2 total
Court refuses expanded access where no evidence shows benefit to the child.
In a child protection proceeding, the mother brought a motion seeking specified supervised access with her newborn child and two additional observed visits by a physician for the purpose of assessment.
The child had been apprehended at birth due to extensive historical concerns, including the permanent removal of five previous children and recent professional assessments indicating risk.
The court considered s. 51(5) of the Child and Family Services Act governing access orders and the principle that access must benefit the child.
The court held that the Society had exercised its discretionary authority over supervised access responsibly and that there was no demonstrated benefit to the child from the proposed observational visits.
The mother failed to establish a clear purpose, need, or expert qualification supporting the proposed assessment.
Temporary placement with kin caregiver ordered due to risk of harm.
At a temporary care hearing under ss. 51(2) and (3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the child protection agency sought to place two children in the temporary care of a kin caregiver who had acted in a parental role.
The mother opposed the motion and sought the children’s return to her care under a supervision order.
The court found reasonable grounds to believe the children were at risk of harm due to the mother’s recent drug abuse, criminal involvement, and early stage of recovery.
The court also concluded that the proposed supervision arrangement would not adequately protect the children.
The agency’s motion to place the children with the kin caregiver was granted and the mother’s cross‑motion was dismissed.
