Danielle Lapare

The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application regarding two First Nations children who had been placed with their paternal grandparents following unexplained injuries while in their mother's care.

The mother sought the return of the children or unsupervised access, while the Society, father, and grandparents supported a final custody order to the grandparents with supervised access for the parents.

The court found the children remained in need of protection due to the mother's unresolved mental health issues, unsafe relationships, and inability to manage the children's significant behavioural challenges.

The court granted sole custody to the paternal grandparents under s. 102(1) of the CYFSA, with the parents' access to remain supervised at the grandparents' discretion.

This decision addresses multiple motions concerning the temporary care and custody of children under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The court considered the history of protection concerns involving parental alcohol misuse, domestic conflict, and the impact on the children.

The court applied the statutory test for temporary care and custody orders, emphasizing the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection.

The decision highlights the importance of supervised access, the risks of parental conflict exposure, and the detrimental effects of recording interactions involving children.

The court ordered D.D. placed temporarily with her father under supervision with structured access to her mother, and L.L. placed with maternal grandparents with structured access to her mother, reflecting differing risk assessments for each child.

This decision addresses a motion under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning the temporary care and custody of a child, M.S., following apprehension by the Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County.

The court applied the statutory test under section 94 of the Act, focusing on whether there were reasonable grounds to believe the child was at risk of harm and whether supervision orders could adequately protect the child.

The evidence demonstrated the mother’s long-standing alcohol abuse, verbal abuse, and uncooperative behavior, which placed the child at risk.

The court ordered the child remain in the father’s temporary care with supervised access to the mother, emphasizing the least disruptive placement consistent with the child’s safety and well-being.

The Children's Aid Society of Oxford County brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of three children, alleging they were at serious risk of harm due to parental food restriction resulting in malnutrition.

The parents disputed the allegations, contending they were carefully monitoring food intake based on medical advice in response to the children's hyperphagia and food-seeking behaviours.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm but determined that strict supervision terms with the children remaining in parental care, rather than removal, was the least intrusive order consistent with adequate protection.

The court ordered a SCAN assessment and required parental cooperation with medical recommendations and programming.

The respondent mother brought two motions and a notice of constitutional question challenging the Children's Aid Society's investigation and cancellation of an access visit.

The mother alleged violations of her Charter rights under sections 7, 8, and 10.

She sought the return of her three children to her care, withdrawal of the protection application, and costs.

The court found no Charter violations.

The mother's section 7 rights (life, liberty, and security of person) were not infringed by the society's investigation.

The mother's section 8 rights (unreasonable search and seizure) were not violated; even if they were, the search was justified under the Oakes test and any remedy would be exclusion of evidence, not return of the children.

The mother's section 10 rights (arrest or detention) were inapplicable as she was neither arrested nor detained.

The court also dismissed the contempt motion, finding the access order gave the society discretion to cancel visits.

All motions and constitutional questions were dismissed.