John Morscher

The applicant alleged that the respondent Children's Aid Society failed to comply with a settlement agreement requiring the Society to provide reasons and explanations for certain decisions regarding child safety and access.

The Child and Family Services Review Board held a teleconference hearing to determine compliance.

The Board found that while the Society was late in providing a written response to one term, it had provided substantive reasons and explanations verbally and in a follow-up letter, causing no undue prejudice.

The allegation of non-compliance was dismissed.

The applicant society sought an order for extended society care without access for a three-year-old child who had been in care for over two years.

The respondent mother opposed the application, seeking the return of the child to her care with a supervision order, or alternatively, access.

The court first determined that the child was not a First Nations, Inuk, or Métis child under the CYFSA, finding insufficient evidence of a connection to any specific community.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's unaddressed mental health issues, severe PTSD, and substance abuse, which impaired her parenting capacity.

The court concluded that the mother was unable to safely parent the child and ordered extended society care.

Access was denied, as the court found it would not be beneficial or meaningful to the child and could impair future adoption opportunities.

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.