Sandra E. Welch

This decision concerns a status review application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, regarding a five-year-old child, M.M. The Court found that the child remained in need of protection and ordered her placement in extended society care with the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex.

The Court considered the plans of both the father and the Society, ultimately determining that the Society’s plan best met the child’s best interests, including permanency and stability.

The decision also addresses access arrangements for the parents and paternal grandmother, balancing the preservation of family relationships with the child’s need for permanency.

The Children's Aid Society applied under s. 161 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, to commit the child, A.R.P., to a secure treatment program for 180 days due to severe mental health issues, high-risk behaviours, and a history of self-harm and substance abuse.

The child, represented by the Office of the Children's Lawyer, opposed the application.

The court found that all six criteria under s. 164(1) of the CYFSA were met, including the child suffering from a mental disorder (FASD, intellectual disability, borderline personality disorder), having caused or attempted serious bodily harm within 45 days and 12 months of the application, and that the proposed secure treatment program was effective, appropriate, and the least restrictive option given the child's complex needs and lack of success with less restrictive alternatives.

This case involved a child protection application by the Children's Aid Society.

The court granted summary judgment, finding the child in need of protection, despite the mother's cousin (SD2) not consenting.

The parents (SD1 and N.C.) consented to joint custody with the father having primary care.

The court then addressed SD2's separate motions for a s. 54 assessment and for access to the child.

Both of SD2's motions were dismissed.

The court found that an assessment was not necessary as there was abundant, consistent, and independent medical evidence, along with the Society's extensive history with SD2, indicating medical child abuse.

Furthermore, the court determined that it was not in the child's best interests for SD2 to have any access, citing the clear causal connection between SD2's care and the child's declining health, and the potential negative impact on the mother's development.

A status review application concerning two children, S. and N., resulted in a final order awarding sole custody to their paternal great-aunt, C.M.P., pursuant to s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

The children's mother and father did not participate in the proceedings.

While other access issues were resolved, the father's access was adjourned for further evidence due to historical allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour and concerns regarding one child's "sexualized behaviour."

The Children's Aid Society sought a temporary care and custody order for a child with complex medical needs, following concerns of "medical child abuse" by the maternal grandmother.

Despite an initial ADR process, a final resolution was not reached.

The court considered a consent order, signed by all parties except the maternal grandmother, to place the child with the father and paternal grandmother under Society supervision.

The court reviewed extensive medical evidence detailing the child's significant improvement after being removed from the maternal grandmother's primary care.

The court granted the temporary supervision order, placing the child with the father and paternal grandmother, with conditions, and ordered supervised access for the maternal grandmother due to the credible medical concerns.