Kristen Robins

Child protection proceedings under the Child and Family Services Act concerning two young children in the care of the Children’s Aid Society.

The applicant sought Crown wardship with a view to adoption following prolonged periods in care, repeated missed access visits, unstable housing, substance‑exposure concerns, and failure by the mother to cooperate with services or attend trial.

Evidence showed a history of neglectful living conditions, inability to maintain consistent contact with the children, and unsuccessful kinship placement assessments.

The court found the children to be in need of protection under s. 37(2) of the Act and determined that their physical, emotional, and developmental needs required permanency through adoption.

Crown wardship without access was ordered.

On a motion for summary judgment in a child protection proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, the moving child protection agency sought permanent Crown wardship of two children who had been in foster care for an extended period.

The mother consented to the wardship, while the father sought custody or access and argued that factual disputes regarding his past involvement with the children required a trial.

The court held that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial because the father had been largely absent from the children’s lives for several years and had not advanced a viable plan of care.

Considering the statutory time limits, the children’s need for permanency, and the father’s lack of meaningful involvement, the court determined the children were in need of protection and that Crown wardship was in their best interests.

Summary judgment was granted.

A child protection motion under the Child and Family Services Act sought temporary care and custody of three children following their apprehension from the maternal grandmother’s home.

The society relied on concerns regarding unsafe home conditions, the continued presence of the grandmother’s adult son contrary to prior warnings, and developmental progress observed while the children were in foster care.

The court found the society met the statutory burden under s. 64(8) of the CFSA only in relation to the youngest child, whose health and developmental improvements and attachment in foster care demonstrated that remaining in care was in her best interests.

The evidence did not establish that the two older children’s best interests required continued placement in care, particularly given their lengthy residence with the grandmother and improvements to the home environment.

The court therefore ordered temporary care and custody of the youngest child to the society, while placing the two older children with the grandmother subject to supervision and conditions.