Joseph Franklin Belecky

The children's aid society brought a status review application seeking to place three children in the permanent custody of their paternal grandparents.

The children had been in the grandparents' care for over two years due to the parents' substance abuse and instability.

The mother opposed the order but failed to attend the trial or demonstrate meaningful progress in rehabilitation.

The court found that the grandparents provided safe, stable, and loving homes and that the parents were unlikely to resume their parenting roles in the foreseeable future.

The court granted custody to the grandparents with supervised access for the parents.

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 appellant, who had de facto custody of the child, appealed a summary judgment finding that the child was in need of protection and an order denying her access.

The child had complex medical needs, and the medical evidence indicated the appellant was providing inadequate care, leading to the child's declining health.

The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error in the motion judge's reliance on the medical evidence, the finding that the child was in need of protection, or the determination that it was in the child's best interests to deny the appellant access.

The appeal was dismissed.

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.

The Children's Aid Society sought a protection finding and an order of Crown wardship for a child apprehended at birth due to the mother's substance abuse and mental health issues.

The mother passed away shortly after the child's birth.

The father, who had separated from the mother, sought to parent the child.

The Society argued the father lacked parenting capacity based on observations during supervised access and a parenting program.

The court found the child in need of protection but dismissed the request for Crown wardship, finding the Society's concerns about the father's parenting abilities were overstated and did not justify the most intrusive order.

The court ordered the child placed in the father's care for 10 months subject to a supervision order with terms and conditions, emphasizing the principle of the least disruptive course of action.

Two child protection agencies sought Crown wardship of five children born to deaf parents.

The four older children had been in care for over five years, and the youngest was apprehended at birth.

The parents sought the return of all children.

The court found all five children to be in need of protection due to the parents' history of transience, inability to meet the children's significant developmental needs, and lack of a stable housing plan.

The court ordered Crown wardship for all five children without parental access, finding that the parents could not provide the necessary stability and that parental access would not be beneficial and meaningful or would impair adoption.

Sibling access was ordered.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a status review seeking Crown wardship for two children who had been in continuous care for over two years.

The mother, who had a lengthy history of substance abuse, sought the return of the children under a supervision order, demonstrating significant and sustained recovery efforts.

The court found that the mother had achieved a sustained recovery with a strong relapse prevention plan, and that the risk of relapse was sufficiently minimal.

The court dismissed the Society's application for Crown wardship and ordered the children returned to the mother's care subject to a 12-month supervision order with strict conditions, including ongoing substance abuse treatment and testing.

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.

The Children's Aid Society apprehended a newborn child with severe congenital heart defects and other medical issues.

The child required extraordinary care, constant monitoring, and multiple surgeries, which were provided by her foster parents.

The biological parents, who had significant cognitive, psychological, and financial limitations, sought the return of the child.

The court found the child in need of protection and ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that the parents lacked the capacity to meet the child's exceptional medical and developmental needs, and that removing the child from her bonded foster family would be detrimental to her best interests.