D. Clarke

The Society sought an order for extended society care with no access for two young children.

The mother sought the return of the children to her care subject to supervision.

The court found the children in need of protection due to historical housing instability and conflict, but noted the mother had made significant progress, secured stable housing, and improved her parenting skills.

The court heavily criticized the Society for failing to expand the mother's access and for unreasonably opposing a temporary court order for overnight visits.

Concluding that the protection concerns could be mitigated by terms of supervision, the court dismissed the Society's application for extended care and ordered the children returned to the mother under a 9-month supervision order.

The respondent father brought a motion to enforce a settlement allegedly reached at a settlement conference in a child protection proceeding.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that no binding settlement had crystallized because essential terms, such as whether the order would be a supervision order or a final custody order, had not been agreed upon.

Furthermore, under the Family Law Rules, no agreement reached at a settlement conference is effective until signed by the parties and approved by the court.