Cynthia Lorrain Law

The Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion in a Status Review Application, seeking sole custody of the child B.B. to his paternal grandparents.

The respondent mother opposed, arguing for genuine issues requiring a trial and seeking B.B.'s return to her care or placement with maternal grandparents.

The court found B.B. remained in need of protection and granted custody to the paternal grandparents, citing the mother's inconsistent access, unhealthy relationships, and lack of insight.

However, the court determined that issues regarding parental access, decision-making authority, and sibling access required a focused hearing, dismissing the mother's requests for a Children's Lawyer appointment and a Parenting Capacity Assessment as unnecessary for the custody determination.

This case concerns the care and custody of a child (B.N.) born in 2015 who has been in the care of the Society since October 2015.

The child was found to be in need of protection in April 2016 due to neglect and risk of emotional harm.

On September 25, 2017, the child was made a Ward of the Crown with a plan for adoption by the maternal grandfather and step-grandmother in Alberta.

However, the step-grandmother withdrew the adoption plan in October 2017, citing concerns about the mother's continued drug use, lack of commitment to the agreed plan, and the grandfather's deteriorating health.

The mother sought to enforce the original plan or obtain a full assessment of the grandparents.

The court found that the withdrawal of the plan could not be revived and that placement with the grandparents would not be in the child's best interests.

The court confirmed the Crown Wardship order without access for purposes of adoption, finding that the child requires permanency and that the Society should place the child with an adoptive family.

This is a status review application under the Child and Family Services Act involving three children.

The Highland Shores Children's Aid Society sought supervision orders, proposing that two younger children be placed in the care of their biological father (R.G.) with supervised access to their mother, while the eldest child remain with her mother.

The mother opposed placement with the father, claiming the child did not wish to go.

The court found the children at risk of emotional harm due to the mother's pattern of denying sibling contact, interfering with paternal access, and demonstrating lack of insight into her children's emotional needs.

The court ordered the two younger children placed in the father's care with supervised therapeutic access to their mother, while the eldest remained with her mother due to her stated wishes.

A motion brought by an incarcerated mother seeking temporary access to her newborn child at a maximum security detention facility.

The mother, detained on armed robbery charges and awaiting trial, requested that the child be brought to the Quinte Detention Centre twice monthly for visits through a glass partition.

The child, placed with paternal grandparents in Renfrew County (three hours away), suffered from reflux disorder and car sickness.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that in-person access at the detention facility would not foster a positive relationship and could jeopardize the child's health.

The court prioritized the child's best interests over the parent's desire to bond.

The applicant Children's Aid Society sought to maintain temporary care and custody of two young children apprehended on December 19, 2012, due to serious neglect concerns.

The children were found to be severely malnourished and suffering from developmental delays and medical neglect.

The respondent parents sought return of the children, proposing supervision by extended family members.

The court found that the children were at imminent risk of physical harm due to neglect of basic needs, including nutrition, medical care, and developmental stimulation.

The court determined that a temporary supervision order would be inadequate to protect the children given the mother's significant cognitive limitations and the parents' failure to recognize the seriousness of the protection concerns.

The court ordered the children to remain in the Society's care pending completion of a parenting capacity assessment.