Barbara Burton

A child protection case involving two young children apprehended at birth due to parental neglect, domestic violence, and unsafe living conditions.

The Children's Aid Society sought a Crown wardship order.

The parents opposed this, with the mother seeking return of the children under supervision and the father proposing placement with his mother and sister.

Following a mini-trial to address genuine issues regarding parenting capacity, the court granted Crown wardship without access to the biological parents, finding that the children's best interests were served by permanent placement for adoption with their foster parents.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order making her youngest child a Crown ward without access.

The child had been apprehended at birth.

A parenting capacity assessment concluded there was a serious risk of neglectful parenting due to the mother's severe intellectual limitations and personality traits, despite her commitment and efforts to improve.

The appeal court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's findings that the child was in need of protection, that supervision was unworkable, and that access would not be meaningful or beneficial to the child.

The appeal was dismissed.

This is a child protection case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving two young children apprehended at birth due to deplorable living conditions, lack of prenatal care, domestic violence, and parental capacity concerns.

The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship with no access for adoption purposes.

The parents sought return of the children to the mother's care, with the father seeking alternative return to his care.

The court found that a parenting capacity assessment report constituted a genuine issue requiring trial determination and ordered a "mini-trial" under Rule 16(6.2) of the Family Law Rules to hear evidence from the psychologist and the parents before deciding whether a full trial was necessary.

The applicant spouse brought a motion seeking interim spousal and child support, enforcement of a prior case conference order requiring financial disclosure and property appraisal, and potential sale of the matrimonial home.

The court declined to determine retroactive spousal support on the limited record but ordered prospective interim spousal support based on the respondent’s estimated reduced income from a new business venture.

Child support was ordered for one child whom the respondent had treated as his own despite not being the biological parent, while entitlement for another child was left contingent on proof of full-time educational attendance.

The court also ordered compliance timelines for financial disclosure, confirmation of insurance beneficiary designation, appraisal of the matrimonial home, and confirmation of health benefits coverage.

The father appealed and the Children's Aid Society cross-appealed a motion judge's decision on a summary judgment motion for Crown Wardship.

The motion judge had found a triable issue regarding the mother but effectively granted summary judgment against the father, limiting his participation at trial.

On appeal, the Superior Court found the motion judge erred in law by failing to properly apply the summary judgment test, instead dismissing the motion to give the mother a 'last chance' to improve her parenting.

The court allowed the Society's cross-appeal, set aside the motion judge's decision, and granted summary judgment for Crown Wardship without access to either parent.