23 total
Crown wardship ordered for two children; grandparents granted supervised access.
The Children's Aid Society sought an order for Crown wardship for the purpose of adoption for two young children.
The mother and maternal grandparents proposed competing plans for the children's return or placement.
The court found the mother had not demonstrated the necessary stability, having struggled with substance abuse and inconsistent access.
The grandparents' plan was also rejected due to their inability to set boundaries with the mother and physical limitations in managing the children.
The court ordered Crown wardship for both children but granted the grandparents supervised access, finding it would not impair future adoption opportunities.
Children declared Crown wards after prolonged neglect, missed access, and failed kinship plans.
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.
Appeal of Crown wardship order without access dismissed; child's need for stability prioritized.
The appellant mother appealed a trial judgment granting Crown wardship of her 8-year-old child without access, with a view to adoption.
The child had been in the temporary care of the respondent society due to the mother's psychiatric problems and the child's own needs.
Expert psychiatric evidence at trial strongly recommended against continued access, emphasizing the child's need for stability and permanency through adoption.
The Divisional Court found no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the trial judge's decision to terminate access.
The appeal was dismissed.