Summary of Issue: For The Purpose Of Adoption

Decision A0136.12 Full Text of Decision A0136.12

The claimant applied for parental benefits to care for her grandson who had been placed with her under a temporary apprehension order by Child and Family Services (CFS). Her daughter, the mother of her grandson, was in the hospital for treatment of mental illness and drug addiction. The claimant’s application was denied by the Commission on the basis that there was no evidence to suggest that her grandson was not placed with her for the purpose of adoption pursuant to section 23 of the EIA. At the hearing before the BOR, she indicated that it was her intention to adopt her grandson. The FCA found that notwithstanding the fact that the claimant had only been granted custody of the child under a temporary order at the time of her EI application, CFS was working with her to allow her to adopt the child, and due to the nature of the mother’s illness, adoption by the claimant was inevitable.

Decision 73214 Full Text of Decision 73214

May 11, 2008, claimant filed parental benefits. She provided a letter from the Children's Aid Society showing that her granddaughter had been placed into her care by a court order on May 26, 2008. The Commission advised that the claimant could not get parental benefits unless the child had been placed permanently in her home effectively, the same as adoption. Although it was the intention of the claimant to adopt her grandchild, the request for permanent custody was not filed until August 10, 2008. That, however, awaited the decision of the parents before permanent custody was granted. That did not take place until they consented on the 10th of December, 2008. Having considered this evidence, I am satisfied that the appeal of the Commission must be allowed as the claimant did not have permanent custody until the 10th of December, 2008 when the birth parents agreed to the adoption by the grandmother.

Decision 72674 Full Text of Decision 72674

The Commission determined that the claimant was not available for work due to her obligation to care for her grandson as ordered by the Court, a disentitlement was imposed. The claimant later indicated that she wanted to apply for parental benefits. The Commission determined that the claimant was not eligible for parental benefits because it was established without ambiguous that the care of a child by order of a Court is not equivalent to a placement for the purpose of adoption. The Commission's appeal is allowed.

Decision 71239 Full Text of Decision 71239

The claimant was denied parental benefits because he had not proven his intention to adopt the child, for which he claimed to have custody, under the provincial legislation. The Board allowed the claimant's appeal, suggesting the claimant met the provisions of the intent of the Act if not the actual application of the Act. The Commission submits the Board exceeded its jurisdiction and failed to properly apply the provisions of s. 23(1). The Commission submits that the purpose of the Act is to provide parental benefits and financial support to a parent while caring for a newborn or adopted child. The legislation is specific and applies to biological or adoptive parents. Therefore, the provisions of the Act were breached by the Board's sympathetic decision which was misguided. The Commission appeal is allowed.

Decision 70214 Full Text of Decision 70214

Claimant filed for parental benefits on February 7, 2003 to care for a child that had been placed as a provisional foster placement by the Children's Aid Society. Mother's rights were terminated on November 24, 2004 and the child was made Crown ward by the court. Parental benefits were only payable to claimant on January 19, 2004 because following the child being made Crown ward there was one month appeal period before the child could be placed for adoption purposes as well as delays in processing the placement.

Decision 54215 Full Text of Decision 54215

The children's mother had given their father, the claimant's common law spouse, temporary custody of the children. No evidence in the agreement that the children have been placed with the claimant. She has no parental right regarding the children. Held that there is no evidence that the children were placed with the claimant "for the purpose of adoption". Adoption does not equal custody.

Decision 53918 Full Text of Decision 53918

A child was placed in the adoptive parent' s hands on Dec. 12, 2000. However, the natural mother is entitled to revoke her consent within 21 days of signing the consent. The revocation period expired on Jan. 8, 2001 and a final order of the Court was issued on that day. Claimant argued that he did not become an adoptive parent until the date of the court order and should therefore be entitled to 35 weeks of parental benefits. Argument rejected. The language of the Act is clear: the triggering event is the date the child is physically placed in the custody of the claimant for adoption, not the date when the Court makes the adoptive parents the actual parents of the child.

Decision 52749 Full Text of Decision 52749

Child placed with the claimant on 2-10-2000 for adoption. Wanting to receive 35 weeks of parental benefits instead of the 10 payable before changes to the legislation, the claimant argued that this date should not be used because the placement was not made pursuant to a placement order, which did not come until later, on 31-12-2000. Deemed that this interpretation would lead to a ridiculous situation and would prevent the legislation from serving its purpose.

Decision 38323 Full Text of Decision 38323

In order to give full and proper effect to the court Order granting the claimant his wife permanent custody of the children, it is necessary to include their situation as one of the situations envisaged, by Parliament, as falling within the purview ofsection 20 of the Act. The children were placed with the claimant and his wife " for the purpose of adoption," and their's is effectively, an adoption situation. To conclude otherwise would not only go against the specific wording of the provision and intent of the legislation, but also would diminish the scope and meaning of another court's legally binding order. **Board applied the test of whether or not the children actually had been adopted by the claimant. However, that is not the test according to the wording of the provision. The correct test is whether or not the children had been placed for the purpose of adoption, rather than whether they had been adopted or not. Board erred in law by applying the incorrect test.**Because there are no legally sanctionned open adoptions in Ontario, a custody order, rather than an adoption order, was deemed appropriate and consistent with the children's best interest, as required by the laws. It provided protection and stability fro the children and allowed contact with their family of origin.

Decision A-0309.96 Full Text of Decision A-0309.96

Grandson's custody granted to claimant. Provincial legislation required that no adoption order may be made in favour of a blood relative unless the child has resided with applicant for at least 6 months. Claimant intended to adopt but had to wait. Umpire allowed it on the "placement" issue. The Commission's application for judicial review was summarily dismissed.

Decision 32948 Full Text of Decision 32948

Refer to summary indexed under FCA A-0309.96

Decision 18705 Full Text of Decision 18705

Claimant is the wife of the child's father. Following court action between the father and the natural mother, custody was awarded to the father and claimant. Child then placed in their home. The Board erred in concluding that there was no difference between custody and adoption.