Dr. Jean Wittenberg

In a child protection trial under the CYFSA, the court found the child in need of protection based on risk of physical harm, risk of emotional harm, and the mother’s unavailability at the time of apprehension.

The court accepted evidence of serious, longstanding, and largely untreated mental health concerns affecting the mother’s ability to regulate conduct, cooperate with professionals, and make child-focused decisions, and also found unresolved risk arising from an adult child residing in the home.

Although the mother demonstrated strengths in housing, instrumental care, and positive access, the court held that neither return nor supervision was sufficient to protect the child because the requisite cooperation, insight, and reliability were absent.

A six-month interim society care order was made, with specified minimum unsupervised access for both parents.

The appellant mother appealed a summary judgment order placing her two children in extended society care with no access.

She argued the proceeding was procedurally unfair because she was improperly designated a 'special party' due to mental incapacity, which deprived her of the right to instruct counsel.

She also alleged ineffective assistance by the counsel appointed for her by the Public Guardian and Trustee.

The Superior Court of Justice dismissed the appeal, finding the special party designation was valid and unappealed, the appointed counsel provided competent representation, and the motion judge made no palpable and overriding errors in determining that extended society care was in the children's best interests.

The appellants, the biological parents of a child, appealed a Superior Court decision that upheld a trial judge's order making the child a Crown ward with no access.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no procedural unfairness, bias, or palpable and overriding error in the lower courts' decisions.

The Court emphasized the child's need for permanency and stability after being in the care of the respondent for over five years, concluding that the child should be placed for adoption without further delay.