Patricia Miller

The court addresses a preliminary issue in an openness application concerning whether a parent, K.N., who has not consented to the openness order and is the custodial parent of one child (J.N.) and non-custodial parent of others (C.S.-N., A.S.), is entitled to receive notice of the application.

The proposed order affects J.N. by providing for access arrangements and prohibiting K.N. from attending visits.

The court raises questions of due process, confidentiality, and the exhaustive nature of notice provisions under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, adjourning the matter for further submissions and inviting the Attorney General to participate.

The Children's Aid Society sought extended society care for two children against their father and mothers.

The mothers consented to extended society care.

The father opposed, seeking custody.

The court found both children in need of protection due to the father's pedohebephilia diagnosis, untreated impulsivity, chaotic lifestyle, substance use, and history of non-compliance with orders.

The court dismissed the father's plan of care, finding it unrealistic, and ordered extended society care for both children, with silent access for parents but continued inter-sibling access.

The applicant mother sought supervised access for the respondent father at Merrymount and a restraining order.

The respondent father sought interim unsupervised access.

The court granted the mother's request for supervised access at Merrymount, finding it in the child's best interests, but allowed the father liberty to bring a future motion to vary the order to allow for supervision by his mother or other family members, or for unsupervised access after nine visits.

The court also noted a violation of Rule 14(20), para. 3 by the applicant's second affidavit but considered the relevant evidence.