D. Szandtner

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought an order placing three children in extended society care, while the paternal grandfather sought custody.

The children had previously been removed from their adoptive mother (their paternal aunt) due to severe physical abuse and neglect.

They were temporarily placed with the grandfather, but were later brought into foster care due to his failure to meet their medical, dental, and educational needs, as well as his lack of insight into the abuse they suffered.

The court found that the grandfather's plan was inadequate to protect the children and meet their significant needs, which included trauma and developmental challenges.

The court ordered the children placed in extended society care with a view to adoption, granting the grandfather access at least once per month, with the children designated as access holders to prevent hindering adoption prospects.

The applicant society sought an order for no further involvement regarding three children previously found in need of protection due to physical abuse by their parents.

The parents supported this, while the maternal grandparents, who cared for the oldest child, sought a supervision order and access to the younger siblings.

The court found that a further order was necessary to protect the children's sibling and extended family relationships, as the parents were unlikely to facilitate access due to religious differences and animosity.

The court ordered 12-month supervision orders placing the oldest child with the grandparents and the younger children with the parents, with specified sibling and grandparent access.

The respondent father brought a motion to find the applicant mother in contempt of two parenting time orders due to missed access visits in 2020 and 2022.

The court applied the three-part test for civil contempt and found that while the orders were clear and the mother had knowledge of them, her non-compliance was not intentional or was justified by a legitimate excuse.

The missed visits in 2020 were explained by a misunderstanding of notice requirements, COVID-19 isolation directives, and the child's chronic skin condition.

The missed visits in 2022 were due to the eight-year-old child's strong resistance to overnight access, despite the mother's reasonable good faith efforts to facilitate the visits and seek therapeutic support.

The contempt motion was dismissed.