ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Family and Children’s Society of Lanark, Leeds, and Grenville
Applicant
– and –
A.B.
Respondent
Heather Morrison, for the Applicant
Self-Represented, for the Respondent
Heard: April 7 and 8, 2026
Oral Decision given: April 17, 2026
pUBLICATION BAN PURSUANT TO SS. 87(8), 87(9) AND 142(3) Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Application for extended society care
SOMJI J.
Overview
1In July 2024, the Applicant mother, A.B., gave birth to twin boys C.R.Y. and C.J.Y. (the “boys”). The Family and Children’s Society of Lanark, Leeds, and Grenville (“Society”) apprehended the boys following their birth. A.B. was able to care for the boys while they were in the hospital, but the Society subsequently placed the boys in foster care with A.B. having right of access. Nineteen months later, the Society maintains the boys continue to be in need of protection and that it is in their best interests to be placed in extended society care with a view to adoption. The mother, however, seeks the return of the boys to her care.
2The Society’s protection concerns are twofold: one, A.B. will resume her relationship with the boys’ biological father, L.Y., when he exits custody, placing the boys at risk of exposure to domestic violence; and two, A.B. is not capable, on her own or with the supports identified, of providing quality care to the boys. Further supervision orders are unavailable because the time under which the boys can remain in Society care has expired. The Society argues that extended society care is the appropriate disposition.
3A.B. argues that she has addressed many of the child protection concerns identified by the Society, and it is in the boys’ best interests to be returned to her care. A.B. acknowledges that, at the time of apprehension, she hoped that she could have a relationship and family with L.Y. She now realizes that this is not possible and has since ended the relationship. A.B. acknowledges she is a recovering addict and struggles with her mental health, in particular anxiety, but has taken programming on addiction, mental health, and family violence. She has also relocated into a new community, secured public housing and a disability allowance, and identified people to support her. She has attended her access visits and demonstrated her ability to care for and parent her boys in a loving and nurturing manner. In these circumstances, A.B. argues it is in the boys’ best interests to be returned to their mother, with or without a supervision order.
4A.B. represented herself at trial. This trial was scheduled to proceed in January 2026, but on the first day of trial I granted A.B.’s counsel his request to be removed as counsel of record. Given the permanent nature of the protection order sought, I granted A.B. an adjournment to find a new lawyer but she was unable to do so.
5I must decide whether the boys continue to be in need of protection and, if so, what disposition is in the best interests of the children. While I find that the boys are in need of protection, the focus at trial was on the appropriate disposition in the best interests of the boys. This is because, prior to commencing trial in March 2026, A.B. signed an Agreed Statement of Facts dated November 16, 2025 (“ASF”), wherein she admitted that the boys are in need of protection. Justice Abrams made a corresponding endorsement that the issue of whether the children were in need of protection had been resolved and that the only issue for trial was disposition. A.B. did not retract from that position even after her counsel exited.
6In deciding the appropriate disposition, I must consider the legislated best interest factors and governing jurisprudence. I must consider all relevant factors including past, present, or future considerations which, in turn, provide a holistic and comprehensive analysis of the circumstances.
7An order for extended society care is the most intrusive order a court can make in child protection proceedings. It would remove A.B.’s parental rights over the boys; she would never have an opportunity to parent them. The Society would place the boys for adoption. A.B. could apply for “openness”, an application which the Society supports, but there is no guarantee that she would see her boys again, and if so, under what terms.
8I find that it is in the boys’ best interest to be returned to their mother with a four-month supervision order. I find the protection concerns can be mitigated by A.B.’s proposed plan of care. The Society concedes that there is no concern that A.B. would herself ever harm her boys or any of her children. Rather, their primary concern has been the boys’ potential exposure to conflict from A.B.’s relationship with L.Y. and/or other negative associates. However, A.B. has now severed those ties and has relocated to a new town where she is trying to rebuild her life.
9In addition, I find A.B. has taken significant steps to reform her life to ensure the boys have a safe and secure home. She has secured a disability allowance and subsidized housing to ensure financial and residential stability. Her closest friend, Janet Goddard, has moved into her residence and can stay as long as is necessary to support her in the transition of the boys into her care. A.B. has identified other friends who are willing to help with respite and errands. A.B. has researched local medical and dental services, as well as affordable childcare and playgroups, to meet the children’s physical and mental needs. A.B. has engaged with community services, including the local women’s shelter where she completed programming on relationships and domestic violence. She sees a mental health counsellor monthly for her own self care.
10I recognize that the boys have some special needs and A.B. has never cared for them full time. However, I have heard evidence from the access supervisors that in the time the Society has given for A.B. to access the boys since birth - limited to two visits a week - A.B. is a loving and nurturing mother to her boys. While there is always more she could have done, A.B. has demonstrated that she is open to instruction on how to better care for her twin boys.
11Finally, I disagree with the Society that this is a last-minute plea where A.B. is just “seeing the light” and intends to change. We must remember that the yardstick by which we measure meaningful change will vary with each individual parent depending on their historical experiences, personal circumstances, and physical and mental abilities. At the same time, I am mindful that change on the part of a parent must be sufficient to ensure that their children will be physically, emotionally, and mentally safe if returned to the parent’s care. Here, I find that the constructive steps A.B. has taken since the boys were born to reform her life demonstrates not only good intentions, but real and meaningful change. In arriving at my decision on the appropriate disposition, I have considered that the paramount purpose of child protection legislation is, first and foremost, to promote the best interests, protection, and well-being of children.
12Below, I set out detailed reasons. All legislative references are to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1, unless otherwise stated.
Statutory findings
13Pursuant to s. 90(2), the statutory findings based on the ASF are that: the boys names are C.R.Y. and C.J.Y.; the children are not First Nations, Inuk, or Métis; the parents are A.B. and L.Y.; and that the boys remained in hospital for a period after their birth and were placed in Society care on July 9, 2024.
Credibility findings
14Before addressing the legal issues to be determined, I address the credibility and reliability of the witnesses who testified at trial.
15The Society called the following witnesses: Child Protection Worker (“CPW”) Laura Purtell; CPW Cassy Gogo; Child Protection Support Worker (“CPSW”) Christine Thompson; CPSW Lea Anne Brash; CPSW MaryRose Corbett; Detective Boyce; Probation Officer Lisa Carroll; Ontario Provincial Police (“OPP”) Officer Lisa Carroll; Family Home Visitor Patty Girard; and Infant and Child Development Consultant Erin Huston.
16A.B. testified in her own defence. She called friends Ms. Goddard and Mike Stanzal who form part of her support team as witnesses. I also heard from Ms. Goddard’s son, Dylan Greene, who testified in relation to the Brockville jail phone records.
17In assessing credibility and reliability of a witness, a trial judge considers multiple factors: i) inconsistencies, contradictions, or weaknesses in the witness evidence; ii) evidence that confirms or corroborates the witness’ accounts; iii) whether the witness’ evidence is plausible; and (iv) motive(s) to fabricate: A trial judge may also consider a witness’ demeanor in assessing credibility but must keep in mind that appearances can be deceiving. There may be other reasons, such as nervousness or personal traits, for why the witness presents in the manner that they do: The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. K.D. AND D.A., 2021 ONSC 7147, at para. 15.
18A trial judge is not required to believe or disbelieve a witness’ testimony in its entirety; they can believe none, part, or all of it and may attach different weight to different parts of the testimony: Society v. K.D. AND D.A., at para. 15.
