Louis C Alexiou

The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship with no access for a 6.5-year-old child with severe behavioural and mental health needs, arguing he was adoptable.

The grandmother sought the child's return or, alternatively, access.

The court found the child could not safely be returned to the grandmother and ordered Crown wardship.

However, the court rejected the Society's plan for adoption, finding the child required long-term residential treatment and was not currently adoptable.

The court granted access to the grandmother and sister, finding the relationship was meaningful and beneficial, and that access would not impair foreseeable opportunities for adoption.

This is a child protection status review application involving a two-year-old child with a complex history of multiple placements and three separate child protection agencies.

The mother brought a motion for return of the child to her care or increased access.

The paternal great-aunt brought motions for party status and access.

The court dismissed the mother's motions, finding no material change in circumstances warranting modification of the temporary care order.

The court granted the paternal great-aunt party status and access, finding her plan merited consideration as an alternative placement option.

The Society applied for an order of Crown wardship without access to allow a child born to two parents with cognitive limitations and mental health issues to be adopted.

The child had been in Society care since five days after birth due to unsanitary living conditions, domestic violence concerns, and parental inability to provide adequate childcare.

The parents sought return of the child or, alternatively, an extension of Society wardship with therapeutic access.

The court found that while the parents had made efforts to improve and had some strengths, they had not demonstrated adequate parenting ability over 21 months despite intensive support.

The court ordered Crown wardship but granted an access order, finding the relationship between the child and parents was beneficial and meaningful and would not impair adoption opportunities.

The parents in a child protection proceeding requested an adjournment of a scheduled nine-day trial because a parenting capacity assessment, ordered on consent, had not been completed.

The society opposed the adjournment, citing the length of time the child had already been in temporary care.

The court denied the adjournment, finding that the assessment was not necessary for a fair trial and that further delay in permanency planning was not in the child's best interests pursuant to section 70 of the Child and Family Services Act.