Patricia Anne File

The mother brought a motion for the return of one of the parties' children, who was being overheld by the father, and for police enforcement.

The father brought a cross-motion seeking to change the parenting schedule, change the child's school, and appoint a private lawyer for the children.

The court found no material change or compelling circumstances to vary the existing final consent order on an interim basis.

The father was ordered to return the child immediately, failing which police enforcement would apply.

The court also appointed the Office of the Children's Lawyer to assist with the high-conflict dispute.

Two child protection agencies sought Crown wardship of five children born to deaf parents.

The four older children had been in care for over five years, and the youngest was apprehended at birth.

The parents sought the return of all children.

The court found all five children to be in need of protection due to the parents' history of transience, inability to meet the children's significant developmental needs, and lack of a stable housing plan.

The court ordered Crown wardship for all five children without parental access, finding that the parents could not provide the necessary stability and that parental access would not be beneficial and meaningful or would impair adoption.

Sibling access was ordered.

The applicant children’s aid society brought a summary judgment motion within a status review proceeding relating to a prior Crown wardship with access order.

The society argued that the Crown wardship component of the consent order was final and that only the access terms could be reviewed, seeking amendment of the access provisions to facilitate adoption placement.

The respondent parents contended that they consented to the order on the understanding that the children could be returned to them after demonstrating stable housing and parenting capacity.

The court held that several genuine issues for trial existed, including the interpretation of the consent Crown wardship order, the circumstances of the parents’ consent, and the children’s best interests regarding possible return to parental care or adoption.

Summary judgment was refused and the matter was directed to proceed to trial.

On an amended temporary care motion in a child protection proceeding, the applicant society sought to vary an existing temporary order and place two children in its care pending trial.

The matter involved concerns about unexplained injuries to a child, repeated medical issues affecting the children, domestic violence between caregivers, and unsafe living conditions including drug paraphernalia and unsanitary housing.

The court considered the statutory framework under s. 51(6) of the Child and Family Services Act and rejected the necessity of a strict two‑stage “material change in circumstances” analysis, emphasizing the court’s ongoing obligation to assess risk of harm to the children.

The court found that the cumulative events and health concerns established that the children faced risks that could not be adequately addressed by supervision alone.

The temporary order was varied to place the twins in the society’s care, while another child remained in kinship placement with supervised parental access.