Donna Shiplett

The Durham Children’s Aid Society initiated a child protection proceeding concerning A.M., whose parents struggled with drug addiction.

The child had been informally cared for by C.C., a maternal cousin, for several months.

The Society and C.C. brought motions regarding C.C.'s party status and access to the child, while the parents sought reunification.

The court addressed whether C.C. qualified as a statutory party or a party with "care and control" under the Family Law Rules, ultimately deciding to add C.C. as a party under Rule 7(5) due to her significant role in the child's life and her legal interest in seeking access.

The court also determined a temporary access schedule for C.C. with the child, balancing the child's best interests with the parents' reunification efforts, which remained tentative.

The Durham Children's Aid Society brought a motion within a status review application to place three children in its temporary care and custody.

The children had previously been found in need of protection and placed under a supervision order with their parents, which was subsequently breached due to the mother's mental health crisis and the parents' and maternal grandfather's failure to report changes or comply with conditions.

The court considered the children's best interests under subsection 64(8) and 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, finding that the existing supervision order was insufficient and there was a continuing risk of harm if the children returned to parental care.

The court explicitly disagreed with the necessity of proving a material change in circumstances for temporary orders in child protection proceedings, emphasizing the fluid nature of such cases.

The motion was granted, placing the children in the Society's temporary care.