June Ilene Mayhew

This child protection case involved an interim motion by the respondent mother to vary a temporary access order for her 8-year-old child, A., who resides with his maternal aunt and uncle.

The mother sought to lift supervision and expand parenting time, including weekend visits.

The court denied the mother's request for expanded unsupervised access, citing concerns about the child's diagnosed special needs, the mother's mental health, her inconsistent attendance at visits, and the aunt's rigid stance threatening to place the child in care if weekend access was ordered.

The court ordered the continuation of supervised and therapeutic access, emphasizing the need for all parties to cooperate and implement professional recommendations for the child's best interests and long-term stability.

The Respondent Mother brought an urgent motion seeking clarification on access arrangements after the Durham Children's Aid Society suspended all face-to-face access due to COVID-19.

The court clarified its previous endorsement, stating that parties should consider all options for meaningful contact, including in-person visits, while prioritizing child safety and adhering to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The endorsement reiterated principles from Ribeiro v. Wright regarding parenting arrangements during the pandemic.

The Respondent Mother brought an urgent motion in response to the Durham Children’s Aid Society's decision to suspend all face-to-face access at its Supervised Access Centre due to the COVID-19 crisis.

The court found the matter urgent, emphasizing the need to balance child protection with maintaining parental relationships during the pandemic, and ordered a teleconference to establish an appropriate access regimen.

Addendum regarding costs following an appeal in a child protection matter.

The Divisional Court considered the submissions of the parties and the factors set out in Rule 57.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 24 of the Family Law Rules.

The court concluded that this was an appropriate case to not require the unsuccessful party to pay costs.

No costs were ordered.

The Children's Lawyer appealed a trial judge's decision to return two children to their mother under a strict 12-month supervision order, rather than making them Crown wards without access.

The appellant argued the trial judge failed to apply the paramount 'best interests of the child' test and made palpable and overriding errors in fact-finding regarding the parents' ability to protect the children from the father, who had been diagnosed with pedophilia.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial judge was acutely sensitive to the risks, properly balanced the children's best interests with maintaining the family unit, and made no palpable or overriding errors.