Juliet Kim

In a child protection status review proceeding, the mother brought a motion for the temporary care and custody of her child.

The child had been placed in the temporary care of the maternal grandmother after the mother was arrested and detained on criminal charges.

The court determined that the mother had 'charge' of the child at the time of the society's intervention, meaning the child must be returned to her unless a material change in circumstances required a change in custody in the child's best interests.

The court found that while the mother's detention was a material change, returning the child to the mother's care was in the child's best interests, as the society had previously been satisfied with her parenting and the child exhibited a need for the emotional security she provided.

The mother's motion was allowed.

The applicant children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that the two children were in need of protection and an order for extended society care.

The mother consented to statutory findings but opposed the protection and disposition orders.

The court granted summary judgment on the protection issue, finding the children in need of protection due to the mother's paranoid personality disorder, frequent moves, and use of physical discipline.

However, the court found a genuine issue for trial regarding the final disposition, as the mother had recently made significant efforts to improve her parenting and engage in counselling.

The children's aid society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking an order to place the child in the custody of the paternal grandparents pursuant to section 102 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

The mother opposed the motion, seeking a trial to have the child returned to her care.

The court applied the summary judgment framework and found no genuine issue for trial, noting the mother's instability, ongoing substance abuse issues, and failure to present a viable plan of care.

The court determined it was in the child's best interests to remain in the stable care of the paternal grandparents and granted them custody, with access to the parents at the grandparents' discretion.

In a child protection trial, the father served a summons to compel the 12-year-old child to testify.

The Office of the Children's Lawyer brought a motion to quash the summons, supported by the applicant society and the mother.

The court granted the motion to quash, finding that compelling the child to testify posed a significant risk of emotional harm and that the father's primary purpose was to impeach her credibility rather than prove material facts.

The court also ruled on the father's request to introduce the entirety of the child's police interview video, holding that only specific prior inconsistent statements relating to substantive issues, and not collateral facts, could be admitted.

In a child protection application, the applicant sought to introduce out-of-court statements made by the child to child protection workers and a counsellor for the truth of their contents.

The court conducted a voir dire to determine the threshold reliability of these hearsay statements.

Applying the principled exception to the hearsay rule, the court evaluated the circumstances under which the statements were made, including the child's spontaneity, the absence of leading questions, and the timing of the recordings.

The court found that the majority of the statements met the threshold reliability test and were admissible, with the exception of one response to a directive question.

The Children's Aid Society brought a summary judgment motion seeking findings that four children were in need of protection and seeking final disposition orders.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were genuine issues for trial regarding protection and disposition.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, concluding the children were in need of protection due to the mother's unstable housing, domestic violence, and inability to meet the children's needs, particularly one child's complex medical needs.

The court ordered Crown wardship for the medically fragile child, sole custody to the father for another child, and a six-month Society wardship for the two older children.