2 total
The court dismissed a biological father's motion for leave to bring a status review application regarding a Crown ward.
A biological father sought leave to bring a status review application of a Crown ward child who had been in care for over six years.
The child had been placed with the same foster parents for four years, and the Children's Aid Society had identified an adoptive family.
The court applied the five-part test from Catholic Children's Aid Society v. F.(B.A.) to determine whether leave should be granted.
The court found that the father's primary motive was to disrupt the adoption planning, that no unusual circumstances justified the review, and that the father had not established a prima facie case that placement in his care would be in the child's best interests.
The motion was dismissed.
The court maintained joint custody, refusing to reward a parent's unilateral removal of the child.
The Society moved under section 64(8) of the Child and Family Services Act for an order placing a child in the care of the father subject to Society supervision and access to the mother.
The child had been placed in the joint care of both parents following a protection finding.
After the parents separated, the father unilaterally removed the child from the family home without urgent cause.
The court found that the father's act of self-help should not be rewarded and that the mother, as the primary caregiver, should continue to play an active and significant role in the child's upbringing.
The court issued a temporary order placing the child in the joint care and custody of both parents with specified access arrangements and supervision conditions.
