Danielle M. Szandtner

The appellant, a biological mother, sought access to her child who was adopted by the appellant's mother and her husband in 2015.

The appellant had consented to the adoption and sought no openness agreement at that time.

The application judge dismissed the application on the basis that the appellant lacked standing under the Children's Law Reform Act.

The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, finding that the appellant failed to establish either of two recognized exceptions to the rule preventing biological parents from accessing adopted children: (1) establishing a relationship with the child after adoption, or (2) receiving assurances of continued contact from the adoptive parents.

The court also found no evidence that permitting the application to proceed would be in the best interests of the child.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to vary a temporary supervision order to compel a 15-year-old child to attend a special education program daily.

The child had been absent from school for three years due to serious medical conditions involving chronic urination, vomiting, and diarrhea.

The mother opposed the motion, believing home schooling was in the child's best interests.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that the requested condition was not proportionate to any increase in risk, was overly intrusive, and was based on untested expert opinion.

The court was also concerned about potential emotional harm to the child if forced to attend school.

The Children's Aid Society sought a Crown wardship order for two boys (ages 10 and 9) following a finding of need of protection under the "consent inability to care" ground.

The mother opposed the application and sought return of the children to her care under specified conditions.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in managing her alcoholism and post-traumatic stress disorder, she remained unable to provide full-time parenting without jeopardizing her own mental health and the children's wellbeing.

The court granted Crown wardship orders and adopted the society's foster parent adoption plan, finding that the children required continuity of care that the mother could not provide.

No access order was attached to the Crown wardship.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a Crown wardship order to free a child for adoption.

The child had been apprehended from her mother's care in March 2012 due to the mother's untreated schizophrenia and inability to provide adequate care.

The mother sought return of the child under court-ordered supervision.

The father, who had been absent from the proceedings for over a year, appeared at trial seeking placement of the child with him and his common law partner.

The court found that neither parent could adequately meet the child's needs.

The mother's mental illness posed ongoing risk despite medication compliance, and the father's pattern of deception, lack of involvement, and uninformed planning made placement with him unsafe.

The court granted Crown wardship to enable adoption as the only option likely to promote the child's best interests, protection, and wellbeing.