Neglect

The appellant, Thanuja Dhuruvasangary, appealed her removal as attorney for property for her mother, Logaranee Dhuruvasangary, and the appointment of the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) as Logaranee’s guardian of property.

The appellant argued the application judge erred by refusing an adjournment, failing to apply the correct test, reversing the burden of proof, and concluding there was sufficient evidence of misconduct.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the denial of the adjournment given the urgency and overwhelming evidence of misconduct.

The court also affirmed that the application judge properly understood and applied the two-part test for terminating a power of attorney and did not reverse the burden of proof.

The Family and Children’s Services of Guelph and Wellington County brought a motion for temporary care and custody of a child, R., seeking placement with her aunt and uncle.

The father opposed, requesting the child's return to his care or expanded access, while the mother and aunt/uncle supported the Society's plan.

The court applied the two-part test under subsection 94(10) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, requiring the Society to demonstrate reasonable grounds of a real possibility of harm if the child were returned to parental care, and that an interim supervision order would be insufficient.

The court found a long history of neglect, including unhygienic living conditions, missed medical appointments, school absences, and concerns arising from the tragic death of another child in the parents' care.

The parents' responses were deemed insufficient to refute the established risks.

The court concluded that the child was at risk of harm and could not be adequately protected by a supervision order with either parent.

Consequently, the motion for temporary care and custody with the aunt and uncle was granted, with supervised access for the parents, and the Society was directed to monitor the child's hygiene and school attendance.

The applicant maternal grandmother sought an order under s. 81(4) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) to have her granddaughter brought before the court for child protection, alleging the child was not adequately protected in her father's care.

The court found reasonable and probable grounds to believe the child was in need of protection due to a pattern of neglect by the father and that court intervention under the CYFSA was necessary, as protection could not be adequately achieved through existing Children's Law Reform Act (CLRA) proceedings.

The court ordered that the threshold tests for a protection application were met, an Office of the Children's Lawyer (OCL) order be made, and the CLRA proceedings be stayed.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa brought a protection application concerning two children, S.B. and A.O.H., alleging physical harm and a pattern of neglect by their mother.

The mother failed to attend trial, and her counsel was removed.

The fathers of the children agreed with the Society's protection findings and sought custody.

The court found the children in need of protection due to the mother's inappropriate physical discipline, inadequate supervision, lack of provision for necessities, and threats.

Custody of S.B. was granted to her father, and joint legal custody of A.O.H. was granted to her paternal grandmother and father, with primary residence with the grandmother.

Access to the mother was made discretionary for the custodial parents, considering the children's views and best interests.

Orders were also made to facilitate obtaining passports for the children without the mother's consent.

The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa sought a finding that two children, A.D. (14) and E.D. (11), were in need of protection under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

The Society alleged risk of physical and emotional harm due to the mother's failure to adequately care for, supervise, and protect the children, a pattern of neglect, and her inability to provide or access necessary treatment for their significant special needs (Autism Spectrum Disorder, ADHD, ODD, Reactive Attachment Disorder).

The father did not participate in the trial.

The court found the children in need of protection, citing a lengthy history of child protection involvement, the mother's inconsistent care, lack of stable housing, mental health issues, drug use, and inability to regulate emotions or engage meaningfully with services.

The court ordered extended Society care for both children, determining it was in their best interests, and left access to the mother at the Society's discretion, considering the mother's attributes that could impair future adoption opportunities.

This is a child protection trial concerning two children: N.B., a 10-year-old girl, and M.M., an 18-month-old girl.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought protection orders for both children based on risk of physical harm due to parental neglect and inability to provide adequate care.

The mother (Y.M.) and M.M.'s father (S.O.) opposed the applications, seeking return of the children to their care.

N.B.'s father (Y.B.) did not participate and was found in default.

The court found both children to be in need of protection.

N.B. was placed in the custody of kin caregivers with supervised access to the parents.

M.M. was placed in extended society care for adoption with limited supervised access to the parents.

The court found the parents lacked the stability, consistency, and reliability necessary to adequately parent the children, and that their poor functioning, dishonesty, housing instability, and lack of insight into protection concerns made return of the children inappropriate.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion for summary judgment seeking to make two children crown wards with access to the respondents in the society's discretion.

The respondents, the mother and maternal grandmother, opposed the motion and sought the return of the children to their care.

The court heard oral evidence from the mother and maternal grandmother pursuant to subrule 16(6.2) of the Family Law Rules.

The court found that the children had been in need of protection due to neglect, and that the respondents had demonstrated no meaningful insight into the protection concerns or the children's needs.

The court made final orders making both children crown wards, with access to the respondents in the society's discretion and in consideration of the children's wishes.

A focused hearing was scheduled to determine the access arrangements for the older child.

The parents appealed a trial judge's final order making their child a Crown Ward with no access under the Child and Family Services Act.

The appeal grounds included allegations of judicial bias, usurpation of the trier of fact's role by an expert, exclusion of evidence, and failure to consider the child's return to the mother.

The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error in the trial judge's conclusions.

The court upheld the reliance on expert evidence regarding long-term neglect and the mother's inability to cooperate with supervision, which rendered continued access detrimental to the child's best interests and permanency planning.

The applicant children's aid society sought an order for Crown wardship without access for a young child with significant special needs, including reactive attachment disorder, PTSD, and ADHD.

The child had been apprehended due to chronic neglect, the mother's prescription drug abuse, and the father's anger management issues and history of sexual offences.

The parents sought the return of the child to their care under supervision or an extension of society wardship.

The court found that the parents lacked insight into the child's complex needs and had failed to follow through with recommended therapeutic and anger management programming.

Concluding that the parents' plan was not viable and that the child required a stable, structured environment, the court ordered Crown wardship.

