Melanie Verdone

The Children's Aid Society brought a motion for temporary care and custody of two children, aged 7 and 2, following allegations that the mother's former partner sexually abused the 7-year-old.

The mother and paternal grandmother opposed the motion, seeking the children's return to their care.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm if returned to the mother or placed with the paternal grandmother, citing their failure to protect the children and abide by previous supervision conditions.

The court ordered the children to remain in the temporary care of the Society, with access at the Society's discretion.

Following a five-day child protection trial where the court's judgment mirrored the respondent mother's formal offer to settle, the mother sought costs against the Children's Aid Society.

The court noted that an award of costs against a Children's Aid Society should be the exception, not the rule, to avoid deterring child welfare professionals from protecting children.

Finding that the Society did not act unreasonably or in bad faith but rather out of an abundance of caution, the court declined to award costs.

A child protection proceeding concerning a temporary care and custody order under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The child had been apprehended following concerns about exposure to ongoing high-conflict family dynamics, violence between adults, and allegations of sexual misconduct within the family.

Multiple relatives sought custody or supervision arrangements, while the children's aid society sought continued custody with discretionary access.

The court found credible evidence establishing reasonable grounds to believe the child would likely suffer emotional harm if returned to the prior family environment.

Concluding that supervision conditions would not adequately protect the child given the intensity of conflict and credibility concerns, the court ordered that temporary care and custody remain with the society.