WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file:
This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
87.—(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.— Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,
(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.
(8) Prohibition re identifying child.— No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.
(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged.— The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.
142.—(3) Offences re publication.— A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO Applicant,
— AND —
L.Z., Z.D AND H.G. Respondents
Before Justice Melanie Sager
Endorsement released on May 4, 2026
Counsel: Katie Skinner, counsel for the applicant society L.Z., her own behalf Margarida Pacheco, counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the child, L.H. Theodora Oprea, counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the child, H.Z.
SAGER, J.:
Introduction
1The court writes this endorsement to bring a very serious issue to the attention of those working in the criminal and family justice systems. Release orders imposed on parents charged with crimes against their children are creating unintended, severe, and lasting harm to both parents and children involved in family court proceedings. This problem must be addressed without delay.
2Parents charged with crimes against their children are being released with orders that they shall have no contact with their child or limiting the parent’s contact with the child to occur in the presence of the Children’s Aid Society.
3The impact of release terms that limit a parent’s contact with a child to be supervised by the society or a person approved by a Children’s Aid Society, is to effectively deprive the family court judge of any meaningful exercise of her authority or judicial discretion. The family court is rendered ineffective by these release orders, and the consequence of this, which cannot be understated, is serious emotional and psychological harm to the children before the court.
Background of this proceeding
4This child protection case involves two girls ages 9 and 11. They have been in the care of the society for almost three years.
5The mother is originally from China and speaks Mandarin. She does not speak English. She appears in this court with an interpreter.
6On June 14, 2023, the mother was charged with two counts of failing to provide necessaries of life for both children and they were removed from her care and placed in the care and custody of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the society).
7The fathers of the girls are not present in their lives and have not participated in this court proceeding at all. The girls have no other family in Ontario.
8As a term of the mother’s release, she was not to have any contact at all with her children.
9On August 2, 2023, this court wrote that both children are expressing a desire to see their mother and endorsed the record as follows:
I am preparing this endorsement with the consent of all parties for the mother to provide to the Crown and the Judge hearing the bail variation request.
The society and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer support the mother’s request for a bail variation so that contact between the children and their mother, if determined by this court to be in the children’s best interests, can be ordered.
This court supports a bail variation so that if it is determined that contact between the children and their mother is in the children’s best interests, an order from this court granting the mother access with her children can be implemented.
10Following the release of the August 2, 2023, endorsement, the mother’s release terms were varied to allow the mother to have contact with the children provided it is supervised by the Children’s Aid Society. Full stop. No other exceptions.
11Since August 2023, the children have only had supervised access with their mother because the release order prohibits any other form of access, even if this court finds an expansion of access is in the children’s best interests.
12The society has advised the court for months that but for the mother’s release terms, the society would have transitioned the mother and the children to unsupervised access. Both lawyers representing the children support the mother and their client having unsupervised access.
13On December 1, 2025, this court was advised by the society that on the second day of her criminal trial, the mother changed her plea to guilty, and sentencing was scheduled for March 3, 2026. Following the mother’s guilty plea, the society advised that it asked the Crown to vary the mother’s condition that limits her contact with the children to be supervised by the society, to be subject to the exception of a family court order made after that date. The Crown refused the request, specifically advising the society that they would not agree to a variation that permitted the mother unsupervised access with the children. This information was not received well by this court.
14A transcript of the proceeding dated November 11, 2025, sets out the mother’s guilty plea and the facts that support it. Sentencing was scheduled for March 3, 2026. Unfortunately, the mother’s sentencing has now been adjourned twice and is scheduled to proceed on June 1, 2026, almost 7 months after her guilty plea.
15Given that the mother pled guilty almost 7 months ago, it makes even less sense that the terms of her release have not changed.
16The mother has been unable to explain to this court why she has not brought a motion to vary the terms of her release to allow for access with her children subject to a family court order, but it is likely due in part to her being unrepresented at points in the criminal matter.1 It also is likely in part due to the fact that she does not speak English making it very difficult to communicate with the Crown. But according to the society, it is also due to the Crown’s refusal to a consent variation that permits anything but supervised access.
