3 total
Extended Society Care ordered after finding serious risk of emotional harm.
In a child protection trial under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the court found that two children continued to be in need of protection based on a real risk of serious emotional harm arising from repeated exposure to domestic conflict and the parents’ failure to protect them from that conflict.
The court rejected the society’s theory of protection based on alleged illicit drug use and school attendance, but accepted that inconsistent parental involvement, prolonged gaps in access, and failure to comply with safety planning reinforced the continued need for protection.
The court found the mother’s late-stage plan, based on residence with extended family and recent treatment engagement, was untested, not sufficiently child-focused, and did not adequately mitigate the identified risks.
Extended Society Care with the maternal aunt was ordered, together with structured access for the mother and discretionary access for the fathers.
The court also made a First Nations finding in relation to one child and addressed the implications of that status under the CYFSA.
Crown wardship granted where severe parenting risks could not be managed by supports.
In a child protection trial concerning a newborn apprehended at birth, the court found the child in need of protection based on likely physical and emotional harm arising from the respondents’ inability to safely and consistently meet the child’s needs.
The court placed significant weight on extensive worker observations, corroborated by psychological assessments identifying profound cognitive limitations, poor follow-through, hygiene concerns, smoking-related health risks, and inability to adapt parenting to the child’s developmental needs.
Applying the governing child protection and best interests framework under the Child and Family Services Act, the court held that the risk could not be adequately managed even with outside supports.
Less disruptive alternatives, including supervision, kin placement, and an adjournment for further parenting evidence, were rejected.
Crown wardship without access and with a view to adoption was ordered.
Temporary custody motion denied due to credible risk of harm to the child.
In a child protection status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the respondent mother brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of two children pending trial, or alternatively expanded unsupervised access.
One child had been apprehended and placed in foster care, while the other was residing with the father under a supervision order.
The court considered whether the apprehended child should be returned to the mother pursuant to s. 51(2) of the Act and whether a change in the existing supervision arrangement was warranted under s. 64(8).
The court found credible evidence suggesting a risk of harm arising from the mother's lifestyle choices, including concerns regarding drug use, exposure to prohibited contact, and instability.
The motion was dismissed and the existing placement arrangements remained in place pending trial.
