3 total
The court granted the child protection agency's motion for temporary care and custody due to severe parental food restrictions causing harm.
The Children's Aid Society brought a motion to vary an interim supervision order by placing three children in temporary care and custody.
The respondent parents opposed the motion and brought a cross-motion seeking the immediate return of one child.
The court found that the children had experienced severe and chronic caloric deprivation resulting in failure to thrive, food-seeking behaviours, and significant emotional and behavioural difficulties.
Medical assessments by the SCAN Program at SickKids Hospital concluded that the parents' restrictive food control measures were causing harm.
The court found a material change in circumstances and determined that the children could not be adequately protected under a supervision order due to the parents' unwillingness to modify their controlling behaviour around food and their resistance to medical recommendations.
The motion was granted and the children were placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society.
Court ordered children at risk of malnutrition to remain with parents under strict supervision.
The Children's Aid Society of Oxford County brought a motion seeking temporary care and custody of three children, alleging they were at serious risk of harm due to parental food restriction resulting in malnutrition.
The parents disputed the allegations, contending they were carefully monitoring food intake based on medical advice in response to the children's hyperphagia and food-seeking behaviours.
The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm but determined that strict supervision terms with the children remaining in parental care, rather than removal, was the least intrusive order consistent with adequate protection.
The court ordered a SCAN assessment and required parental cooperation with medical recommendations and programming.
Unsupervised interim parenting time ordered despite allegations of child trauma.
The applicant father brought a motion for temporary access to the parties’ four‑year‑old child pending completion of a s. 30 parenting assessment.
The respondent mother sought supervised access relying in part on a pediatrician’s letter suggesting the child may have experienced trauma during prior visits.
The court found the purported expert opinion unreliable because it was based largely on the mother’s subjective account and incomplete information without input from the father.
Finding no credible evidence of safety concerns and noting previous orders granting unsupervised access, the court ordered a structured temporary access schedule including weekday visits and gradually expanding overnight access, while directing that questioning on affidavits be completed.
