Karen Maxine Robertson

In this temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined the placement of a newborn child following apprehension by the Society.

The Society sought placement with the paternal great aunt and her partner subject to supervision.

The paternal grandmother and her partner sought placement with themselves or alternatively expansive access.

The court found that the paternal grandmother alone had charge of the child immediately before apprehension and that there were reasonable grounds to believe the child would suffer harm if returned to her care due to her serious medical conditions and observations of her being overwhelmed.

However, the court found that supervision alone would not adequately protect the child.

The court ordered placement with the paternal great aunt and her partner, with the paternal grandmother having structured access and shared responsibility for medical care, recognizing the benefit of maintaining family connections while ensuring child protection.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Children's Lawyer on behalf of two Indigenous children seeking Crown wardship without access.

The maternal grandfather and Walpole Island First Nation opposed the motion, arguing a trial was necessary.

The court found no genuine issue for trial and granted Crown wardship, finding that the children's best interests were served by remaining in their current foster placement with an Indigenous family rather than transitioning to the grandfather's care on the First Nation territory.

The court considered the children's special needs, cultural identity, continuity of care, and the grandfather's inconsistent access pattern over two years.

A motion by the Windsor-Essex Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child born in 2010 is in need of protection under subclause 37(2)(b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act and for an order making the child a Crown ward without access to either parent.

The respondent mother opposed the disposition sought.

On consent, statutory findings were made at the outset.

The court found no genuine issue for trial regarding the child's need for protection, given the respondents' history of domestic violence, lack of parenting skills, anger management issues, and cognitive limitations.

The mother's plan for supervision was rejected as inadequate.

The court ordered Crown wardship without access, finding that the child's best interests require certainty and permanency in a safe and stable environment that the mother cannot provide.