19I found the evidence of the Society witnesses to be credible and reliable. Where their versions of events contradicted those of A.B. or another witness, I address the discrepancy in the evidence in my reasons below and explain whether I find that discrepancy to be determinative of an issue I must decide. The Society witnesses were professionals in their respective fields and provided evidence of their observations and assessments of A.B., L.Y., and the boys. The CPWs and CPSWs filed affidavits summarizing their observations, which were supported by contact logs they prepared on/around the time of their interactions with A.B., L.Y., and the children. The Society filed over 100 contact logs dating back to March 2023.
20The Society argues that A.B. is neither credible nor reliable. In this regard, they identify her dishonesty about her continuing relationship with L.Y. and her unwillingness to be forthcoming with respect to progress in her mental health.
21I am not prepared to find that A.B. is a dishonest person. A review of the contact logs and medical records indicates that, except with respect to matters related to L.Y., A.B. has been honest with the child protection workers, service providers, and physicians about her issues. Her dishonesty and lack of cooperation with the Society arises almost exclusively in circumstances where she is trying to minimize L.Y.’s behaviours around her and her daughter, to protect L.Y. from criminal charges, and to support and justify her ongoing relationship with him. I return to these issues again in my decision.
22In short, while I accept that A.B. was dishonest with the Society about her relationship with L.Y., I do not find it is suggestive of a dishonest character. A.B. understood the Society did not approve of her relationship with L.Y. There are compelling reasons for the Society’s position. Nonetheless, it has taken A.B. a long time to emotionally detach from her relationship with L.Y., who is the father of her boys. While it was not acceptable for A.B. to lie to the Society about her continued relationship with L.Y., the circumstances provide some context for why she did so.
23The other area where A.B. was less forthcoming with the Society was regarding her health. In some instances, the CPWs and CPSWs report that A.B. told them she suffers from fibromyalgia, lupus, and a personality disorder. A.B. does not recall making such statements and is unsure why she would have, as there are no such diagnoses. However, I accept these conversations occurred as the support workers refer to them in the contact logs. On the other hand, there is no evidence that A.B. has such illnesses in the medical records filed, including the record of her disability application. It is difficult for me to reconcile why A.B. made these comments. In the absence of further evidence, I do not put much weight on these comments and, ultimately, I do not find they are determinative of her credibility.
24Finally, I do not find the issue of consents undermines A.B.’s credibility. The Society argues that A.B. has not been willing to provide consents to allow them to speak to her health providers. There is mixed evidence on this issue. A.B. did initially sign some consents. For example, CPW Purtell spoke to Dr. Ghandi in early 2025. The Society argues that A.B. would not renew or grant other consents. A.B. states she understood that the Society had consents. At the same time, A.B. acknowledges she has been protective of her medical information because she fears the Society would use her medical information against her to undermine her reunification plan with the boys.
25I find that A.B. was likely reluctant to provide some recent consents. However, I find that A.B. did not completely understand the nature of the Society’s request, which is that they simply wanted to speak with her doctors and not for her to produce every medical record. I would also note that the issue of consents became more problematic recently when A.B. did not have counsel. For example, A.B. allowed CPW Gogo to attend a meeting with her physician, Dr. Haley, but insisted on placing limitations about what they could discuss. At the same time, A.B. obtained a package of historical medical records, including information from Dr. Haley and her psychiatrist, Dr. J. Ghandi. When I asked A.B. if she was willing to file the medical records as exhibits at trial, she agreed to do so. These medical records were of great assistance because they provided insight into the emotional challenges A.B. faced following the birth and apprehension of her boys, thereby constituting a baseline from which to measure the significant progress in her mental health.
Issue One: Are the children in continued need of protection?
26The Society argues that the boys are in need of protection because, one, they are at risk of exposure to domestic conflict, and two, A.B. cannot adequately care for them based on her past parenting of A.R. These concerns were summarized in the Society’s letter to A.B. dated October 24, 2024, about three months after the boys were born.
27More specifically, the Society relies on ss. 74(2)(b)(i) and 74(2)(h). These provisions address the risk of physical harm from a parent’s failure to care for and adequately protect a child and the risk of emotional harm arising from a parent’s past pattern of neglect. Emotional harm includes anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour or developmental delays: 74(2)(f).
28The relevant provisions state the following:
74(2) A child is in need of protection where,
(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,
(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or
(h) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.
29In her response letter of October 25, 2024, A.B. disagreed with the Society’s decision to apprehend her boys from hospital and their desire to seek extended society care and put the boys up for adoption.
30Nonetheless, A.B. admitted in the fall of 2025, while represented by counsel, that the boys were in need of protection because of a risk of exposure to domestic conflict arising from her relationship with L.Y. She did not resile from that position once counsel exited the file. However, A.B. does not admit that the boys are in need protection because of her inability to care for them.
31Below, I address the protection concerns raised by the Society. While I find that the boys are in need of protection because of the potential risk for domestic conflict, I do not find that they are in continuing need of protection because A.B. cannot adequately care for them.
A. The boys’ risk of exposure to domestic conflict
32The Society’s protection concerns stem in large part from their assessment of A.B. when she was caring for her daughter, A.R., under a supervision order. In fact, on June 7, 2024, even before the boys were born, CPW Purtell informed A.B. in the presence of Interval House Director M.J Coyles that the Society would seek to apprehend the boys at birth. The Society argues that, as A.B. was unable to prevent A.R. from exposure to parental conflict between herself and L.Y., she will be unable to keep the boys safe upon L.Y. exiting custody.
33Furthermore, the Society argues that A.B. has not been honest with them about her continued relationship with L.Y. In this regard, they refer to the fact that A.B. continued to maintain telephone contact with L.Y. in 2025. I discuss this telephone contact in the subsequent section. Although A.B. has attested and testified that she has now ended the relationship with L.Y in August 2025 and has no intention of resuming it, the Society has no confidence that A.B. will be able to do so.
34Given the Society’s reliance on A.B.’s past parenting as a basis for their protection concerns, I address below A.B.’s care of her daughter while under Society supervision. Before doing so, I set out briefly the relationship between A.B. and L.Y.
35L.Y. is 37 years of age. A.B. was in a relationship with L.Y for a period of five years. He is the biological father of the boys. He is not the biological father of A.R. but has been present in her life; she calls him “daddy.” L.Y. is presently in custody. It is unknown when he will be released. A review of an “Offence Detail Report for L.Y.” dated January 23, 2025, indicates that L.Y. has 36 criminal convictions, including for violent offences, dating back to January 2011. Probation officer Lisa Carrol testified that she categorized L.Y. at “high risk” to reoffend.
36L.Y. has been found in default with respect to the child protection proceedings of his boys. However, he informed the Society that he supports A.B. having care of the boys. L.Y. acknowledges that A.B. has sent him pictures of the boys. L.Y. informed the Society that he continues to struggle with his own addiction issues and hopes that he can one day see the boys if he becomes sober. CPW Purtell testified that she provided L.Y. an opportunity to have a supervised visit with the boys in the period he was out of jail, but he failed to attend. L.Y. acknowledged that he had another girlfriend who was also pregnant with his child at the same time that A.B. was pregnant with the boys, and that he maintained contact with both mothers.
