Romuald Kwolek

Three motions were heard regarding temporary care and custody of a newborn child apprehended at birth.

The Children's Aid Society sought temporary care and custody, as did the mother and father.

The court applied the two-part test under section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act.

While the first part of the test (reasonable grounds to believe risk of likely harm) was satisfied, the court found the second part (child cannot be adequately protected by court order) was not met.

The court awarded temporary care and custody to the father, finding he had demonstrated maturity, responsibility, and a concrete plan for the child's care, supported by his mother's presence in the home.

The order included conditions regarding residency, school attendance, substance use, and maternal contact.

This is a motion brought by the father in a child protection status review proceeding seeking an interim variation of an access order made by Gregson J. on November 1, 2012.

The father sought immediate, increased, unsupervised access to his two children, including weekend access.

The court found that significant changes in circumstances had occurred since the original order, including the father's completion of anger management and counselling programs, separation from his former partner, improved communication with child protection authorities, and consistent, incident-free exercise of existing access.

The court granted the motion in part, expanding paternal access from three hours bi-weekly at a supervised access centre to daytime access in the community with progressive increases in duration, while maintaining some supervision at the society's discretion and prohibiting overnight access without society approval.

This is a child protection matter involving a temporary care and custody determination.

The Children's Aid Society sought to place a child in its care following an apprehension from the mother.

The court examined the legality of the warrantless apprehension and found it did not meet the statutory requirements under section 40(7) of the Child and Family Services Act.

The court also addressed party status issues, determining that the alleged father should be removed as a party after DNA testing excluded him as the biological parent.

Ultimately, the court ordered temporary care and custody to remain with the mother subject to supervision and conditions, including a restraining order under section 80 of the Act prohibiting contact between the child and the non-biological father figure.