Reasons for Judgment

Court File No.: FC714/21-03
Date: March 7, 2025
Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Family Court

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS 87(8) AND (9) OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017

BETWEEN:
The Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex, Applicant
– and –
C.M., K.V., Respondents

Sandra Welch, for the Society
Not attending: Bayly Guslits, for K.V.

Heard: February 10, 11, 12 and 13, 2025

Justice B. Tobin

Introduction

[1] This is a status review application brought under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the “CYFSA”).

Parties

[2] This case concerns the child M.M. (“the child”), born […] 2019. She is now five years old.

[3] The child is in the care of the Society and placed with foster parents.

[4] In this status review application, the Society asks the Court to find that the child remains in need of protection. They ask the Court to order that the child be placed in extended society care. It is expected that the foster parents will seek to adopt the child. The Society also seeks an order that the respondents and the paternal grandmother have access with the child.

[5] The respondent C.M. is the child’s mother. She did not participate in this case. She did not file an answer, nor did she put forward a plan for the care of the child. She did not attend this hearing.

[6] The respondent K.V. is the child’s father. He asks that the child be placed in his care for a period of six months subject to supervision on terms and conditions.

Legal Considerations on a Status Review Application

[7] The original order is presumed to be correct. This is not a rehearing of the previous order that was made.

[8] The Court must first determine whether the child continues to be in need of protection and whether, as a consequence, the child requires a Court order for their protection. If it is determined that the child is still in need of protection, the Court must determine which of the available range of orders is in the best interests of the child.

[9] In determining what order is required to meet the child’s best interests, the Court must consider the degree to which the risk that prompted the original order still exists. This must be examined from the child’s perspective. The need for continued protection may arise from the existence or absence of the circumstances that triggered the first order for protection or from circumstances which may have arisen since that time: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M.(C.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165, at paras. 35, 37.

[10] In all proceedings under the CYFSA, the Court must consider its paramount purpose which is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children (s. 1(1)).

[11] The Court must also take into account the other purposes of the CYFSA as long as they are consistent with the child’s best interests, protection and well-being. In this case, the other purpose to recognize, according to the father, is the least disruptive course of action that is available and appropriate to help the child: (s. 1(2) 2.).

Issues

[12] The issues to be decided in this case are as follows:

(1) Does the child remain in need of protection?
(2) If the child remains in need of protection, what disposition order is in her best interests?
(3) If the child is placed in extended society care, what access orders will be in the child’s best interests?

Issue No. 1 – Does the Child Remain in Need of Protection?

Facts

Child Protection Application

[13] On June 30, 2021, the child was brought to a place of safety and placed in a foster home.

[14] Subsequent to the child being placed in care, the mother was cooperative with the Society worker and maintained her home in a safer, cleaner, and more organized manner. She participated in a PAR program and maintained regular contact with the child. The mother was under doctor’s care for her mental health.

[15] The child returned to the mother’s care in December 2021 pursuant to the temporary order of Mitrow J., dated December 23, 2021.

[16] On April 11, 2022, Price J. found that the child was in need of protection pursuant to subclause 74(2)(b)(i) of the CYFSA.

[17] This subclause provides that a child is in need of protection where there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm caused by, or resulting from, the person having charge of the child failing to adequately provide for, supervise, or protect the child.

[18] The disposition order granted by Price J. was to place the child in the mother’s care subject to Society supervision for a period of six months. Nine terms and conditions of supervision were imposed.

[19] The father was granted reasonable access to the child for a minimum of one hour every other week. The Society was granted discretion with respect to the level of supervision to be imposed.

[20] The order of Price J. was granted based on a statement of agreed facts signed on behalf of the Society and by both parents.

[21] The statement of agreed facts sets out that the child was found to be in need of protection based on the following grounds: inadequate supervision of the child by the mother and an unsafe home environment (clutter, and the presence of drug paraphernalia).

[22] Regarding the father, the statement of agreed facts discloses that he made attempts to speak with the child during the mother’s access period. He was incarcerated at the time and not in contact with the child protection worker.

Status Review Application

[23] The child was brought to a place of safety again on April 5, 2023. She was placed with the same foster family who had cared for her in 2021. This family had established a close bond with the child.

[24] The circumstances which gave rise to the child being brought into care included: inadequate supervision by the mother, the deplorable state of the mother’s home, and concerns regarding the mother’s involvement in the “drug culture.” At the time of being brought into care in April 2023, the child was three years old.