37A.R. was born in in May 2017 and raised by her mother for her first five years. In May 2022, the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“CHEO”) contacted the Society to state that A.R. was admitted with a very high blood sugar level and diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. A month later, the Society removed A.R. from her mother’s care. A.B. undertook training on how to manage her daughter’s diabetes, but there were lapses and CHEO contacted the Society several times in the spring of 2023 to indicate that A.B. was not properly administering her daughter’s insulin doses. During this period, the Society engaged in extensive safety planning with A.B. to ensure, one, that A.R.’s medical needs would be met, and two, that A.R. would not be exposed to conflict between her mother and L.Y.
38In September 2023, the Society returned A.R. to her mother’s care subject to a six-month supervision order. That order allowed for L.Y. to be part of A.B.’s life but had conditions on both A.B. and L.Y. not to expose A.R. to adult conflict or domestic violence and to follow a safety plan. In the fall of 2023, the Society found that A.B had exposed A.R. to domestic conflict and that A.B. was more focused on her relationship with L.Y. than meeting A.R. needs.
39Later, in February 2024, the Society renewed the supervision order but A.B. was not allowed to permit A.R. any contact with L.Y. unless the Society pre-approved it. At this time, A.B. was living in priority housing after a short stay at a women’s shelter and was pregnant with the boys. A.B. did not abide by all the conditions set out in the supervision order. She allowed L.Y. to attend her home and was not honest with the Society about it. On May 5, 2024, the Society removed A.R. from her mother’s care and she has never returned.
40The Society highlights several issues that resulted in A.R.’s apprehension. First, CPW Purtell testified that, while A.B. had made progress in managing A.R.’s diabetes, there were still instances when she was not adequately monitoring her daughter’s sugar levels and A.R. had also started to miss school. Second, and perhaps more significantly, A.B. exposed her daughter to domestic violence between herself and L.Y.
41More specifically, in the fall of 2023, A.B. and A.R were living at the trailer with L.Y. An argument ensued and L.Y. is alleged to have threatened mom and daughter with a gun. A.B. promptly left the trailer and went to a woman’s shelter but would not call 911 or cooperate with the police in charging L.Y. for this incident. A.B. also minimized the incident, suggesting at different times that the item was not a gun but a broomstick, a cane, or a pellet gun. However, the Society spoke with A.R. who stated it was a gun, and moreover that the incident made her feel scared. The Society also spoke to L.Y. about the incident while he was in custody. He agreed there had been an argument but denied he ever pulled a gun. The Society takes the position that this incident demonstrates that A.B. failed to follow her safety plan and to call 911, which should undermine the court’s ability to rely on her to protect the boys in the future.
42I do not find that A.B.’s failure to call 911 in this instance is representative of what she might do in the future to protect her boys. In that moment, A.B. was living with L.Y., whom A.B. acknowledges can be a dangerous and unpredictable person. A.B. removed herself and her daughter from harm’s way by going to the shelter. She did, in effect, follow her safety plan. While she could have called 911 and arranged to have L.Y. criminally charged once she was at the shelter, she was not prepared to do so at it would compromise her relationship with L.Y. There is a distinction between a person taking themselves out of harm’s way from a person and then taking the further step to have that person criminally charged.
43The Society also argues that A.B. endangered her daughter by taking her when she went to assist Ms. Goddard in escaping an abusive situation. Shortly after leaving the trailer and going to the shelter, A.B. received a call for help from her friend Ms. Goddard. A.B. left the women’s shelter to go rescue Ms. Goddard and brought her back to the woman’s shelter. Ms. Goddard testified about the incident and highlighted that her boyfriend was not at home at the time and A.B. had ensured A.R. remained in the taxi when she came in to help her pack her belongings. Nonetheless, the Society maintains that A.B. endangered her daughter by taking her to a potentially volatile domestic situation.
44The Society argues that A.B. also placed the boys at risk during her pregnancy by her continued association with L.Y. and, more specifically, during an incident on June 14, 2024, when she failed to cooperate with the police. A.R. was not in her care at this time. A.B. was living back at the trailer. The police had an arrest warrant for L.Y. and attended the residence. A.B. would not let the police into the trailer and the police had to obtain a special warrant to enter. The police found L.Y. inside the trailer hiding in a play pen covered with toys. The Society argues that this incident demonstrates that A.B. is unable to extricate herself from her relationship with L.Y. and the extent to which the police had to go to obtain her cooperation in opening the door. The Society maintains that because he is unpredictable and addicted to drugs, L.Y.’s presence in the trailer created a safety risk to A.B. and her pregnancy.
45A.B. views this incident differently. She acknowledges that, at the time, she was still in a relationship with L.Y. and hoped they could be a family when the boys were born. A.R. had already been taken from her. A.B. was not parenting A.R. and she did not expose her daughter to any risk on that date. Furthermore, A.B. highlights that there was no non-communication or no-contact order between herself and L.Y. at this time. A.B. does not dispute that L.Y. was in the trailer, but explains that she was in a difficult situation where, knowing L.Y.’s unpredictable nature, she feared the possible repercussions if she opened the door and let police in. She denies that she hid L.Y. in the playpen as there was a second person at the trailer at the time who later left.
46L.Y. corroborated A.B.’s account and, effectively, the predicament she was in. CPW Purtell spoke to L.Y. about the incident while he was in custody. L.Y. acknowledged that he was in the trailer and that he was standing behind A.B. directing her not to open the door to the police.
47In October 2024, three months after she had given birth, A.B. attended a mediation with respect to care and custody of her daughter where she agreed to A.R. residing with kin. On March 5, 2025, A.R. was placed in kin care under a final order pursuant to s. 102. A.R. now resides with her older half siblings and their biological father and his spouse. While the custody order allows for A.B. to see her daughter at school activities, A.R. resides and goes to school in Kemptville, about 58 kms from Perth. A.B. does not drive, making such access challenging. The custody order also allows for A.B. to have monthly in-person visits with her daughter, but she has only been able to see her daughter four times in two years. In addition, while A.B. was to have weekly telephone calls with her daughter, A.B. claims the calls have largely not materialized. As discussed further below, visits through the grandparents have also proven challenging.
48While I appreciate that I do not have the benefit in this trial of the evidence from the kin family, it appears that A.B. has been able to exercise minimal contact with her daughter since the custody order was put in place. A.B. is without counsel. She is preoccupied with this trial, rebuilding her life in Perth, and meeting the obligations around her access visits with the boys. Her intention, once this trial is over, is to take steps to bring a claim for breach of the custody order or, alternatively, determine a way in which she can see her daughter more regularly.
49Exposure to a pattern of domestic violence has been accepted as creating a risk of emotional harm: Family & Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin v M.M., 2019 ONSC 4649, at para. 64, citing Children’s Aid Society of (Ottawa) v. J.R., 2019 ONSC 3012, at para. 185; Society v. K.D. AND D.A., at paras. 60-63.
50Here, as already noted, A.B. admitted in the ASF that that the boys are in need of protection because of her relationship with L.Y. Based on the domestic and parental conflict experienced by A.R., the facts of which have been largely admitted by A.B., I am satisfied that the boys are at risk of harm from potential domestic conflict if A.B. resumes her relationship with L.Y. On this basis alone, I find that the boys are in need of protection.
B. A.B.’s ability to adequately care for the boys
51The Society argues that, while A.B. has taken steps to reform her life, she has neither done enough nor been sufficiently forthcoming with her mental health information for them to assess her progress and be satisfied that she can keep the boys safe. The Society is also not satisfied with the safety network A.B. has developed. More specifically, counsel for Society highlights five protection concerns:
i. A.B.’s inability to make safe choices in partners, relationships, and associates and to be honest;
ii. A.B.’s unwillingness to prioritize her children’s needs and interests over her own needs in her partner relationships and her choices of associates;
iii. A.B.’s unwillingness to acknowledge and understand the risk of domestic violence and conflict to the children;
iv. A.B.’s unwillingness to engage in supportive services and follow treatment plans and recommendations;
v. A.B.’s unwillingness to be honest and cooperative with the Society.
