David John Barnhart

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.

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.