3 total
Supervision ordered; parental drug testing required to protect children remaining at home.
In a child protection motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the Society sought a temporary supervision order while leaving the children in the parents’ care, with drug testing as a central term.
The court accepted that some anonymous and collateral reports deserved limited weight, and that many proposed supervisory terms were overbroad, but found the family’s recent and documented history of parental drug abuse, deception, treatment attendance, and renewed reports of use created a probable risk of harm absent court-ordered supervision.
Applying the temporary protection standard and the least intrusive placement principle, the court held the children could remain with the parents under supervision rather than be removed.
Random drug testing for both parents was ordered as a cornerstone term of supervision.
Crown wardship without access ordered due to parental instability, drug abuse, and chronic conflict.
Child protection status review concerning a child apprehended at birth due to parental drug use, domestic violence, and instability.
The society sought crown wardship without access.
Evidence showed the mother had significant cognitive limitations, mental health problems, instability, and disengaged from the proceedings, while the father continued to use drugs, lacked insight into domestic conflict, resisted counselling and parenting guidance, and maintained an unhealthy relationship dynamic with the mother despite assurances of separation.
The court held the child remained in need of protection and that returning the child to either parent, even under supervision, posed unacceptable risk.
Applying the best interests analysis under the Child and Family Services Act, the court concluded permanence and stability through adoption were required.
The presumption against access to a crown ward was not rebutted because the parental relationships were not shown to be beneficial and meaningful to the child and access could impair adoption prospects.
Summary judgment granted in child protection case where no genuine issue for trial existed.
In a child protection status review proceeding, the applicant society brought a motion for summary judgment seeking final disposition orders regarding two children.
The court considered whether there was a genuine issue requiring a trial under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules.
The evidentiary record showed longstanding domestic violence, repeated non‑compliance with court orders, and the parents’ inability to provide safe care despite extensive services and prior interventions.
The responding parent filed no evidentiary materials opposing the motion and relied only on speculation that a trial might produce additional evidence.
The court held that no genuine issue for trial existed and granted summary judgment, ordering custody of one child to the maternal grandparents under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act and Crown wardship without access for the other child.