52A.B. has not admitted these protection concerns for the purposes of trial.
53The first three protection concerns relate largely to A.B.’s relationship with L.Y. and the choices she made while in that relationship. I have already found that the boys are in need of protection from risk of exposure to domestic violence should A.B. resume a relationship with L.Y.
54The latter two protection concerns relate to the extent to which A.B. has engaged in support services, her competencies, and her cooperation with the Society. I disagree that A.B. has failed to engage in support services and follow through on treatment plans. I find that, while there have been some shortcomings in the scope of treatment she has undertaken, her level of honesty with the Society about her relationship with L.Y., and her willingness to share all her health information, I am not persuaded that these particular grounds warrant a finding that the boys are in need of protection. Nonetheless, I do address these protection concerns in the subsequent section in determining what disposition is most appropriate in this case.
Issue 2: What disposition is in the best interests of the children?
55Having found the boys are in need of protection, I must determine what disposition is in their best interest.
56Section 101(1) states that where a court finds a child in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary, it may make various orders. However, the availability of orders is subject to the timelines set out in s. 122. Here, the children have been in Society care for 638 days with two different sets of foster parents and have exceeded the timeline for remaining in state care. Consequently, the only available disposition is either an order for extended society care or an order that the boys return to their mother’s care with or without a supervision order.
57Section 74(3) sets out the following non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered in determining what disposition is appropriate. The provision reads:
(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.
58In addressing best interests, the court must consider that the paramount purpose of the CYFSA is to promote the best interests, protection, and well-being of children: s. 1(1).
59In addition, s. 1(2) emphasizes additional purposes which I find are relevant here:
that while parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit;
that the court order the least disruptive course of action where available and appropriate;
that services to children be provided in a manner that:
(i) respects a child’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment;
(ii) takes into account physical, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs of the child;
(iii) takes into account a child’s ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression;
(iv) takes into account a child’s cultural and linguistic needs;
(v) provides early assessment, planning, and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children in accordance with their best interests; and
(vi) includes the participation of a child, their relatives, and the members of the extended family and community, where appropriate;
that services to children and their families be provided in a manner that builds on the strengths of the families, wherever possible; and
appropriate sharing of information to plan for and provide services essential for creating successful outcomes for children and families.
60When a court considers a child’s best interests, it should consider all relevant factors including past, present, or future considerations which permits the court to conduct a more holistic and comprehensive analysis of what is best for a child: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G. (J.), 2020 ONCA 415, 151 O.R. (3d) 320, at para. 46.
61Parents have an obligation to obtain services and take advantage of the opportunities given to them: Society v K.D. AND A.D., at para. 176.
62Parents proposing a plan of care must provide evidence of the plan: Children’s Aid Society of Peel v. W. (M.J.) (1995), 1995 593 (ON CA), 23 O.R. (3d) 174 (C.A.) at p. 190.
63I considered all the best interest factors but refer below to those which I find are most relevant, not necessarily in the order that they are listed in the legislation, and sometimes collectively given there may be overlap between the factors.
A. 74(3)(c)(i) and (ii): Children’s physical, mental, and emotional needs and levels of development
64Section 74(3)(c)(i) requires the court to consider the children’s physical, mental, and emotional needs and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs. Section 74(3)(c)(ii) requires the court to consider the child’s physical, mental, and emotional level of development.
65The boys were born premature in July 2024 and required special care in hospital. Over time, they have grown to be healthy boys and are meeting their milestones. Erin Huston, an Infant and Child Development Consultant, testified that she worked with A.B. and the foster parents to assist the boys with achieving their developmental goals. One of the boys needed assistance to use his arms and hands equally well and to stand independently. The other boy needed assistance for sleep and regulating his emotions. One of the boys also has a condition where he cannot see from the back of his eye, which will require visits to an optometrist. Both boys have asthma.
66Patty Girard testified that she monitored the boys’ development during visits with the foster parents under the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children Program. The foster parents had minimal experience with babies. She initially attended their home twice a week and then gradually transitioned to 2-3 times a month. She described the boys as having two very different personalities - one liked a lot of active physical play while the other was more laid back and liked books and songs. Ms. Girard noted the boys were delayed in walking and a few other things, but that this is common for children born premature and simply requires adjusting milestones. Ms. Girard noted that, since the boys were born premature, they will require monitoring of their speech, growth, and development. However, the Society has not identified any significant special needs.
67Pictures of the boys with their mother were filed. They present as happy and healthy.
68A.B. has taken steps to transfer the children’s medical care to Dr. Haley, her own physician. While his practice is in Smiths Falls, I understand it is nonetheless closer to A.B. than their current physician. A.B. is also agreeable to the children continuing with their current physician until the transition can take effect. Should the boys have to go into CHEO for specialized care, A.B. intends to rely on Lanark County Transportation Services.
B. 74(3)(c)(x) and (xi): Risk of harm and the merits of the proposed plans of care
69Section 74(3)(c)(x) requires the court to consider 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. Section 74(3)(c)(xi) addresses the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
70As already noted, the Society concedes that, in their dealings with A.B., there is no evidence that she has ever harmed any of her children or that she would directly harm the boys.
71I find that there is evidence to support that A.B. can meet the boys’ physical, emotional, and mental needs. In this regard, I address the steps taken by A.B. to address the following areas of concern identified by the Society: i) A.B.’s competency to care for the boys; ii) A.B.’s history of drug addiction and risk of relapse; iii) A.B.’s mental health; and iv) A.B.’s capacity to keep the boys safe from exposure to relationships of conflict and violence.
i. A.B.’s competency to care for the boys
72Over the course of her access visits, A.B. has demonstrated that she is a loving parent who is able to provide for the children’s immediate needs. A.B. has demonstrated that she is able to prepare healthy meals and snacks for the boys, supervise their play in accordance with their developmental needs, and manage hygiene and sleep routines. She can provide feeding, diapering, supervision, and comfort to her boys independently. There is evidence that A.B. loves arts and crafts and has thoughtfully created and gifted items to the boys. A.B. also demonstrates her affection for the boys by singing and sharing music with them. The evidence indicates that the boys recognize A.B. and respond to her care and comfort.
73There have been challenges in A.B.’s willingness to take instruction on how to care for the boys. For example, in her letter dated September 16, 2025, to the Society, Ms. Girard stated that during their one day visit together, A.B. was not entirely receptive to instruction on how to care for the boys, claiming that she knew how to do so and suggesting that she scheduled the visit to “jump through the hoops” with the Society.
74In contrast, however, there are letters from nurses and CPSWs that show A.B. has been responsive to instruction. For example, Sophie Cyrene was the health nurse at the hospital who first called the Society after the boys were born. At that time, she reported that A.B. was highly emotional and clearly overwhelmed. She noted that the boys were born premature and would need special care. She expressed concerns that the mother was socially isolated and did not have supports. These were part of the grounds for the boys’ apprehension.
