Jessica Danvy Vo

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship for three children.

The mother and the two fathers of the children opposed the application, seeking to have the children returned to their care.

The court found that the children were in need of protection due to the parents' significant mental health issues, substance abuse, and inability to provide a stable environment.

The mother was physically disabled and insisted on caring for one of the fathers, who suffered from severe mental illness and required constant supervision.

The other father had a history of substance abuse and an unstable lifestyle.

The court concluded that the parents' plans of care were unworkable and that it was in the best interests of the children to be made Crown wards for the purpose of adoption, with some transitional access and potential openness agreements.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order for Crown wardship without access for a young child with significant special needs, including reactive attachment disorder, PTSD, and ADHD.

The child had been apprehended due to chronic neglect, the mother's prescription drug abuse, and the father's anger management issues and history of sexual offences.

The parents sought the return of the child to their care under supervision or an extension of society wardship.

The court found that the parents lacked insight into the child's complex needs and had failed to follow through with recommended therapeutic and anger management programming.

Concluding that the parents' plan was not viable and that the child required a stable, structured environment, the court ordered Crown wardship.

The court also denied access to the parents, finding they had not met the onus of proving that access would be meaningful and beneficial or that it would not impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.

The child protection agency brought a motion for summary judgment seeking Crown wardship of a child for adoption or other permanent placement, along with approval of substituted service on the father.

The mother did not participate and provided no evidence, and the father was in default and of unknown whereabouts.

The evidence showed repeated parental substance abuse issues, missed access visits, and instability, while the child had lived primarily in the same foster home since birth and was thriving.

Applying the summary judgment framework under the Family Law Rules and Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found no genuine issue requiring a trial regarding the child’s best interests.

Crown wardship was granted against the mother and conditionally against the father, with continued discretionary access to the mother.

In a child protection proceeding, the society sought continuation of an interim order placing three children in its temporary care and custody following apprehension.

The motion focused on the mental health condition of one parent, including psychiatric diagnoses, medication compliance concerns, and recent warnings from the treating psychiatrist indicating potential risk if the children were returned home.

The court emphasized the absence of the ordered family court clinic assessment and the uncertainty surrounding the parent's mental health stability.

Given recent concerns about medication non‑compliance and potential substance use, the court concluded that the risk to the children had not been adequately resolved.

The interim order continuing society care was granted pending the forthcoming assessment.