Robin L. Saari

In a child protection proceeding, foster parents T.O. and M.L. brought a motion for party status concerning the child A.L., who had been in their care since early 2020.

The biological parents, A.H. and D.L., opposed the motion, arguing that the foster parents' input could be obtained through the Children's Aid Society, which took no position.

The court applied a five-factor test to determine if party status should be granted, considering the foster parents' ability to present a plan in the child's best interest, their legal interest (long-term adoption objective), the necessity of their direct evidence given the child's young age and lack of OCL involvement, potential for delay, and the child's best interests.

The motion for party status was granted, emphasizing the need for comprehensive, real-time evidence from primary caregivers.

The Children's Aid Society appealed a temporary care order returning a child to the mother and sought a stay of that order pending appeal.

The court applied the three-part test for a stay, focusing on whether there was a serious issue to be tried.

The court found the Society failed to establish a serious issue, concluding that the motion judge's finding of speculative risk was entitled to deference and that the child could be adequately protected by a supervision order.

The motion for a stay was dismissed.

A child protection agency sought summary judgment on a motion to establish that a child was in need of protection and to grant custody to the paternal grandparents.

The respondent mother opposed the custody order but took no position on the identification order.

The respondent father supported the motion.

The court granted summary judgment on custody to the paternal grandparents and supervised access to the father, but declined to grant summary judgment on the mother's access, finding that genuine issues remained regarding the accommodation of the mother's work schedule and exploration of third-party supervisors.

The court ordered a focused one-day hearing on the mother's access issue.

This is a child protection proceeding under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA) concerning maternal access to a three-year-old child (Amelia) who was found to be in need of protection and made a crown ward (now extended society care).

The trial addressed only the issue of maternal access following a prior summary judgment motion that established the child's need for protection.

The mother sought continued access to the child, but the court found that the mother failed to meet the best interests test, particularly in demonstrating that the relationship was beneficial and meaningful to the child.

The court terminated all access.

A child protection motion for summary judgment brought by the Children's Aid Society seeking a finding that a child is in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(i) of the Child and Family Services Act, an order for crown wardship, and an order for no maternal access.

The child was apprehended at birth and had been in foster care for approximately two years with only supervised access to the mother.

The court found that the mother's severe intellectual limitations, history of unsuccessful parenting with three prior children, personality difficulties, and inability to comply with supervision orders created a risk of physical harm.

The court granted the motion for summary judgment, finding no genuine issue requiring trial on the grounds for protection, disposition, or access.