75However, not long after, in a letter dated July 12, 2024, Ms. Cyrene stated that A.B. was staying at a home in Ottawa close to the infants (in hospital). She was present at bedside for bonding, attachment, and teachings, and to participate in the boys’ care. She was actively involved in care and receptive to teachings. She noted A.B. was demonstrating capacity to care for them independently. A.B. had pumped breast milk for the infants, which she noted was the best form of nutrition for them and minimized the risks associated with prematurity. She indicated the medical team had not seen any evidence of substance misuse on the part of the mother. She explained that A.B. had gradually become engaged in services and was motivated to elaborate on a care plan, despite experiencing an unexpected C-section and being exhausted and in pain. She then set out A.B.’s proposed plan of care.
76A similar letter of support was provided by Ms. Hoffman, a Registered Oracle Midwife. In her letter dated July 15, 2024, she stated that A.B. had been providing hands on and appropriate care for the boys, was asking questions, and was receptive to teaching from the nursery staff. She was taking steps to address her mental well-being and had an intake appointment with Dr. Ghandi.
77I note, however, that during the year Dr. Ghandi was providing services to her, A.B. only met with Dr. Ghandi four times. Dr. Ghandi was of the view as of January 21, 2025, that A.B. would benefit from medication which A.B. was not willing to take.
78Over the course of the next 19 months, there were some bumps in the road. The CPSWs noted that A.B. sometimes had difficulty recognizing and responding to the boy’s cues. However, these challenges are not unique to AB. It is hard for every parent raising an infant to figure out their children’s cues, and I would imagine it can be even more difficult when you are managing twins. Furthermore, I find there was nothing in the evidence to suggest that AB was unable without gentle instruction from the CPSWs to develop her skills in this regard, and certainly nothing to suggest that A.B. lacks the capacity to meet her boys emotional and daily care needs.
79On the contrary, CPSW Corbett concludes in her affidavit, “Overall, I have observed that A.B. has been a good access parent, generally meeting the boys’ needs and keeping them safe with support.” During her testimony, CPSW Corbett noted that A.B. is very affectionate and loving towards her boys, that she has a good bond with them, that she engaged with them through play and music, that she brings healthy snacks for the children, and that she did not require much direction with routines. She noted that A.B.’s biggest challenge was managing her own anxiety and changes to the children’s routines. However, CPSW Corbett observed improvements. In such moments, A.B. is better able to eventually collect herself and reconnect with the children. She noted the children were happy and smiling during the visits. She felt that A.B. had progressed such that she no longer required supervision, but acknowledged this was a controlled environment.
80Similarly, CPSW Thompson states in her affidavit dated December 23, 2025, “I have observed that A.B. has been a good access parent, meeting the boys needs and keeping them safe with support during short time period. A.B. consistently attends access prepared with toys, activities and food for the boys.” Ms. Thompson testified that she found A.B. to be very hands on in her care of the boys and sought help when she needed assistance. She gave examples of various teaching moments that they had. While she missed some cues, she was amenable to learning. She noted that A.B. had developed routines for her children’s visits, provided care and emotional support to them, and was able to keep them safe.
81CPW Gogo also concludes at paragraph 39 of her affidavit dated December 12, 2025, that A.B. has attended access consistently. There are no protection concerns observed in access. She notes, however, that A.B. is supported during access by CPSWs Corbett and Brash.
82CPSW Brash worked with A.B. starting in May 2025 during her access visits with the boys. She also had experience supervising A.B. during her access visits with her daughter A.R. Ms. Brash reported in her affidavit and in her testimony at trial that A.B. sings, plays with the boys, and can attend to their meals and diaper changes. She noted, however, that A.B. would become distracted during the visits by personal matters, particularly by her phone because she did not have Wi-Fi at home, and that her anxiety made it difficult for her to manage abrupt changes to routine.
83With respect to attendance at appointments, A.B. has attended all the boys’ medical appointments except for an appointment on July 8, 2025, which she states she was not aware of, including their immunization visit. Ms. Gogo acknowledged that there were additional medical appointments in October 2025 that A.B. did arrange transport to attend, but the appointment times were changed at the last-minute and A.B. cannot be faulted for missing those.
84The Society argues that A.B. has not addressed her own dental needs and consequently, the court cannot be assured she will take care of the boys’ needs. As A.B. explained, she needs considerable dental work. However, she could not afford to pay for that treatment because Ontario Works only covers a portion. A.B. points out that she is taking steps to determine the scope of dental coverage available to her now that she is on a disability allowance. I would also note that A.B. is likely now eligible for government funding for public dental care.
85Furthermore, as A.B. points out, her dental needs are distinct from those of the boys. A.B. is aware that she can obtain dental services for her boys through the Healthy Smiles Program. She is working to find a local dentist to address both her own and the boys’ dental needs. The foster parents have not yet scheduled any dental visits for the boys.
86A.B. attended all her access visits up to December 2025, except on occasions when she was ill.
87In October 2025 and January 2026, A.B. experienced two setbacks in her access which she perceived as an attempt by the Society to create barriers to her access and undermine her reunification plan with her boys. In her trajectory planning, A.B. was scheduled to have access commence at her residence in Perth in October 2025. However, on October 14, 2025, A.B. and the Society came to learn that a video was circulating on Facebook in the community which identified her as being involved in a theft at a storage locker. A.B. denied it was her. A.B. does not have a criminal record. Even though she was neither charged nor convicted of any offence, the Society proceeded to cancel the opportunity for her to have access visits with her boys in her home on the premise that the video suggested she was involved criminal activity.
88In January 2026, the Society unilaterally changed A.B.’s second access visit from Perth to Smiths Falls. A.B. was not given any notice of the change and there was no prior discussion about it as part of her trajectory planning or reunification plan. Rather, A.B. was informed through a text from the foster parents just prior to the change.
89A.B. was upset by the change. As A.B. explains in her affidavit dated February 17, 2026, she commenced community-based access in Perth in March 2025, first at a supervised site and then later at the Early On Program at St. Paul’s Church. This was a significant step for A.B. because it provided her an opportunity to develop and demonstrate her ability to parent and develop routines for her boys in her new home community.
90More importantly, the Society understood A.B. was trying to sever her ties with Smiths Falls because of the negative associates there. While A.B. was comfortable with participating in access visits at the Society office, she was not comfortable with circulating in that community with her infant boys; hence, she preferred to have her visits in Perth. A.B. testified that all the protection workers knew of her history in Smiths Falls. A.B. had informed her CPW Purtell as early as November 1, 2023, (as per a contact log) that she did not want to be in Smith Falls because she will get into trouble there.
91The Society explained that the access changed from Perth back to Smiths Falls because there were staff shortages in the region. A.B. did not feel resources should trump her access. She felt that the Society was not entitled to make the change they did and refused to attend the visit in Smiths Falls for several weeks pending a motion before the court. She would, in some instances, stand and stubbornly wait in front of St. Paul’s Church during the appointed visit time. A.B.’s motion was dismissed by the court following which A.B. accepted the court’s direction and returned to participate in the second access visit in Smiths Falls.
92With respect to meeting the boys’ daily needs, A.B. has obtained a disability allowance since January 6, 2026, which will provide her with a more generous monthly payment then what she was receiving on Ontario Works. In addition, A.B. will receive the child tax benefit. These payments, along with entitlement to subsidized housing, will provide her significantly more financial stability and support for her children.
93A.B. has furnished her current one-bedroom apartment to have sleeping spaces for the boys. A.B. filed a letter from Lanark Social Services, which states that she will be eligible for a larger residence if the children are placed in her care. A.B.’s priority is to obtain a residence that is within the community and walking distance to services and facilities. A.B. has identified friends - Ms. Goddard and Mr. Stanzal - who can provide her with respite and assist her with errands that are within walking distance.
