Jeffrey Van de Kleut

The Highland Shores Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking an order for the child L.K.D. to be placed in the custody of his father, L.D., with discretionary access for the mother, A.N. The child had previously been found in need of protection.

The mother opposed, seeking the child's return to her care and attempting to overturn the prior protection finding.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial on disposition or access, concluding that placing the child in the father's custody with discretionary access for the mother was in the child's best interests, given the child's consistent wishes and the mother's lack of insight into protection concerns.

This decision concerns the sentencing of J.K., who was found guilty of assaulting her son with a belt, unlawfully confining him in a basement, and assaulting him by slapping and squeezing his chin.

The Crown sought 18-24 months incarceration, while the defence requested a 20-month conditional sentence.

The court considered various sentencing principles, including denunciation, deterrence, separation from society, rehabilitation, and reparations.

Aggravating factors included the victim being a child under 18, abuse of trust, significant psychological impact, and repeated offences.

Mitigating factors included no prior violent convictions, family support, employment history, and willingness to engage in parenting and mental health programs.

The judge imposed a conditional sentence of two years less a day, with the first 16 months under house arrest, followed by three years of probation, along with ancillary orders for a DNA sample and a 5-year weapons prohibition.

The accused, a mother, was charged with assault with a weapon (belt) against two children, unlawful confinement of one child, and simple assault.

The trial involved conflicting evidence from the children, the accused, a friend of the accused who witnessed incidents, and various other witnesses.

The court found the accused guilty of assaulting one child with a belt, confining that child unlawfully in the basement, and assaulting that child by striking the head and squeezing the chin.

The court acquitted on the charge of assaulting the second child with a belt due to insufficient evidence.

The judgment emphasizes the importance of assessing child witness credibility without applying adult standards and the reliability of videotaped statements under section 715.1 of the Criminal Code.

The children's aid society sought an order placing a 16-month-old child in extended society care for the purpose of adoption.

The parents sought the return of the child subject to society supervision.

The court found that the parents' unaddressed mental health issues, history of child welfare involvement, and relationship instability posed too great a risk to the child's safety and well-being.

The court ordered the child placed in extended society care.

Applying the expanded access test under the CYFSA, the court found that an access order was in the child's best interests as the relationship was beneficial and there was no evidence it would impair future adoption opportunities.

Access was granted at the society's discretion, with a minimum of once per month.

This case concerns the care and custody of a child (B.N.) born in 2015 who has been in the care of the Society since October 2015.

The child was found to be in need of protection in April 2016 due to neglect and risk of emotional harm.

On September 25, 2017, the child was made a Ward of the Crown with a plan for adoption by the maternal grandfather and step-grandmother in Alberta.

However, the step-grandmother withdrew the adoption plan in October 2017, citing concerns about the mother's continued drug use, lack of commitment to the agreed plan, and the grandfather's deteriorating health.

The mother sought to enforce the original plan or obtain a full assessment of the grandparents.

The court found that the withdrawal of the plan could not be revived and that placement with the grandparents would not be in the child's best interests.

The court confirmed the Crown Wardship order without access for purposes of adoption, finding that the child requires permanency and that the Society should place the child with an adoptive family.