4 total
The court dismissed the aunt's motion to be added as a party in a child protection proceeding because her proposed parenting plan did not merit consideration.
E.N.H., the sister of the mother (T.R.), brought a motion to be added as a party respondent in a child protection status review application.
E.N.H. sought to claim placement of the two children with her or a custody order, intending to involve the mother in their lives.
The Children's Aid Society, the father (G.R.), and counsel for the children opposed the motion, arguing that E.N.H. was a "stalking horse" for the mother and had adopted the mother's unsubstantiated delusions about the father.
The court dismissed the motion, finding that E.N.H.'s plan did not merit consideration and that adding her as a party was not in the children's best interests, as her beliefs and minimization of past misconduct were problematic.
Crown wardship without access was granted for a child due to the parents' cognitive and mental health limitations.
The Children's Aid Society sought Crown wardship, silent as to access, for a child with special needs.
The respondent parents opposed, seeking a supervision order.
The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's significant cognitive impairment and poor judgment, and the father's debilitating psychogenic seizures and lack of insight.
The parents were deemed unable to meet the child's long-term needs, particularly her special developmental requirements.
Crown wardship was granted, with the child to be adopted by kinship foster parents, and access was denied due to the statutory presumption against access to a Crown ward not being overcome.
Court has jurisdiction under s. 57.1 of the CFSA to vary an existing CLRA custody order.
The Children's Aid Society brought a status review application seeking to terminate a supervision order and place the child in the mother's custody under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.
An issue arose because there was an existing final joint custody order under the Children's Law Reform Act.
The court held that it has jurisdiction under s. 57.1 of the CFSA to make an order that has the effect of varying an existing final order under the CLRA, provided all parties to the CLRA order are parties to the CFSA proceeding, are served, and there is a material change in circumstances.
Children returned to mother under supervision despite father’s ongoing substance abuse concerns.
In a child protection proceeding, the court considered whether two young children previously placed with their maternal grandparents should be returned to the parents under an interim supervision order.
The evidence showed both parents had histories of substance abuse, though the mother had demonstrated recent progress through negative drug testing and treatment participation, while the father continued to test positive for marijuana and had not fully advanced in treatment.
The court held that parental drug use may constitute a risk to children depending on the factual context and rejected the argument that drug use alone can never affect parenting capacity.
The children were returned to the mother’s temporary care subject to Society supervision and extensive conditions addressing treatment compliance, drug testing, and supervision of the father’s access.
The father was permitted to remain in the home but could only have supervised contact with the children except in limited circumstances.
