John Morscher

A child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act where the society sought extended society care with no access, and the respondent mother sought return of the child with supervision.

The court found the child in need of protection due to risk of physical and emotional harm arising from the mother's untreated mental health issues (severe PTSD, anxiety, depression, emotional dysregulation), ongoing substance abuse (crystal methamphetamine and marijuana), inability to follow professional direction, and lack of reliable family support.

The court determined the child was not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child and made an order for extended society care without access, with the foster parents approved for adoption.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought motions for interim openness orders permitting sibling contact between two children who had been separated for nearly four years.

The respondent adoptive parent opposed the orders, fearing that contact would lead to reintroduction of the biological parent into the child's life.

The court granted the interim orders, finding that the sibling relationship had been previously determined to be valuable and that the failure to maintain contact resulted from administrative and discretionary failures by the child welfare agency and the adoptive parent's resistance, not from any change in the children's best interests.

The court implemented a gradual restoration of contact through letters, cards, and supervised face-to-face meetings.

The biological mother appealed a child protection disposition order that made the child a Crown ward without access under the Child and Family Services Act.

She argued that the trial judge erred by proceeding with the disposition trial while the protection finding was under appeal, by taking seven months to release reasons, and by misapprehending evidence in assessing the child’s best interests.

The court held that the protection appeal had been abandoned and the issue was moot, and that delay alone does not establish unfairness absent demonstrated prejudice.

Applying the deferential appellate standard for factual findings in child protection matters, the court found no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge’s assessment of the evidence, including findings regarding the lack of emotional connection between the parent and the child.

The appeal was dismissed and the Crown wardship order without access was upheld.