Deborah Souder

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a youth.

The youth had been living with the mother but experienced significant difficulties, including failing school, technology addiction, and physical altercations.

The youth was temporarily placed with the father.

The mother opposed the placement and sought the youth's return.

The court found that returning the youth to the mother would likely cause harm and that a supervision order would not be effective.

The court granted the society's motion to maintain the youth's placement with the father.

The court heard two openness applications regarding a young child with special needs who was placed for adoption.

The birth father sought monthly in-person contact, while the Office of the Children's Lawyer and the Children's Aid Society supported two visits per year.

The court considered the child's best interests, the need for stability in the adoptive home, and the adoptive parents' ability to comply with the order.

The court ordered a minimum of three in-person openness contacts per year between the child and the birth father, which may include the paternal grandmother.

The Children's Aid Society sought an order placing a 16-month-old child in extended society care.

The child was apprehended at birth.

The mother consented to the order but sought access.

The father, who has Indigenous heritage, developmental delays, and a criminal record, sought the return of the child to his care.

The court found that returning the child to the father posed too high a risk due to his impulsivity, inconsistent access attendance, and inability to cooperate with the Society.

The court ordered the child placed in extended society care.

The court also ordered access for both parents, designating the mother and the child as access holders and the father as an access recipient, to balance the child's need for a permanent placement with the benefits of maintaining a connection to his biological parents.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended the child at birth and sought a finding that the child was in need of protection.

After the Society closed its case at the adjudicative stage of the trial, the father brought a motion for a non-suit, arguing the Society failed to establish a prima facie case.

The court dismissed the non-suit motion, finding that the father's impulsivity, history of domestic violence, inconsistent access visits, and inability to control his emotions posed a real risk of physical and emotional harm to the child.

The court concluded the child was in need of protection and directed the matter to proceed to the dispositional stage.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment on a status review application, seeking to terminate a supervision order and direct the father's access to a supervised access facility.

The mother supported the motion.

The father, who suffers from an untreated delusional disorder, opposed the motion and sought continued access at his family farm supervised by the society.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, as there were no protection concerns regarding the mother's care of the children.

The court terminated the supervision order, reinstated the mother's sole custody, and ordered the father's access to be supervised at a facility, noting that the society's resources should not be used indefinitely for supervised access when no protection concerns exist.