[25] The status review application, which is now before the Court, was issued on April 6, 2023. The Society sought a finding that the child remained in need of protection. They also sought an interim society care order with access to the parents.

[26] On April 6, 2023, Leach J. made an order placing the child in the temporary care and custody of the Society. The mother was granted interim access.

[27] The mother did not engage with the child protection worker while this case was ongoing.

[28] On February 7, 2024, the Society amended the status review application to claim an extended society care order. Neither the mother nor father were in contact with the child protection worker. There was no viable plan of care for the child being put forward from family or community members.

[29] The father remained incarcerated until February 22, 2024. On that date, he was released on parole and was required to reside at a halfway house in [L…]. He was allowed four hours of time in the community. He was interested in having some contact with the child.

Position of the Parties

[30] The Society asks the Court to find that the child remains in need of protection. The Society submits that the continued finding can be made because, while this case has been ongoing, neither parent was able to put forward a plan for the child’s care. The father was in jail. The mother did not participate in this case, nor did she cooperate with the Society worker.

[31] At this hearing, the father did not oppose a finding that the child remains in need of protection. He impliedly conceded this point by requesting to have the child placed in his care subject to supervision on terms and conditions.

Decision

[32] I agree with counsel for the Society that the child remains in need of protection. There is no evidence that the issues that gave rise to the original finding have been addressed by the mother. She is not available to put a plan forward for the child. The father also did not put forward a plan until he was released from prison and settled. His plan is predicated on there being a continued finding that the child is in need of protection.

Issue No. 2 – What Disposition Order Is in the Child’s Best Interest?

Legal Considerations

[33] The process on a status review application is defined by s. 113 of the CYFSA. Where it is determined that a child remains in need of protection, the Court must determine which of the available orders provided for in s. 114 of the CYFSA is in the child's best interests. A review of an access order in this case is made pursuant to ss. 105(5) and (6).

[34] In this case, the Court does not have the option of a custody order under s. 102, nor does it have the option of placement with a third party out of Society care. This is the case as no family or community member has come forward or been found who offered a plan for the care of the child: s. 101(4).

[35] The Court also does not have the option of making an interim society care order. This is the case as the child is younger than six and has been in Society care for more than 12 months, which is well beyond the statutory maximum provided for in s. 122(1) of the CYFSA.

[36] In this case, therefore, the available orders are:

(a) placing the child in the care of the father with a supervision order; or
(b) an extended society care order.

[37] In determining which disposition order is in the child's best interests, the Court is to consider the factors set out in s. 74(3) of the CYFSA, which is formulated as follows:

(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,

(a) consider the child's views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child's age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child's cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and

(c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including,

(i) the child's physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs,

(ii) the child's physical, mental and emotional level of development,

(iii) the child's race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression,

(iv) the child's cultural and linguistic heritage,

(v) the importance for the child's development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family,

(vi) the child's relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child's extended family or member of the child's community,

(vii) the importance of continuity in the child's care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity,

(viii) the merits of a plan for the child's care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent,

(ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case,

(x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent, and

(xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

[38] In Children's Aid Society of Niagara Region v. S.S. and T.F., 2022 ONSC 744, para. 79, Madsen J. set out the following principles for the Court to consider in determining whether a supervision order would be appropriate:

a. For a final supervision Order to be an effective instrument of risk management the court should consider the following: the parent must meet a minimum threshold of co-operation and reliability; there needs to be a trusting relationship between the parent and the Society; there needs to be clear and accurate information exchanged between the parties; there should be demonstrable evidence that the parent would be compliant with the terms; there needs to be evidence that the Society could monitor a parent's compliance; and a supervision Order should not be imposed if a parent is ungovernable.

b. The issue for the court is whether the parenting that could be provided with a return of the children is below the minimum standard tolerated by the community, not whether the children will be "better off" with parents other than their own.

c. Courts must recognize that families living in poverty may face challenges. Parents are not to be judged by a "middle class yardstick... provided that the standard used is not contrary to the child's best interests."

d. “A supervision Order requires some element of confidence that the parent being supervised shows awareness of the alleged problems and a real commitment to cooperate and ensure that problems do not re-occur... The likelihood of a supervision Order adequately addressing concerns about a parent must be considered in the context of that parent's past and present behaviours.” [Citations omitted]