94A.B. is very resourceful. She has arranged for food bank deliveries or pick ups every two weeks to obtain additional food. A.B. is aware that she can obtain some non-perishable food items and clothing through the Salvation Army. She has arranged with Lanark County Transportation services to assist her in getting the children and herself to medical and other necessary appointments. A.B. has researched community resources to help her in nurturing her boys. There is an Early On playgroup St. Paul’s Church every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday, which she had started attending before the access visits were changed in January 2026. In addition, A.B. has looked into extracurricular activities like swimming lessons for the boys. A.B. has also looked into affordable daycare for the boys once they are potty trained, which would allow her to have some respite. One possible daycare is three blocks from her home.
95While I appreciate that A.B.’s access time with her boys has been supervised, I am not prepared to find that she would be unable to care for her boys if returned to her care full time. A.B. was never provided an opportunity for a home or overnight visit with the boys that suggests she is unable to care for the boys in a home environment. A.B. has some experience raising her daughter for the first five years before the Society’s involvement. Finally, A.B. will not be alone and has arranged for Ms. Goddard to stay with her and support her in the care of the boys.
ii. A.B.’s history of drug addiction and risk of relapse
96It is not disputed that A.B. is a recovering addict. She admits it herself and it is noted in her medical records. There is also reference to concerns about drug use while her daughter was in her care. While A.B. has taken steps to address her addiction, there is always a concern for relapse.
97A.B. testified that she stopped taking drugs just before the boys were born. This would be consistent with a comment made by L.Y. while in custody to CPW Purtell in spring 2024, wherein he stated that he believed A.B. had taken crystal meth but did not believe she did so often. A.B. testified that she stopped drug use “cold turkey” as she knew her sons would need her. A.B. testified she does not presently consume alcohol or non-prescription drugs except for Seroquel. She testified she was prescribed other non-prescription drugs by Dr. Ghandi but did not like the effect they had on her, including that they made her feel suicidal. A.B.’s reluctance to take medication is corroborated by Dr. Ghandi. In her discussion with CPW Purtell on January 21, 2025, Dr. Ghandi stated that she saw A.B. four times during 2024 and A.B. was not forthcoming with information. In her view, A.B. would have benefited from regularly taking medication, which A.B. was unwilling to do.
98A.B.’s medical records from her family physician Dr. Haley and her former psychologist Dr. Ghandi do not indicate ongoing drug use. However, Dr. Haley noted in A.B.’s disability application that she has a history of substance abuse and poor compliance with medication.
99The only evidence of possible recent drug use comes from a conversation that a CPW Gogo had with Perth OPP Officer Longaphie. CPW Gogo inquired about a storage theft. The officer could not offer information on that investigation at the time but told CPW Gogo that A.B. was involved in a drug transaction based on a text seen on a person’s phone who had been arrested for drug trafficking. In the text, someone is asking A.B. if she is okay and she replies “Don’t you love that. Same here. I haven’t had to buy for a while. I don’t understand why ppl won’t take my money lol.” While one might infer that the purchase is for drugs, no witness was called in relation to the text and A.B. was not cross-examined on the content of the text message.
100Since the boys were born, the Society has not demonstrated much concern about A.B.’s use of illicit drugs. The Society never asked A.B. to undertake any drug tests. There is no evidence that A.B. was under the influence during her access visits with the boys. Her most recent trajectory plan prepared by the Society with respect to goals and expectations does not refer to further treatment for drug addiction. The focus has been on A.B. taking steps to manage her mental health, more specifically managing anxiety, emotions, and stress.
101While the road to drug rehabilitation can be a rocky one, I am satisfied that A.B. has taken steps to address her addiction issues. She has specifically relocated away from Smiths Falls where her former associates involved in drug trade reside. She recognizes that she needs to remain sober to care for her boys and has demonstrated that in her presentation and level of engagement during her access visits over the last 19 months. Finally, as discussed below, A.B. has taken some treatment at Lanark Interval House and now sees a mental health counsellor monthly who can assist her with identifying non-medical supports to manage the risk of relapse.
102I agree with Counsel for the Society that A.B. could have done more to address the risk of relapse and her mental health with her own physician Dr. Haley. However, I find A.B. has been adjusting her life on multiple fronts and her failure to do more with her own physician is not determinative. A.B. has indicated that she will try and see her physician more regularly and has scheduled a visit for July 2026.
iii. A.B.’s mental health
103A.B. is 39 years of age. She left home when she was 16. Her relationship with her parents is strained. According to A.B., her father was emotionally abusive to her. He continues to openly tell her how disappointed he is in her, and this makes visits to the maternal family home difficult. Nonetheless, it is clear from reviewing the contact logs where A.B. discusses her relationship with her parents with the support workers that A.B. has insight into why her parents are frustrated with her. Nonetheless, she thinks highly of them and continues to care for them.
104It is also clear that A.B. would like for her boys to have a relationship with her parents. There is evidence that the maternal grandmother did attend one access visit but expressed concern about becoming too attached with the boys if they were not going to be returned to A.B.’s care. A.B. offered to have her parents meet with the boys this past Christmas but they refused. A.B.’s other children maintain contact with her parents.
105With respect to mental health treatment, CPW Gogo testified A.B. was slow to make appointments with service providers and had to be directed several times to focus on developing a concrete plan. In her affidavit dated September 12, 2025, CPW Gogo acknowledges that while the Society does not expect “big changes” right away, A.B. was expected to demonstrate that she is making efforts to get support and is working on her mental health. A.B. takes the position that she has done so, but the Society argues she has not done enough.
106Before addressing the treatment A.B. has taken, it is important to note that the apprehension of the boys from the hospital had a devastating emotional impact on A.B., as it would any mother who has just given birth. It is in this emotional context that A.B. somehow managed to find the wherewithal to turn her life around over the past 19 months. The medical notes of Dr. Ghandi dated August 28, 2024, document the stress, sadness, and fear A.B. experienced in those first few months. Furthermore, Dr. Ghandi notes that A.B. effectively lives in poverty and has acknowledged she had to sometimes shoplift for food. A.B. reported to Dr. Ghandi that she felt disrespected by her child protection worker and perceived that the Society was setting her up to fail. One year later, on January 8, 2025, Dr. Ghandi notes again the “anguish” that A.B. continues to experience from the separation of her children.
107According to A.B., following the removal of her children, Dr. Ghandi recommended that she take one-on-one counselling. This is precisely what A.B. is doing with her current counsellor Dianne McLean. A.B. intends to continue seeing Ms. McLean, who is located within the community and with whom she is comfortable.
108Ms. McLean provided a letter which I referred to in my oral decision. However, counsel reminded me that the letter was not made an exhibit because Ms. McLean was not willing to testify and counsel did not have an opportunity to cross-examine Ms. McLean on the letter. Consequently, I do not rely on the contents of the letter in arriving at my decision.
109In addition, A.B. connected with Lanark County Interval House, an agency that supports women and children who are experiencing or fleeing violence. According to Director Coyles, A.B. initiated services with their agency as early as 2022 and has continued to seek their support. More recently, between October 2 and December 11, 2024, A.B. registered and attended 7 out of 10 sessions in their Breaking the Cycle Group. The program focuses on addressing issues of domestic violence. A.B. then attended two further sessions in Stage 2 of the program held between January to April 2025 but did not complete the full session. During her testimony, A.B. was asked what she learned from her programming. She was able to articulate that the program was beneficial and that she learned to identify the signs and risks of abuse and how to walk away from abusive situations in a healthy manner. During this trial, A.B. arranged to have a Lanark Interval House outreach worker present at court to support her.
