Christine McLeod

In simultaneous child protection proceedings concerning six siblings, the court found that the five oldest children remained in need of protection and the youngest child was in need of protection under the CYFSA.

The evidence established chronic instability, neglect, exposure to violence, housing insecurity, inadequate hygiene, educational disruption, and failure to address the children’s medical and emotional needs while in parental care.

Applying the statutory best-interests framework, the court held that the oldest child’s best interests were served by a six-month supervision order placing him with his father under continued Society supervision, while the remaining five children should remain in their stable current placements through extended society care orders.

The court also made detailed access orders preserving the children’s beneficial relationships with their parents, siblings, and paternal grandmother.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding a two-and-a-half-year-old child.

Both parents had serious histories of violence for which they were found not criminally responsible, but had since received absolute discharges from the Ontario Review Board and were successfully managing their mental health conditions.

The Society and the parents sought an order returning the child to the parents' care subject to a 12-month supervision order, which the Children's Lawyer opposed.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the catastrophic risk if either parent relapsed, but concluded it was in the child's best interests to be returned to the parents' care with strict supervision terms, as the risk of relapse was low and well-monitored.

The Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex brought a summary judgment motion seeking extended Society care for the child, C. The mother, A.S., and father, R.D., opposed, seeking custody or supervision orders.

The court considered extensive evidence, including a parenting capacity assessment, detailing the parents' substance abuse, unstable lifestyles, criminal records, and lack of insight.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding that neither parent nor the paternal grandmother could provide a safe and stable environment.

The motion was granted, placing the child in extended Society care, with no access ordered for the parents or paternal grandmother, as their relationships were not deemed beneficial or meaningful to the child.

The Children's Aid Society sought a six-month supervision order to place the child C. with the parent Ms. P., partner of the child's father Mr. P. The court, despite significant historical concerns regarding Mr. P.'s domestic violence, criminal record, mental health, and past failures to complete programs, reluctantly approved the order.

The decision was based on the Society's strong recommendation, positive reports of parental cooperation, and the need to avoid moving C. to a new foster home.

The court imposed additional conditions requiring Mr. P. to undergo psychiatric assessment, complete programs, and ensuring Ms. P. supervises all his interactions with both C. and his half-sibling K. Furthermore, Mr. P. was explicitly prohibited from supervising Ms. W.'s (C.'s mother) access.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, multiple motions addressed parenting arrangements and access involving a child residing with the mother under supervision.

The child protection agency sought restrictions preventing the mother’s partner from contact with the child and proposed overnight access with the maternal grandmother.

The maternal grandmother moved for custody or, alternatively, expanded access.

The court found ongoing concerns regarding the mother’s judgment, including exposure of the child to domestic violence and disregard for prior court orders, but concluded that the mother should be given a final opportunity to demonstrate that the child’s safety would be prioritized.

The grandmother’s custody motion was adjourned while access was expanded to include weekly overnight visits and alternate weekend access.

In a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the court considered a motion supported by the society and the mother to place two children in the mother’s temporary care subject to society supervision.

The children had previously been placed in the father’s care and later in society care due to ongoing parental conflict and emotional harm concerns.

Updated therapeutic evidence indicated the children now felt safe in the mother’s home and that the mother had taken meaningful steps to address prior issues.

The court found the risk of emotional harm had subsided and ordered the children returned to the mother under an interim supervision order with structured access for the father and mandatory therapeutic involvement.

The matter was scheduled for review to monitor compliance and the children’s adjustment.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a status review seeking Crown wardship of three children.

The parents had a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to maintain a safe and clean home environment.

Despite numerous interventions, support services, and strict safety plans, the parents repeatedly breached conditions, exposing the children to ongoing risk and neglect.

The court found that the parents were unable to change their behaviour and that returning the children to their care was impossible.

The court ordered that the children be made Crown wards with no access.