Deborah L. Stewart

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application regarding a two-and-a-half-year-old child.

Both parents had serious histories of violence for which they were found not criminally responsible, but had since received absolute discharges from the Ontario Review Board and were successfully managing their mental health conditions.

The Society and the parents sought an order returning the child to the parents' care subject to a 12-month supervision order, which the Children's Lawyer opposed.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the catastrophic risk if either parent relapsed, but concluded it was in the child's best interests to be returned to the parents' care with strict supervision terms, as the risk of relapse was low and well-monitored.

In a status review application, the Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought extended society care for a child (N.G.-L.), while the father (W.L.), supported by the mother (N.G.), sought custody with a supervision order.

The court found intervention necessary due to the mother's long-standing substance abuse issues, the parents' past dishonesty, and minimization of risks.

However, considering the child's best interests, the father's commitment, his capacity to parent with support, and the positive influence of a friend (T.G.), the court determined that a supervision order placing the child in the father's care, following a six-week interim society care transition, was the least disruptive and most appropriate alternative.

The order included strict supervision terms for the father and clear boundaries for the mother's access, which is to be supervised solely by the society.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion to place a 12-year-old child, B., in the temporary care of his mother, subject to supervision.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking temporary care of B. or increased access.

The court applied a flexible, contextual analysis for varying temporary care orders under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The court found that the father lacked insight into B.'s long-standing hygiene, social, and mental health issues, and had not adequately addressed protection concerns.

In contrast, the mother demonstrated significant commitment and a concrete plan to address B.'s needs.

The court dismissed the father's cross-motion and granted the society's motion, placing B. in the mother's temporary care with society supervision, while crafting an access order to foster B.'s connection with his father.

This case addresses motions within a child protection status review application concerning the temporary care and custody of a 7-year-old child.

Following the criminal charging of the maternal grandfather, who previously had custody, the mother and father each sought temporary care.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CCAS) proposed joint care.

The court, emphasizing the child's best interests and the parents' high conflict, rejected joint custody.

It ordered the child to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the mother, with significant access to the father, and mandated counseling for both parents to mitigate conflict.

A temporary care and custody motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto concerning five children.

The society sought placement of the youngest child (L.O.), born in 2018, in its care due to severe failure to thrive and developmental delay, and placement of four older children with their mother subject to supervision.

The mother opposed removal of the youngest child and sought dismissal of the protection application.

The court found overwhelming evidence of neglect, including the youngest child's severe malnutrition and developmental delay, and a long history of chronic neglect spanning multiple jurisdictions.

The court granted the society's motion, placing the youngest child in the society's care and the four older children with the mother under strict supervision orders.

A child protection summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking Crown wardship orders for two children (ages 6 and 2) to enable adoption.

The mother opposed the motion and sought a full trial.

The court found that the mother's severe cognitive limitations (mild intellectual disability at the 1st percentile), combined with her inability to sustain consistent parenting during supervised access visits, her poor judgment in selecting caregivers and associates, and her failure to engage meaningfully with support services, established that there was no genuine issue for trial regarding Crown wardship.

The court granted Crown wardship but found a genuine issue for trial regarding access, directing a focused hearing on whether access would be beneficial and meaningful to the children and whether it would impair their adoption prospects.

The Society applied for an order of Crown wardship without access to allow a child born to two parents with cognitive limitations and mental health issues to be adopted.

The child had been in Society care since five days after birth due to unsanitary living conditions, domestic violence concerns, and parental inability to provide adequate childcare.

The parents sought return of the child or, alternatively, an extension of Society wardship with therapeutic access.

The court found that while the parents had made efforts to improve and had some strengths, they had not demonstrated adequate parenting ability over 21 months despite intensive support.

The court ordered Crown wardship but granted an access order, finding the relationship between the child and parents was beneficial and meaningful and would not impair adoption opportunities.