Joseph Franklin Belecky

The Children’s Aid Society brought a status review application seeking extended society care for two children, E.P. and M.P., who had been in temporary care for approximately 1100 days.

The mother, father, and maternal grandmother (respondents) opposed this, proposing the children be returned to their care subject to Society supervision.

The court found the children continued to be in need of protection due to the respondents' ongoing addiction and mental health issues.

After evaluating all plans of care, the court determined that extended society care was in the children's best interests, given their complex behavioural and educational needs, tumultuous placement history, and the respondents' fragile recovery and inability to provide sustained safe care.

Access for all respondents was ordered to continue at the Society's discretion, subject to the children's wishes.

The Children's Aid Society sought a supervision order for a child with kin, while the kin (maternal great aunt and her spouse) sought custody.

The mother, father, and foster parents proposed extended society care for adoption by the foster parents.

The court found the child in need of protection due to the mother's drug abuse and unstable living situation.

The court dismissed expert evidence on attachment theory as not specific to the child.

Ultimately, the court granted custody of the child to the kin, finding it to be in the child's best interests, and ordered reasonable access for the mother, siblings, and foster parents.

The Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex brought a status review application seeking a finding that the child remained in need of protection and an order granting custody to the maternal aunt and uncle.

The mother sought the child's return to her care.

The court found the child remained in need of protection due to the mother's pattern of associating with dangerous men, her difficulty perceiving and removing herself from such risks, and her inconsistent parenting skills.

The court granted custody to the aunt and uncle, finding it to be in the child's best interests, and ordered supervised access for the mother.

This endorsement resolves a preliminary objection regarding the participation of foster parents, D.T. and S.C., in a motion to add prospective kin placement D.M. and R.A. as party respondents in a child protection application.

The court examined the definition of 'hearing' under the Family Law Rules and the Courts of Justice Act, concluding that an interlocutory motion constitutes a 'hearing,' thereby entitling the foster parents to participate.

Child protection trial under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a young child previously removed from the mother’s care following a suicide attempt and alcohol addiction.

The child had been placed with maternal relatives and later returned to the mother on an interim basis while she engaged in addiction treatment and counselling.

The court found the child in need of protection under s. 37(2)(b)(i) but concluded that the least intrusive order consistent with the child’s best interests was a 12‑month supervision order placing the child with the mother.

Evidence demonstrated significant progress by the mother in addressing mental health and substance use issues.

The court also ordered therapeutic intervention and structured steps to re‑establish access between the child and the father, whose participation in the proceedings had been limited.

The Children’s Aid Society sought to further restrict a biological mother’s access to two Crown ward children from supervised biweekly visits to supervised visits every two months.

The court considered the best interests of the children under the Child and Family Services Act, finding that while the mother had undermined the authority of the foster parent and the Society, there was insufficient reliable evidence linking the children’s serious behavioural and emotional challenges to her contact with them.

The court concluded that the children continued to benefit from regular contact with their mother but that closer supervision and structured conditions were necessary.

A staged access regime was ordered beginning with supervised alternating visits with each child, progressing to supervised joint visits and eventually limited unsupervised access if strict compliance with conditions occurred.

Detailed restrictions were imposed on communication, gifts, food, and disclosure of information about the children.