110A.B. testified that she is getting better at managing her anxiety. She has a generalized anxiety disorder which makes it difficult for her to manage abrupt changes. She gave an example of how someone came to the access center and was causing a disturbance outside. Previously, an incident like that would have caused her to be much more agitated. While she did go outside to see what was happening, A.B. explained she was able to remain calm and walk away. A.B. was also able to articulate with CPSW Corbett how she might respond to sudden changes that could arise in parenting the boys.
111While A.B. is not opposed to attending further programming, it has been recommended to her that she consider art therapy through a program at Interval House. She is hoping to secure funding to allow her to do so. A.B. is very artistically inclined. She likes to sing and compose her own music, and she likes to paint. While I appreciate that targeted educational programs on managing risks around mental health, addiction, and risk of exposure to domestic violence are certainly beneficial, I find that A.B. is entitled to also have some autonomy in conjunction with her support providers in determining what forms of therapy might work best for her in managing her mental health. What is important is not what course she takes but that she stays the course. If art or music therapy can help her manage her anxiety and mental health to be a better parent, then those forms of therapeutic responses should not be minimized.
112In his letter prepared on request of A.B., Dr. Haley stated that A.B. has been in his care since 2021. He could not provide an opinion on whether her mental health would or would not make it safe for her boys to be with her. He noted that she had missed appointments, and the lack of follow-up made it difficult for him to provide such insight. However, he concludes by stating, “I advised that her mental health could of course impact the care she provides as any person could but I could not say it inevitably would have a negative impact.”
113Finally, while the Society does not approve of A.B.’s supports, A.B. has arranged for her closest friend, Ms. Goddard, to reside with her. This will be a tremendous support to A.B. as she recognizes that she is sometimes reluctant to seek help from others due to her anxiety. Having a second person in the home will not only provide A.B. a second set of hands to assist in caring for the boys but will ensure she will not be socially isolated and alone in this transition.
iv. A.B.’s capacity to keep the boys safe from exposure to relationships of conflict and violence
114The Society argues that A.B. cannot be trusted to refrain from communicating or resuming a relationship with L.Y. in the future. They highlight that A.B. refused to cooperate with the prosecution after charges were laid against L.Y. for assaulting her in March 2025. Furthermore, the Society argues that A.B. has been dishonest with them about her continued contact with L.Y. and they had to resort to obtaining phone records from the jail to demonstrate her continued contact. These phone records show that from April 15 to 18, 2025, and again from July 19 to August 27, 2025, A.B. accepted calls from a number associated with L.Y. at the Brockville jail.
115A.B. acknowledges that she did maintain contact with L.Y. after the boys were born and that she sent photos of the boys to him while he was in custody. She hoped that they could still be a family unit. She acknowledges that she has not always been honest with the Society about her relationship with L.Y. With respect to the phone records, however, A.B. denies that all the calls were from L.Y. At the time, Dylan Greene, the son of Ms. Goddard, was also in custody and would call her using L.Y.’s number.
116Dylan Greene testified and corroborated A.B.’s testimony. He views A.B. as an elder sister. He explained that people will exchange various canteen privileges for the use of an inmate’s phone times. While he could not say for certain how many calls he would have made, he testified that he did use L.Y.’s number to call A.B.
117Upon review of the evidence, I find that A.B. did continue to have contact with L.Y. following the birth of the boys and that she was not honest with the Society regarding her continued contact with L.Y. However, I do not find this determinative of the disposition to be made.
118It is apparent from presiding in family court that people are often not at their best in times of marital or relationship breakdown. Add to this the issues of poverty, addiction, a history of anxiety, post-partum adjustment, and the emotional devastation of having your children apprehended in hospital, it is reasonable to expect that it may take considerably longer for a person to process, accept, and adjust to the end of a problematic spousal relationship.
119Minimizing or denying domestic violence is common amongst victims of domestic violence: Society v. K.D. AND D.A., at para. 93. When the boys were apprehended, the Society made it clear to A.B. that they would not support her continued relationship with L.Y. because of the impact of that relationship on the care of her daughter A.R. A.B. was effectively left to choose between her relationship with L.Y. or her relationship with the boys. While this may present itself as an easy and self-evident choice, it can be an emotionally difficult one to come to terms with. This is apparent in the hospital records and contact logs that followed the children’s birth and over the last 19 months. The records indicate that A.B., in her discussions with the hospital nurses, her psychologist, the child protection workers, and even her access supervisors, was initially focused on trying to salvage her relationship with L.Y. in the hopes of forming a family someday. She later allowed L.Y. back into her life in the spring of 2025 while he was out of custody, but there was a further incident of domestic conflict between them in March 2025, and L.Y. was charged with assault. A.B. would not support the prosecution and the charges were stayed.
120Despite these challenges in trying to extricate herself from L.Y., there is also evidence that A.B. has, over time, started to appreciate the risks and consequences of her relationship with L.Y. She engaged in educational programming on abuse at Lanark Interval House. With advice and encouragement from her protection workers, access supervisors, mental health workers, and her support network, A.B. started to break ties with L.Y. and increasingly shifted her mental and emotional energy in working towards reunification with her boys. As A.B. herself stated in her closing submissions, she hopes to be judged not only by her mistakes but also her progress.
121A.B. testified that she has now severed ties with L.Y. and is committed to ensuring she keeps the boys safe should he try to appear in her life upon exiting custody. She highlights the following steps she has taken in this regard:
She installed a working phone in the residence in cases of emergency and to call 911;
She installed security cameras around the apartment so she can monitor who approaches the residence and prevent unsafe contact;
She has arranged to have Ms. Goddard reside with her so that she will not be alone for the immediate future;
She has developed a small safety network of friends who are aware of the specific protection concerns as it relates to L.Y. and can support her in managing it; and
She has taken some course work through Lanark Interval House on how to manage risks around domestic violence; and
She is seeing a mental health counsellor Ms. MacLean and is committed to doing more if necessary.
122Both Ms. Goddard and Mr. Stanzal testified as members of A.B.’s support team. I found them both to be credible and well-intentioned individuals. Mr. Stanzal is 34 years of age. He has known A.B. for four years. They talk regularly. He is aware of her situation with her children. He has offered to help A.B. with running errands. He works in construction during the day but is available for support in the evenings and weekends.
123Ms. Goddard is 46 years of age. She has moved in with A.B. and is prepared to assist her with caring for the boys. She can also provide A.B. with some respite. She is prepared to stay as long as she must. She would also ensure that, if L.Y. shows up, the police will be called. She is savvy enough to recognize A.B.’s previous associates and to identify people that are negative influences who might try to re-enter her life.
124Ms. Goddard has several adult children of her own that she parented over the last 14 years. She acknowledges she did previously have substance abuse issues, but that this was a long time ago. She acknowledges she recently left a problematic relationship. She has been providing support to A.B. on and off in the past year including attending one access visit. She noted a 70-80% increase in A.B.’s functioning and progress. She testified that A.B. was going through a lot when the boys were born and is now more focused, directed, composed and relaxed when parenting her boys. She has observed A.B. to be a very loving and affectionate parent.