The court also denied access to the parents, finding they had not met the onus of proving that access would be meaningful and beneficial or that it would not impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.

The applicant Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking a finding that two young children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access.

The respondent parents opposed the motion, with the mother seeking the return of the children under a supervision order and the father alleging the Society failed to properly explore a kin placement.

The court found no genuine issue for trial, noting the parents' failure to protect the children from neglect and domestic violence, the mother's failure to exercise reasonable access, and the father's lack of involvement.

The court granted the motion, finding the children in need of protection and ordering Crown wardship without access.

This is a child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child born in 2012.

The Children's Aid Society sought a finding that the child was in need of protection under sections 37(2)(b) and 37(2)(g) of the Act, and sought a crown wardship order for adoption purposes.

The mother sought the return of the child to her care with or without supervision, or alternatively, access if the child was made a crown ward.

The father did not participate in the proceedings.

The court found the child was in need of protection based on the mother's failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, and her pattern of neglect resulting in physical and emotional harm, including developmental delays.

The court made a crown wardship order without access, finding that the mother lacked the parenting capacity to meet the child's needs despite extensive supportive services, and that the relationship between mother and child was not significantly beneficial to the child.

The Children's Aid Society sought a disposition order following a finding that two young children were in need of protection due to severe neglect, unsanitary living conditions, and parental substance abuse.

The mother sought the return of the children to her care, with the support of the maternal grandmother.

The court found that the mother and grandmother had failed to demonstrate any meaningful rehabilitation or ability to integrate parenting instruction, and that returning the children would expose them to an unacceptable risk of harm.

The court ordered Crown wardship for the younger child with no access order, and granted custody of the older child to the paternal grandmother, finding these dispositions to be in the children's best interests.

Respondent parents brought a summary judgment motion to dismiss a child protection application brought by the Children's Aid Society following the sudden unexpected death of their six-week-old infant.

The Society sought to establish that the surviving child was in need of protection due to alleged inadequate supervision and neglect.

The court found that the evidence did not establish a genuine issue requiring trial.

The surviving child was in her own bedroom and could be heard by the sleeping parent.

The fact that the child may have been awake and unattended for several hours while the parent slept, and was not fed or changed during that period, was insufficient to establish a real and likely risk of physical harm.

The motion was granted and the application dismissed.

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for two young children following their apprehension.

The mother opposed the application and sought dismissal or alternative placements with herself or her mother.

The father sought placement with himself or his mother.

The court applied the two-part test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act and found reasonable grounds to believe the children would suffer harm if returned to either parent and that they could not be adequately protected by supervision orders.

The court placed the children in the temporary care of the society with supervised access to the mother and no access to the father pending further order.

A child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended on July 22, 2012.

The Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a finding that the child was in need of protection and a crown wardship order with no access.

The parents opposed the application and sought return of the child to their care, alternatively with supervision.

The court found the child was in need of protection due to abandonment by the mother, emotional unavailability of the father, exposure to domestic violence, excessive physical discipline, and neglect of the child's physical and emotional needs.

The court made a crown wardship order and granted the child (rather than the parents) a right of access to the parents once monthly for two hours, fully supervised by the society.

The Children's Aid Society applied for a status review seeking Crown wardship of three children.

The parents had a history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and failure to maintain a safe and clean home environment.

Despite numerous interventions, support services, and strict safety plans, the parents repeatedly breached conditions, exposing the children to ongoing risk and neglect.

The court found that the parents were unable to change their behaviour and that returning the children to their care was impossible.

The court ordered that the children be made Crown wards with no access.

The children's aid society sought Crown wardship with no access for three children who had been apprehended due to severe neglect, unsanitary living conditions, and failure to thrive.

The mother, who struggled with mental health and addiction issues, did not participate in the trial.

The father sought return of the children, proposing to parent them with his new partner, a recovering alcoholic with a history of child welfare involvement.

The court found the children in need of protection, noting the father's passivity, poor judgment, and inability to recognize or address the children's basic needs.

Concluding that the father could not provide adequate care and that access would impair the children's opportunities for adoption, the court ordered Crown wardship with no access for all three children.

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking statutory findings that two children were in need of protection, and that they be made wards of the Crown for the purpose of adoption.

The respondent mother contested the motion and sought return of the children to her care pursuant to a supervision order.

The respondent father sought an adjournment.

The court found that the children were in need of protection based on the chronically poor condition of the mother's home, her inability to consistently meet the children's needs, and findings from a parenting capacity assessment indicating developmental delay and personality features that prevented adequate parenting.

The court granted the Society's motion, made the children Crown wards, and ordered supervised access for the mother at least once every two months.

This is a child protection trial concerning three children (K.M.1, A.M.1, and M.M.) who were apprehended in March 2008 due to neglect and inadequate supervision.

The mother, L.M., had a history of transience, poor home conditions, truancy issues with her older children, and inability to meet the special needs of her younger children.

The maternal grandmother, B.D.1, sought placement of the children with her.

The court found the children were in need of protection under the Child and Family Services Act and made them Crown wards, rejecting all family-based plans due to the mother's deep-seated personality issues, the grandmother's health limitations and credibility concerns, and the inadequacy of the proposed plans to meet the children's high needs.

The applicant children's aid society sought a finding that four children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship without access for the purposes of adoption.

The children had been apprehended due to severe neglect, hazardous living conditions, and exposure to domestic violence.

The respondent mother, who suffered from untreated complex post-traumatic stress disorder, sought the return of the children under a supervision order.

The court found the children in need of protection and ordered Crown wardship without access, concluding that the mother's unresolved trauma prevented her from safely parenting the children and that access would not be beneficial and could impair adoption opportunities.