[39] The significance of the child-centered approach is that good intentions are not enough. The test is not whether a parent has "seen the light" and intends to change, but whether they have in fact changed and are now able to give the child the care that is in their best interests. There is not to be experimentation with a child's life such that by giving a parent another chance, the child would have “one less chance in life”: see Children's Aid Society of Winnipeg v. Redwood (1981), 19 R.F.L. (2d) 232, [1980] M.J. No. 245 (Man. C.A.). There has to be some demonstrated basis for a determination that a parent is able to parent the child without endangering the child's safety: see Children's Aid Society of Brockville Leeds & Grenville v. C., 2001 CarswellOnt 1504 (Ont. S.C.J.).

[40] The length of time a child is in care is a relevant consideration in determining placement of children found to be in need of protection. In Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S. (D.), 2009 CarswellOnt 6725, at para. 71, Czutrin J. stated that,

Time is to be considered from a child's needs and perspective. The time consideration, like all considerations in child protection matters should be child-focused.

[41] In deciding if an extended society care order is required, consideration should be given to whether the Society has provided the parent with an opportunity to parent: S.S., at para. 83.

[42] An extended society care order is the most profound order the court can make: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. G. (J.) (1996), 23 R.F.L. (4th) 79 (Ont. Div. Ct.), at para. 48. To take someone's children away from them is a power that a judge must exercise only with the highest degree of caution, compelling evidence, and after a careful examination of possible alternative remedies: Children's Aid Society of Peel (Region) v. W. (M.J.) (1995), 7 R.F.L. (4th) 349 (Ont. Ct. (Gen. Div.)), at para. 31. I have been most conscious of this in my deliberation of the case.

[43] I have also considered the primary and additional purposes set out in s. 1 of the CYFSA. The paramount purpose of the CYFSA is to promote the best interests, protection and wellbeing of the child. The additional purposes include recognizing the autonomy of the family unit and providing help for them, exercising the least disruptive course of action that is available, and providing services for the child that respect their need for care and continuity.

The Father’s Plan

[44] The father’s plan for the care of the child is to have her live with him in [B…]. He rented a basement apartment with the paternal grandfather. This 700 square-foot unit has two bedrooms. One bedroom will be for the child and the other for the paternal grandfather. The father will sleep on the couch in the living room.

[45] The child will be enrolled in a school located “one street over” from the father’s residence. As there is a waiting list for the before and after-school programme, he will need to make alternate arrangements for care during these times. After school, his plan is for the paternal grandfather to pick up the child at 3:30 p.m. and then bring her to the job site where both he and the father work renovating a home. The paternal grandfather will watch the child while she does her homework in a space he will create or in his truck, until the workday ends at 5 p.m.

[46] The father will look for healthcare providers for the child. He did not advise that he has any prospects at this time.

[47] The father also wants the child to have contact with the paternal grandmother.

[48] The father is confident he has the finances that will allow him to care for the child.

The Society’s Plan

[49] The Society’s plan of care is for the child to remain in the care of the foster family where she resides. The child has been in the care of this foster family continuously since March 2024. She was also in the care of this family when she was removed from the care of the mother in the summer of 2021 until December 2021. This foster family is offering a permanency plan for the child. They are willing to adopt her.

[50] As part of its plan, the Society proposes that the respondent parents and paternal grandmother have ongoing access with the child.

The Child

[51] The child is now five years old and has been meeting her developmental milestones. She attends senior kindergarten at a school in the foster family’s neighbourhood.

[52] The child is described by the child protection worker as “a happy child who at this developmental stage seems to have a solid sense of being loved unconditionally.” She is aware that many people love and care about her. The worker observed that the child likes being part of the foster family and is comfortable in their home and with all their family members.

[53] The evidence also discloses that during visits with the father, the child is affectionate and comfortable with him. She calls him “Dad” or “Daddy.”

[54] The family member who the child is closest to is the paternal grandmother. She has been a constant in the child’s life. The paternal grandmother is the one who facilitated the child’s contact with the father while he was incarcerated. She also tries to facilitate contact between the child and the child’s two older half-siblings. She describes the child as “happy… can be reserved… a typical five-year-old…”

The Father’s Opportunity to Parent

[55] The father and mother lived together for approximately 17 months after the child was born. This ended when the father was arrested on September 22, 2022. He remained in jail until March 2024. While he was in pre-trial custody at the Elgin Middlesex Detention Centre (EMDC), the paternal grandmother brought the child to see him approximately three times. While in jail, the father also had telephone contact with the child when the mother had access.