125Finally, A.B. does not presently have a criminal record. She was subsequently charged with break and enter in relation to the storage locker for which a video was circulating. Her criminal counsel has advised that a plea arrangement has been made with the Crown. If A.B. pleads guilty, there will be a joint submission to the judge for a suspended sentence and probation. The ultimate sentence is up to the judge, but at present it is not anticipated that A.B. would be incarcerated upon conviction for this current charge.
C. 74(3)(a): Children’s views and wishes
126Section 74(3)(a) requires consideration of the child’s views and wishes, giving due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless those wishes cannot be ascertained.
127In this case the boys are too young to ascertain their wishes, but the Society concedes that they respond positively to their mother when they see her.
D. 74(3)(b); (c)(iii); (c)(iv): Children’s cultural identity, language, and community
128The children do not identify as First Nations, Inuk, or Métis: 74(3)(b).
12974(3)(c)(iii) requires the court to consider the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Section 74(3)(c)(iv) requires consideration of the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage.
130The family unit appears to be Caucasian. No other evidence has been presented on the family’s cultural and linguistic heritage. However, return of the boys to their mother’s care would better enable them to learn about and be exposed to their maternal family history.
E. 74(3)(c)(v) and (v)(i): Children’s relationship with parents, siblings, family, and community
131Section 74(3)(c)(v) requires the court to consider the importance of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family for the child’s development. Section 74(3)(c)(vi) requires the court to consider the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, or other member of the child’s extended or community.
132The Society does not dispute that the mother loves the boys dearly and that they know and respond to her as their mother. There is a positive relationship between the boys and their mother.
133During the access visits, the boys have had an opportunity to meet with their half siblings.
134A.B. has a very good relationship with her older teenage children with whom she communicates regularly. It is apparent to me that she also yearns to resume her relationship with her daughter A.R. but, as noted, there have been challenges in this regard. Her other children have a good relationship with the maternal family.
135The return of the boys into A.B.’s care would allow A.B. to continue to foster the boys’ relationships with their siblings and hopefully, her parents and the maternal family.
F. 74(3)(vii) and (ix): Children’s need for stability and security
136Section 74(3)(vii) addresses the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity. Section 74(3)(ix) requires the court to consider the effects of delay in the disposition of the case on the child.
137The children have been in care for 19 months living with two sets of foster parents. The Society has advised that, should an order for extended society care be granted, the plan would be for the boys to be adopted by their current foster parents. This would allow for continuity of care.
138On the other hand, the boys had an opportunity to bond with their biological mother while at hospital, and she has been a continued presence in their life for the last 19 months. The return of the children to A.B. will allow for continuity of care by a biological parent whereas an order for extended society care will terminate that parental relationship.
G. Section 101(2): Services provided
139Section 101(2) requires consideration of the services that have been provided by the Society to A.B. It is apparent from the contact logs filed that the Society has provided A.B. with multiple services over the years both with respect to the care of A.R. and the boys. More specifically with the boys, the Society has: i) engaged in safety planning with A.B. including connecting and supporting her work through Interval House; ii) engaged in trajectory planning with A.B. that includes addressing housing, financial and food security, mental health support, and development of a safety and support network; and iii) assisted A.B. with accessing transportation to allow her to attend access visits and her own or the boys’ appointments.
140While I accept that the Society did provide support and services to A.B., it is also clear from the contact logs that, within months of the boys being born, it was the Society’s intention to seek an order for extended society care. On October 3, 2024, about three months after the boys were born, the Society informed A.B. that they would be seeking to place the boys in extended society care. A.B. was upset by the news and asked the CPWs to leave her home.
141On October 24, 2024, the Society informed A.B. that they would be applying for extended society care for the boys, and the application to that effect was filed by December 2024.
142Even after A.B. had made some rehabilitative progress in 2025, the Society maintained its position on extended society care. On September 9, 2025, A.B. expressed her frustrations that the Society continued to focus on her weaknesses rather than her strengths and that she would continue to fight for custody of her boys at trial. A.B. was informed that, upon adoption, she could possibly obtain visits with the boys twice a year through the openness process. A.B. made it clear that she would not agree to this.
Conclusion
143Upon consideration of all the best interest factors, I find that an order for extended society care is not warranted. Rather, I find that there is compelling evidence that it is in the best interests of the boys to be returned to the care of their mother subject to a brief supervision order of four months to facilitate the transition of the boys back into her full time care.
144An order for extended society care is the most intrusive order a court can make in child protection proceedings. The court should only grant this relief with the highest degree of caution, only on the basis of compelling evidence, and after a careful examination of possible alternative remedies: Children’s Aid Society. of Brant v. A.H. and C.T., 2019 ONCJ 540, at paras. 7-10; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. Y.M., 2019 ONCJ 489, at para. 225 citing Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton- Wentworth v. G. (J) (1997), 23 R.F.L. 4th 79 (SCJ- Family Branch).
145Here, I disagree with the Society that this is a last-minute plea where A.B. is just “seeing the light” and intends to change: FCS v. M.M.., at para. 75. Rather, I find that A.B. has taken steps to demonstrate meaningful changes in her life. This includes changes with respect to her ability to care for the boys. A.B. has demonstrated at visits that she has the skills to care for and nurture the boys and that she is a loving and affectionate mother. While I appreciate that this is distinct from having two twin boys at home full time, I am not persuaded that she would be unable to provide the same level of care in her home. With the continued support of her friend and now house mate Ms. Goddard, the support of her safety network, and the help of services providers and other community resources, I find that she would be able to care for the boys and meet their daily needs.
146I also find that A.B. is able keep the boys safe from the risk of domestic conflict. L.Y. is presently in custody. The date he will be released is unknown. A.B. has severed ties with him. The evidence indicates that he has also moved on and is in a new relationship. Nonetheless, A.B. cannot control the fact that L.Y. may try to see her and the boys who are his biological sons.
147However, I find that A.B. is now aware of the risk and consequences of resuming that relationship. She recognizes that she lost custody and care of her daughter because she prioritized that relationship over the needs of her daughter. It has taken A.B. a long time to emotionally detach from her relationship with L.Y., but it appears that, since the fall of 2025, she has moved forward from that relationship and refocused her energy in caring for herself and her reunification plan for the boys. She has now taken training through Interval House and is better aware of how to identify risks and triggers in relationships involving domestic violence. She is seeing a mental health counsellor regularly. She has learned, with the help of the Society, how to engage in safety planning. With her support system and continued contact with mental health providers, I find that A.B. will be able to respond appropriately to keep her boys safe should L.Y. or other negative associates attempt to re-enter her life.
148Finally, in arriving at my decision, I am mindful that the Society has been working with A.B. for an extended period and the legislation does not contemplate that supervision orders become a long-term mechanism for protecting the children: Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. S.L., 2012 ONCJ 452, at para. 25. Nonetheless, keeping in mind the purposes of the legislation, the intrusiveness and severity of an extended society care order, that A.B. has made significant changes in a wide number of areas in the last 19 months, that the boys will be relocated to a new community, and the need for at least some transitional support, I find that the return of the boys to their mother with a 4-month supervision order is the in the best interests of the children and the appropriate disposition in this case.
Order
149There will be a Final Order pursuant to s. 101(1) ordering the boys to be placed in the care and custody of A.B. subject to supervision by the Society for a period of four months. The Final Order shall set out the conditions with which A.B. has to comply with input from both parties.
Justice N. Somji
Released: May 12, 2026