17The court has been advised consistently that the mother is exercising her supervised access and that it is going well. The court has also been told that the children and the mother engaged in therapy which has assisted in repairing their relationship.2
18On February 23, 2026, the court was advised by the society that were it not for the mother’s release terms, the society is prepared to work towards reunification of the children and the mother by gradually expanding access. The society reported that in addition to attending therapy with the girls, the mother has shown insight into the protection concerns.
19On February 23, 2026, counsel for both children advised the court that their clients wish to work towards reunification with their mother. The older child reported to her lawyer that she believes her mother has changed for the better.3 The younger child consistently asks to spend more time with her mother.
20Despite the overwhelmingly positive report regarding the mother’s progress delivered by the society and counsel for the children on February 23, 2026, on that same date, the society advised that due to the time the children have been in the society’s care, far beyond the statutory limits, and the lack of expanded access by the mother, it will be amending its Status Review Application to seek orders of extended care for both children4.
21On February 23, 2026, the court endorsed as follows:
The children have been in care for 3 years. They both hope to go home.
The restrictions imposed on the mother by the terms of her release make it impossible to support reunification of the children into the mother’s care, something all parties are hopeful for and exactly what the Child, Youth and Family Services Act promotes and which we strive to achieve.
The family court can make orders in the children’s best interests’, but the terms of the mother’s release is making it impossible for the parties to comply with such orders and therefore we may be failing to promote the children’s best interests and the goals of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
The court hopes that this endorsement will assist the mother in obtaining a variation to the terms of her release if her sentencing is not completed on March 3, 2026, and ultimately a sentence that will not include terms that make it impossible for this court to promote the objectives under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.
22The parties attended in court on April 22, 2026, and advised that the court’s endorsement from February 23, 2026, was sent to the Crown counsel (Adriana Moser) and amicus (Darrel Hotz). The society and OCL reported that on February 24, 2026, they requested a meeting with the Crown, but their request was denied.
23Sentencing did not occur on March 3, 2026, and was adjourned to April 7, 2026, and then adjourned yet again to June 1st, 2026 (over 6 months after the guilty plea). Despite the long delay between the guilty plea and sentencing, the terms of the mother’s release pending sentencing were not varied on consent to allow her to have contact with her children in accordance with a family court order. As far as this court knows, no motion was scheduled for the court to consider a variation.
24An inability of a parent to obtain a variation of release terms is unfortunately something this court sees all too often. There are clearly obstacles in place that make it difficult for the litigants we see in child protection cases to obtain a variation. This makes it extremely important to get the release terms right the first time.
25Both OCL have met with amicus to impress upon him how important it is from their clients’ perspective for the release conditions to be varied to allow for the family court to decide what is in the children best interests in terms of increased access and possible reconciliation. Limiting the mother to access supervised by the society for three years has denied this family, or at least grossly delayed the possibility of healing and reunification.
26Yet here we are in late April 2026, and the mother’s release terms have not been varied to permit for unsupervised access, and the society is seeking a final order that terminates the mother’s rights to parent these children. This is infuriating to this court.
27On April 22, 2026, the court endorsed the record as follows:
The court continues to express its extreme frustration at being unable to help this family heal and move towards reunification which, at least [younger daughter] has consistently supported as does the society.”
The Problem
28The court is writing this endorsement out of sheer exasperation5 and to bring this very serious issue to the attention of those involved in both the child welfare and the criminal justice system. If this problem is not addressed immediately, it will be responsible for inflicting significant pain and suffering on the children whose safety we are entrusted to protect and whose well being we are obliged to promote. Thankfully, this problem can be addressed quickly and easily.
29The Child, Youth and Family Services Act, is a remedial statute whose purpose is to “promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children”. It is remedial in nature such that we never stop believing that parents and caregivers who at some point may have done something or failed to have done something that put their child at risk of harm, can demonstrate insight into the risk they created as well as change their behaviour. In child protection proceedings we refer to this as “addressing the child protection concerns” such that the child is no longer at risk of harm in the parent’s or caregivers' care.
30Child protection courts are faced with the difficult decision of deciding what contact a child can have with a parent who is or was criminally charged with harming them and has come before the family court in a child protection proceeding. These decisions must be made in a manner that promotes the primary purpose of the child protection legislation.
31These decisions are always made based on relevant and reliable evidence provided by all the parties.
