Frank A. Lanza

The Children’s Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment within a child protection application seeking Crown wardship without access for a young child apprehended at birth due to parental substance abuse, instability, and neglect.

The court reviewed extensive evidence of the mother’s long-standing drug addiction, housing instability, missed access visits, and failure to cooperate with services, as well as the father’s extensive criminal history and repeated incarceration.

Applying Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules and the Child and Family Services Act, the court held there was no genuine issue requiring a trial and that the parents’ evidence did not establish a realistic possibility that the child could safely be returned to their care.

Considering the statutory timelines and the child’s need for permanence, the court concluded that Crown wardship was the only appropriate disposition.

The court also held that neither parent established that continued access would be beneficial and meaningful to the child.

The applicant father brought an urgent motion after the respondent mother unilaterally relocated the parties’ children from Hamilton to Hagersville and proposed enrolling them in a new school.

The parties had previously shared parenting on an informal near-equal basis for several years, with both parents actively involved in the children’s lives.

The court found the mother failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for relocating the children without consultation and that the move would significantly disrupt a stable and beneficial status quo.

Emphasizing that parents act at their own peril when engaging in unilateral self‑help, the court determined that maintaining the established parenting arrangements and schooling in Hamilton was in the children’s best interests.

A temporary order was made reinstating the status quo with joint custody and equal parenting time.