Dr. Julie Gowthorpe

A child protection proceeding under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act involving a child born with neonatal abstinence syndrome due to in-utero drug exposure.

The child was apprehended at birth and remained in Society care.

The mother sought return of the child subject to supervision, while the biological father (identified through DNA testing) supported the mother's position.

The Society sought Crown wardship for purposes of adoption.

The court found the child in need of protection due to risk of emotional harm from parental conflict, unresolved maternal trauma and anger management issues, ongoing health concerns, and past substance abuse.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, finding this was in the child's best interests despite the mother's improvements and demonstrated parenting capacity during supervised access.

A child protection application by Highland Shores Children's Aid Society seeking Crown wardship of two young children.

The Society alleged the children suffered physical harm and were at risk of emotional harm due to assault by the father, general neglect, parental substance abuse, and the mother's failure to emotionally support the child following disclosure of abuse.

The court found the father assaulted the older child by choking and striking her, and that both children were in need of protection.

The court rejected the parents' alternative plans for care and made both children wards of the Crown for purposes of adoption, with no parental access but with access between the siblings.

The applicant father sought to vary a prior joint custody order to obtain sole custody and child support.

The court considered whether there had been a material change in circumstances under the Children’s Law Reform Act and whether the proposed variation was in the best interests of the children.

Evidence addressed school attendance, hygiene concerns, medical care, and parental communication failures while the children resided primarily with the respondent mother.

The court found a material change in circumstances and concluded that the children’s educational, medical, and developmental needs were being better met while residing with the father.

Sole custody was granted to the father with liberal access to the mother, and income was imputed to the mother for child support purposes.