[56] When the father was released on probation in March 2024, he had to live at a halfway home. While in the halfway home, the father had approximately three daytime visits with the child while the paternal grandmother had access.

[57] The father was returned to prison in May 2024 because it was claimed he breached certain of his probation conditions.

[58] The father was again released on parole in September 2024 and moved to [B…] to live and work with the paternal grandfather. Since his release on parole in September 2024, the father has had approximately five visits with the child, including three overnights at the home of, and with, the paternal grandmother.

[59] All visits with the father and child were described as positive.

Positive Factors About the Father’s Plan

[60] There are a number of positive factors with the father’s plan:

a. He clearly loves the child and wants the opportunity to care for her;
b. The child knows the father is her “Dad” and is quite comfortable in his presence and is affectionate with him;
c. The child would have the benefit of being cared for and growing up with a member of her family of origin and have contact with extended family;
d. The father has adequate accommodations for the child;
e. The father has taken some programs to address his drug addiction and past criminal behaviour;
f. The father has steady employment through the paternal grandfather;
g. The father has been cooperative with the Society since his release from prison;
h. The father has the support of the paternal grandmother and the paternal grandfather.

Challenges with the Father’s Plan

[61] I must also consider the challenges with the father’s plan:

a. He wants to assume full-time care of this five-year-old child after more than three years of not having done so. He has no experience caring for a five-year-old-child;
b. He did not take a parenting course despite recommendations from the Society that he do so;
c. He failed to appreciate that the child’s needs change with each age and stage of development;
d. Since his release from prison, he could not articulate strategies to manage the range of problems one can expect from a child of this age;
e. Since his release from prison, he has not had any extended time with the child. He has not had any time alone with the child. So far, his visits have been controlled and relatively short.
f. The father will be reliant upon the paternal grandfather for his and the child’s transportation.
g. The father will require the paternal grandfather’s help in getting the child to and from school and, for an undetermined amount of time, to care for the child after school. The after-school plan was described as bringing the child to a construction site where the father and the paternal grandfather work. The paternal grandfather will expect this senior kindergarten child to do her “homework” while he does his paperwork. The father has not taken into account the evidence of the child’s history of wandering. This is an issue that the school is addressing and working on.
h. It is not clear the extent to which the child has a bond with the paternal grandfather. The paternal grandmother described the paternal grandfather as “rough and pushy… a bully,” even with the father. In assessing this evidence, I take into account that the paternal grandmother’s observations are derived from her past relationship with the paternal grandfather. However, this evidence was not responded to in re-examination, and she was the father’s witness. This evidence was not contradicted.
i. The father did not give evidence about his childcare plan for when the current construction project ends later this year and a new one begins somewhere in the Greater Toronto Area.
j. The support the paternal grandmother will be able to provide the father with will be limited as she lives two hours away from him. She is not able to drive the distance between their residences, and the father does not have a driver’s license. She will not be able to provide much-needed hands-on help. The paternal grandmother’s evidence is that she would be able to provide emotional support.
k. The father has only recently been released from custody and settled into a new residence and employment. Having regard to the father’s criminal history and past addiction issues, sufficient time has not passed such that the father has demonstrated long-term stability.
l. Based on these considerations, the father’s plan for the care of the child appears to be an aspirational one, without him being able to demonstrate the necessary skills to carry out his plan.

[62] Furthermore, the evidence raises concerns about the father’s willingness to abide by the terms of supervision. Namely, the father was not forthcoming with the parole board about his use of drugs while in custody. He was returned to custody because he did not fully comply with the parole terms of supervision. There were also incidents where the father was punished while incarcerated for infringement of the rules. Finally, the father’s criminal activity began in his early 20’s and continued until his arrest in September 2020, a period of approximately 15 years. He has only recently been able to demonstrate a brief period of prosocial behaviour.

