4 total
The court ordered a split temporary custody arrangement for three children, respecting their expressed views.
The Children's Aid Society brought a temporary care and custody motion for three children (M.T., C.P., and G.Z.) due to exposure to parental conflict and domestic violence.
The Society sought to place two younger children with the mother and the eldest with the father, subject to supervision.
The mother sought placement of all children with her, while the father sought placement of all children with him.
The court considered the children's views and preferences, which were consistent and independently expressed, and the parents' lack of cooperation and insight into the impact of their conflict.
The court ordered the placement of the two younger children with the mother and the eldest child with the father, both subject to the Society's supervision and specific terms and conditions, finding this to be the least intrusive and disruptive placement.
The court granted summary judgment placing a child with unexplained injuries in the custody of paternal grandparents, finding the mother's recent counselling insufficient to address serious parenting deficits.
In a child protection status review application, the Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking custody of a child who had suffered serious unexplained injuries at two months of age.
The child had been in foster care and subsequently in the care of paternal grandparents under a supervision order.
The biological mother opposed the motion, arguing that counselling she had undertaken created a genuine issue for trial regarding her ability to care for the child.
The court found that the unexplained injuries, combined with the mother's lack of insight, ongoing lack of cooperation with the Society, and the conclusions of a parenting capacity assessment, established an ongoing need for protection.
The court granted summary judgment, placing the child in the custody of the paternal grandparents with supervised access for the mother.
The father received custody of the younger children, while the mother retained the eldest child.
A child protection trial concerning three children where the Children's Aid Society sought protection orders.
The central issue was determining who had "charge" of the two younger children immediately before intervention.
The mother had legal custody but the father had provided full-time care for approximately 66.6% of the ten months preceding the apprehension.
The court found the father had charge of the younger children and made custody orders accordingly, placing the eldest child with the mother and the two younger children with the father, with reasonable access provisions for both parents.
The court ordered Crown wardship without access for three children due to the mother's chronic instability and inability to meet their special needs.
This is a child protection trial concerning three children (K.M.1, A.M.1, and M.M.) who were apprehended in March 2008 due to neglect and inadequate supervision.
The mother, L.M., had a history of transience, poor home conditions, truancy issues with her older children, and inability to meet the special needs of her younger children.
The maternal grandmother, B.D.1, sought placement of the children with her.
The court found the children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and made them Crown wards, rejecting all family-based plans due to the mother's deep-seated personality issues, the grandmother's health limitations and credibility concerns, and the inadequacy of the proposed plans to meet the children's high needs.
