David Wayne Ziriada

A child protection application under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 concerning a child born to parents with a history of prior child protection findings.

The respondent father had been convicted of serious sexual offences including sexual abuse of a child, possession of child pornography, and indecent exposure.

The child was apprehended at birth and placed with the paternal grandmother and uncle.

The Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection under clause 74(2)(d) (risk of sexual abuse or exploitation) and sought placement with the paternal grandmother and uncle under Society supervision.

The respondent parents sought dismissal of the application or, alternatively, return of the child to their care.

The court found the child was in need of protection but determined that placement with the parents under Society supervision was in the child's best interests, recognizing the father's prosocial behaviour over many years, the mother's demonstrated protective capacity, and the child's strong attachment to both parents.

A child protection application brought by the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society seeking to place a child in the care of the mother with Society supervision and to restrict the father's access to supervised visits.

The father, a joint custodial parent under a prior family law order, opposed the motion and sought to maintain the existing shared custody arrangement.

The Society alleged risk of harm based on the father's recent criminal charges and convictions for indecent exposure and other sexual offences.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe there was risk of harm but determined that adequate protection could be achieved through supervision conditions rather than removal from the father's care.

The court ordered the child remain in the father's care on the existing schedule subject to strict supervision terms and conditions.

The Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society sought leave to withdraw a child protection application.

The mother had been hospitalized for acute psychiatric distress related to imminent deportation to the Netherlands, where she feared returning to an abusive father.

The Society argued the children were no longer in need of protection following the mother's discharge from hospital.

The respondent mother and counsel for the children opposed the withdrawal, citing ongoing risks including the mother's mental health, the threat of deportation, and the presence of the abusive father in the Netherlands.

The court dismissed the motion, finding it premature to withdraw the application given the unresolved risks and the intersection of child protection and immigration law.

Status review applications concerning three children found to be in need of protection due to parental substance abuse and domestic conflict.

The court granted custody of two older children to maternal grandparents under section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The youngest child was placed with the grandparents subject to Society supervision for nine months.

The court established a five-week access schedule for all three children with their parents to minimize transitions and disruption while maintaining parental relationships.

The court rejected the father's request to have one child placed in his sole care, finding that keeping siblings together was in their best interests.