Best Interests Considerations

[63] In addressing the relevant provisions of s. 74(3) of the CYFSA, I find as follows:

a. On the evidence, the child’s views and wishes cannot be fairly ascertained. This five-year-old child was observed to be comfortable in the home of the foster family. At the same time, her visits with the father have been positive and she is described by the child protection worker to be “much aware of her family of origin, relations, and who is in her family.”

b. The father’s ability to appreciate and meet this five-year-old child’s mental and emotional needs is limited. He has little practical experience caring for the child, and did not demonstrate, in his evidence, an understanding of her current mental and emotional needs. The Society’s plan better meets the child’s emotional and mental needs.

c. The father’s plan would adequately address the child’s physical needs as long as he has the day-to-day support of the paternal grandfather.

d. If placed in the father’s care, the child would have an opportunity to maintain her relationship with the paternal grandparents. However, the Society’s plan also allows for this with respect to the paternal grandmother.

e. The child has been in care for more than 880 days in the last five years. The child requires a plan that will best allow her to develop and maintain a secure place within a family. There is uncertainty about the father’s ability, in all the circumstances, to provide long-term stability and care for the child. The father’s plan is recent and untested. The Society’s plan will better allow the child to benefit from permanency planning so that she can attain the stability and develop the roots necessary for her physical and emotional development.

f. The Society’s plan is to keep the child with her foster family. They are willing to adopt her. This will provide the child with a chance for a long-term placement with a family with whom she now has a relationship. Placing the child in the father’s care at this time would be risking her chance at stability for the reasons described.

g. It is past time that a permanency plan be ordered for this child. When the father was first released from custody in February 2024, he had an opportunity to put into place a plan to care for the child. This was interrupted when he was returned to custody in May 2024. Since his release in September 2024, the father has been able to secure a home and a job but has not had any extended time with the child.

h. If the child is placed with the father, there is a low, but real, risk of him not being available to care for her if he is returned to custody. This risk is based on the father’s past behaviour and, specifically, his return to custody in 2024, as described in these reasons. He has had only a limited time, since then, to demonstrate that he can sustain a prosocial life, and it is therefore not guaranteed that he will remain available for the child should she be placed in his care.

[64] When I take all these factors and circumstances into account, I find that it is not in the child’s best interests to be placed in the father’s care subject to terms of supervision. Placing the child in the father’s care would be akin to an experiment with the child’s stability and relationships. On the evidence, this is not a risk that the child should experience.

[65] The only alternative plan to that of the father is the one provided by the Society. No other family member put forward a plan. Therefore, the only option open to the Court is to place the child in extended society care. The Society’s plan will best address the needs of the child and ensure these needs are met. It allows for permanency planning. The Society’s plan is the most consistent with the child’s best interests as set out in s. 74(3) of the CYFSA as well as the paramount purpose set out at s. 1.

Access

[66] The Society submits that the father should be granted a minimum of six access visits with the child per year. It also proposes that the mother have access with the child. Regarding the paternal grandmother, the Society is “strongly supportive” of her ongoing connection to the child. It is also not opposed to an order for access being granted to the paternal grandmother, even though she is not a party.

[67] The father submits that if the child is placed in extended society care, he should have expansive access with the child. He also asks that the paternal grandmother have her own access with the child a minimum of three times per month, with one visit being overnight.

Legal Considerations

[68] In submissions, neither party referred to statutory provisions or caselaw related to access. I instruct myself on this issue having regard to the following:

1. Subsections 105(5) and (6) of the CYFSA set out the legal test for access for a child who has been placed in the extended care of the society. It is now a best interests test, and the Court is to consider whether the relationship between the child and the person seeking access is beneficial and meaningful for the child and whether access would impair the child’s opportunities to be adopted.

2. Pursuant to subsection 105(7) of the CYFSA, the Court must specify who is an access holder and who is an access recipient, in making its decisions regarding extended society care with access.

3. In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., 2020 ONCA 415, para. 37, the Court stated that the child's "best interests" are predominant in determining access. Under the CYFSA:

   • The burden is no longer on the person requesting access to demonstrate that their relationship to the child is beneficial and meaningful and in no way will impair the child's future adoption opportunities.
   • When the Court undertakes a best interests analysis, it assesses whether the relationship is beneficial and meaningful to the child, and considers the potential impairment to future adoption opportunities, but only as part of this assessment and only where relevant;
   • There is no longer a "presumption against access" and it is no longer the case that a parent who puts forward no evidence will not gain access; and
   • While any evidence of possible impairment to adoption opportunities would have thwarted previous requests for access, under the new CYFSA, access is to be ordered for a child with otherwise excellent adoptive prospects if it is in her overall best interests.

