Rachel Buhler

A temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act wherein the applicant society sought to place a child in its care and custody with access at the society's discretion.

The respondent mother sought an order placing the child in her care subject to society supervision.

The child's counsel supported the mother's position.

The court found reasonable grounds to believe the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the mother's care based on the mother's history of involvement with child protection agencies, her failure to protect children from relationships with men posing risk, and her lack of insight into protecting her children.

The court determined that a supervision order would be inadequate to protect the child given the mother's past non-compliance and her strongly held belief in the alleged perpetrator's innocence.

The court ordered the child placed in the temporary care and custody of the society.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society brought a motion under section 65(1)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act to vary an order placing a child in the care of his mother and instead place the child in the temporary care and custody of his paternal grandparents.

The motion was brought following an Early Status Review Application due to concerns about the mother's ongoing alcohol abuse, her inability to meet the child's needs, and the child's emotional distress.

The court found that the society had met its onus to demonstrate a material change in circumstances warranting a change in placement in the child's best interests.

The order was varied to place the child with his paternal grandparents, with access to the mother at the discretion of the society.

A summary judgment motion brought by the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto seeking to make two children crown wards without access to their parents for the purpose of adoption.

The mother opposed the motion, arguing there were triable issues regarding placement in her care or with alternative caregivers.

The father of one child consented to crown wardship but opposed the no-access provision.

The court found no triable issue regarding disposition and ordered the children to be made crown wards, but found triable issues regarding access that required a full trial to determine.

The appellant mother appealed an order dismissing her appeal from a child protection disposition making the child a Crown ward without access.

She alleged numerous palpable and overriding errors relating to the child’s behavioural problems, her parenting abilities, mental health, judgment, and the child’s dietary needs, and argued material evidence had been ignored.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge gave extensive and considered reasons, that any misstatements did not amount to palpable and overriding error, and that the evidence of the infant mental health counsellor had been considered.

Applying a deferential standard of review in child welfare matters, the court found no basis to interfere.

This is a child protection trial concerning a child (A.) born in 2010, nearly three years old at the time of trial.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto sought a crown wardship order with no access for purposes of adoption.

The mother opposed this and sought the child's return to her care subject to a supervision order.

The mother consented to a protection finding under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act based on risk of physical harm.

The child had been apprehended twice: first in October 2010 when the mother experienced a mental health crisis, and second in March 2012 when the mother's mental health again deteriorated.

The court found that while the mother had made significant personal gains and her mental health was currently stable with psychiatric treatment, she had not made adequate gains in her parenting abilities.

The court determined that the child required a permanent, stable placement and ordered crown wardship with no access to facilitate adoption.