those matters were either before the court or lacked evidentiary foundation.

However, the Board assumed jurisdiction over the complaint regarding the child's apprehension on Christmas Eve.

The Board found that the society failed to provide the applicant with reasons for denying him access and location information during the apprehension, contrary to the Child and Family Services Act.

The society was ordered to provide detailed written reasons for its actions.

The complaint regarding the child's nutrition was dismissed as the hospital was responsible for his care during that period.

The applicants appealed the decision of the Children's Aid Society to remove two foster children from their care.

The Society argued the Board lacked jurisdiction because the applicants' foster home had been closed.

The Board found it had jurisdiction because the applicants were foster parents at the time of the removal.

Applying the best interests of the child test under section 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the Board concluded that returning the children to the applicants' restrictive environment would not be in their best interests, particularly given their need for native cultural exposure and psychological assessment which the Society was funding in their current placement.

The Society's decision to remove the children was confirmed.

The applicant mother filed a complaint against the Children's Aid Society alleging failure to investigate child protection concerns, bias in favour of her former partner, and failure to provide reasons for limiting her access to her child.

The Child and Family Services Review Board reviewed the merits of the application under the Child and Family Services Act.

The Board dismissed the majority of the complaints, finding the Society had investigated concerns and provided reasons.

However, the Board upheld complaints regarding a cancelled access visit when the mother was late, and found the Society was inconsistent and biased in its treatment of the mother compared to the father regarding drug use and child removal.

The applicant foster parent applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board for a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to remove two foster children from her home.

The children had lived with the applicant for over five years.

The Society removed the children after the applicant requested relief due to the older child's escalating behavioural issues.

The Board found that the older child's behaviours were exacerbated by a lack of appropriate supports and that the younger child was negatively impacted by the removal.

Applying the best interests of the child test, the Board rescinded the Society's decision and ordered the immediate return of the younger child and the graduated return of the older child once necessary supports were implemented.