4. A parent who cannot adequately provide primary care may still have a meaningful and beneficial relationship with their children such that access is warranted.

5. The challenge in making an access order for a child in extended society care is finding the fine balance between what will preserve a relationship in the best interests of the child and, at the same time, what will permit flexibility to allow the mental and emotional transition towards permanency by the child in their new adoptive home. See: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. J.B., 2017 ONSC 1194, para. 439.

Application of Legal Considerations

[69] The father has tried to maintain a relationship with the child over many years despite being incarcerated. On his release, he made efforts to spend time with the child within the constraints his circumstances allowed. He has been able to develop a positive relationship with the child. I am satisfied that an access order in favour of the father would be in the child’s best interests. It is clear on the evidence that the father-child relationship is beneficial and meaningful to her.

[70] I am satisfied that access will not impair the child’s future opportunity for adoption. The foster mother’s evidence is that she is open to the child having access with the child’s family members.

[71] I agree with the Society that it is in the child’s best interests to provide for flexibility in scheduling the father’s access. Any access order must allow for a schedule that takes into account the father’s intention to strengthen his relationship with the child by spending time with her more often and on his own. This goal is best achieved by providing flexibility in any access arrangement. The father shall have in-person access with the child a minimum of six times per year for at least one hour. The particulars of each visit as to the location, duration, and supervision, if any, shall be at the discretion of the Society. This will allow for longer visits, which may take place more often as the father demonstrates his ability to understand and meet the child’s needs while exercising access and maintaining their relationship. Some of these access visits can occur at the same time as the paternal grandmother’s access.

[72] Patience, consistency, and demonstrating an understanding of the child’s developmental strengths and needs as she grows will allow the father to show that it is in the child’s best interests that they spend more time together.

[73] The mother did have a close relationship with the child before this status review application was started. I am satisfied that it is in the child’s best interests that there be the opportunity for this relationship to start again. The mother shall be offered access with the child a minimum of once a year for a minimum of 15 minutes, subject to the wishes of the child. The particulars of the level of supervision, location, and duration shall be at the discretion of the Society.

[74] Though she is not a party to this proceeding, the paternal grandmother has been a positive constant in the life of the child. The paternal grandmother resides in close proximity to the child's foster home. It is in the child’s best interests that she be able to maintain this most beneficial and meaningful relationship. The paternal grandmother should have access with the child a minimum of 12 times a year, with a minimum of four hours per visit. The particulars of each access visit as to location and duration shall be at the discretion of the Society.

[75] The Society shall set up a Dropbox where the father, mother, and paternal grandmother may retrieve electronic updates and pictures of the child on a regular basis.

[76] The father, mother, paternal grandmother, and the child shall be access holders and access recipients.

[77] The intent of this access schedule is to balance the preservation of the child’s relationship with her parents and paternal grandmother, and at the same time allow for the child to transition towards permanency in a new adoptive home. No request was made for the child to have contact with the paternal grandfather.

Order

[78] For these reasons, the following order shall issue:

1. The child is found to remain in need of protection.
2. The child shall be placed in extended society care with the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex pursuant to s. 101(1)(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.
3. The father shall have in-person access with the child a minimum of six times per year for at least one hour. The particulars as to the location, duration, and supervision, if any, for each visit shall be at the discretion of the Society. These access visits can occur at the same time as the paternal grandmother’s access.
4. The mother shall be offered access with the child a minimum of once a year for a minimum of 15 minutes, subject to the wishes of the child. The particulars of the level of supervision, location, and duration shall be at the discretion of the Society.
5. The paternal grandmother shall have access with the child a minimum of 12 times a year, with a minimum of four hours per visit. The particulars of each access visit as to location and duration shall be in the discretion of the Society.
6. The Society shall set up a Dropbox where the father, mother, and paternal grandmother may retrieve electronic updates and pictures of the child on a regular basis.
7. The father, mother, paternal grandmother, and the child shall be access holders and access recipients.

A Final Word

[79] I know that the father will be disappointed with this decision. He has worked hard to maintain a relationship with his daughter through trying and difficult circumstances. He achieved some success in that regard. It is hoped that the father will take advantage of the access granted and the opportunity to take relevant parenting courses to ensure that he is able to maintain a close and important relationship with the child.

[80] I wish to commend counsel for the professional and sensitive manner in which this case was presented.

Justice B. Tobin
Released: March 7, 2025