32There has for a very long time been an understanding between the two justice systems that in most instances the family judge is best situated to make these decisions while the parent awaits a criminal trial because the family courts in this province are overseen by judges with an enormous wealth of experience in family and child protection law (many of whom who also have significant experience in criminal law).
33This understanding and respect afforded to the family bench resulted in the inclusion in most bail or release terms that prohibits a parent charged with a criminal offence involving a child from having contact with the child, with the following exception:
“except in accordance with a family court order made after this date.”
This made perfect sense. Who best to decide what is in the child’s best interests in these circumstances if not a family court judge?
34Something has drastically changed such that those involved in the criminal justice system no longer appear to be giving family court judges the well deserved deference they received for a very long time when it comes to contact between an accused parent and a child who may have been the victim of the crime. Recently, too many release terms do not include this exception, and it is wreaking havoc on our child protection cases (and some domestic cases) by effectively staying the family court proceeding or at least making the orders made in the child protection proceeding ineffective.
35The weakening of this deference is amplified by the response being received by those in the criminal justice system to the written endorsements of the court supporting a variation of release terms to include the exception of a family court order which have largely been ignored by the Crown.
36All too often now when the request for variation is made, the Crown is varying the terms to allow for access supervised only by the society or someone vetted and approved by the society, eliminating the function and authority of the family court judge to find, based on the evidence, that some other form of access is in the child’s best interests.
37When a parent charged with a criminal offence involving a child comes before this court on a child protection matter with release terms that prohibit any contact with the child or limits the child to access supervised by the society, the effect is to derail the child protection proceeding, sometimes in a significantly harmful way.
38In this case, the impact is enormous as the society is seeking to remove the children from the mother’s care permanently despite improvements being made by her to address the protection concerns and the children’s repeated requests to be returned to their mother’s care.
39Children and youth who are desperate to have contact, more contact or unsupervised contact with a parent, and which contact is supported by the evidence, are being denied due entirely to the parents’ terms of release. Parents who should be granted increased access or even the return of a child to their care are being denied entirely due to the terms of their release.
40A family court that finds it is in a child’s best interests to have expanded access or unsupervised access to a parent is stymied by the criminal release terms that prohibits such access.
41This court has respectfully invited the Crown to attend in court to speak to this issue on more than one case to ensure this court’s understanding of the variation process and the Crown’s understanding of the implications plaguing this court as a result of the failure to include in the release terms the exception that a parent before the criminal court may have contact with a child subject to a family court order.
42The Crown has yet to attend in this court despite the requests. This court finds this unacceptable.
43It must be understood that these release and bail restrictions are having a real and seriously negative impact on the children who are the focus of both domestic and child welfare proceedings. How can a family court be rendered powerless by these release terms when its very function is to make decisions in the best interest of a child? We can make the orders, but the parents cannot comply without violating the terms of their release and the child suffers.
44This situation is untenable. We cannot continue to allow our family courts to be rendered meaningless in this way.
The Solution
45The CYFSA provides the child protection agencies, the parents, and the court with the framework for keeping families together wherever possible and reuniting families when risk of harm that kept them apart has been addressed. This is what we are always working toward, this is the goal. What is happening now with release terms that nullify this court’s power to do that, should shock everyone working in the child welfare system.
46Participants in the criminal justice system must place confidence in family court judges to carry out the responsibility entrusted to them, namely, to make decisions in the best interests of children. This responsibility extends to all children, including those who may have experienced violence or neglect at the hands of their parents.
47In most cases, release orders or bail terms involving a parent accused of a criminal offence against their child, who is prohibited from contact with their child, should include as an exception, “except in accordance with a family court order made after today’s date”.
48The court writes this endorsement to bring this to the attention of those who can fix the problem. They ought to fix it very quickly.
Released: May 4, 2026
Signed: Justice Melanie Sager
Footnotes
- It appears from the transcript of the guilty plea that the mother was represented by counsel at some point in the proceeding who was later appointed as amicus.
- Because of the release terms the society worker must be present even during the therapy.
- The older child’s views on this issue have changed since February 23, 2026.
- For those unfamiliar with this term, it results in a permanent removal of the children from the mother’s care and a termination of her parenting rights.
- This is only one of several child protection cases I am case managing with this problem.