D. Zeldin

The applicant father brought a motion for an order compelling family therapy for his 16-year-old daughter, D, to support their relationship, which had deteriorated significantly.

The respondent mother and the Office of the Children's Lawyer, representing the child, opposed the motion.

The court dismissed the father's motion, giving considerable weight to the mature minor's strong and consistent opposition to forced therapy.

The court found that while it had jurisdiction to order therapy, the potential benefits did not outweigh the risks of exacerbating the child's physical and mental health issues, and that such an order would be practically unenforceable given the child's age and maturity.

The applicant father brought a motion to change the parenting schedule for their 10-year-old child from a week-about arrangement to primary residence with the father.

The child had consistently expressed a desire to live with the father, amidst ongoing high conflict between the parents and concerns regarding the mother's physical discipline.

The court considered the views and preferences of the child, the evidence from the Office of the Children's Lawyer, and the history of conflict.

The court granted the motion, ordering primary residence with the father and alternate weekend parenting time for the mother, along with mandatory counselling for the child and parents.

The maternal grandmother moved to be added as a party to a child protection proceeding involving her 20-month-old granddaughter.

The child's parents supported the grandmother's plan of care but were not in a position to care for the child themselves.

The Society opposed the motion, arguing it would cause delay and was unnecessary since the parents could advocate for the grandmother's plan.

The court granted the motion, finding that the grandmother had a legal interest in the case under the Child and Family Services Act and that her independent advocacy was in the child's best interests.