Theresa Hughes

The applicants, who were the child's foster parents for nearly three years, applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board to review the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse their adoption application and remove the child from their home.

The Society had decided to place the child with another foster family who was caring for the child's half-siblings, prioritizing sibling reunification.

The Board found that the Society failed to provide proper notice of the removal and failed to make full disclosure.

On the merits, the Board determined that it was in the child's best interests to be returned to the applicants' home and adopted by them, given the child's strong attachment to the applicants, the trauma of the disruption, and concerns about the alternative family's commitment to adopting the siblings.

The applicants, who were foster parents, sought a review of the children's aid society's decision to refuse their application to adopt a child who had lived with them for 22 months.

The society had removed the child and refused the adoption due to a verified child protection concern regarding unexplained bruising on another foster child in the applicants' care.

The Board found the society's investigation was significantly flawed and concluded the bruising was likely the result of accidental infliction of harm during a game.

Determining that the applicants posed no risk of harm and that the child was strongly attached to them, the Board rescinded the society's decision and ordered the child placed with the applicants for adoption.

The applicants, foster parents to three young children, applied to adopt them.

The adoption process was halted and the respondent Society decided to remove the children and refuse the adoption application after the foster father disclosed a historical incident of sexual abuse from when he was 20 years old.

The foster father moved out of the home, underwent a sexual offender risk assessment which found him to be at low risk, and engaged in counselling.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the Society's decisions, finding that the risk of harm from breaking the children's strong attachments to the applicants outweighed the low risk of future abuse, and ordered that the adoption homestudy proceed.

The applicant foster parent sought a review of the respondent agency's decision to refuse her application to adopt a Métis child who had been in her care since birth.

The agency had refused the application in order to place the child with a younger half-sibling's adoptive family to foster a sibling bond.

The Child and Family Services Review Board rescinded the agency's decision, finding that removing the child from the only family she had ever known would cause unnecessary trauma.

The Board concluded that the child's best interests, including her emotional needs, continuity of care, and cultural connection to the Métis community, were best served by remaining with the applicant, while maintaining access with the half-sibling.

The applicant, the maternal aunt of two young children in extended society care, sought a review of the Children's Aid Society's decision to refuse her application to adopt them.

The children had been living with a kinship/foster caregiver for a year and had strong ties to their paternal extended family.

The Child and Family Services Review Board confirmed the Society's decision, finding that moving the children to the applicant's care would disrupt their stable environment, sever their established parental bond with their current caregiver, and cause significant emotional harm, and that remaining in their current placement was in their best interests.

The applicant applied to the Child and Family Services Review Board under s. 68(5) of the Child and Family Services Act, alleging the respondent society failed to comply with the Internal Complaint Review Panel (ICRP) process.

The applicant argued the society did not provide reasons for decisions related to an investigation into allegations against him.

The Board found that while the society generally complied with the ICRP process, it failed to explain why it made a verification decision before receiving certain interview transcripts and why it did not interview the child's peers.

The application was granted in part, and the society was ordered to provide written reasons on those two issues.