Sharon Worthman

The Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto brought a motion seeking a temporary order placing two children (ages 7 and 12) in the mother's care subject to society supervision, due to substantial school absenteeism over three years.

The motion proceeded on consent after the mother ensured consistent school attendance.

The court granted the order with conditions for both parents and the society, emphasizing that educational neglect is a serious child protection concern that societies must address promptly.

The Native Child and Family Services of Toronto brought a motion for temporary care and custody of three children (Au.

B., Aa.

B., and M.P.) due to chronic neglect, poor home conditions, hygiene issues, and the mother's inability to manage her mental health and parenting.

The mother (A.B.) opposed, seeking the children's return.

The court granted the Society's motion, placing Au.

B. and Aa.

B. in the Society's temporary care and custody, and M.P. in his father's (L.P.) temporary care subject to Society supervision.

The court emphasized the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in foster care and the need for culturally appropriate support, finding that the children could not be adequately protected by a supervision order alone given the complex issues and the Society's past ineffective supervision.

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto brought a temporary motion within a Status Review application to vary an existing final order, seeking temporary care and custody of three children.

The children were previously in the mother's care under a supervision order.

The Society argued a long history of concerns including the mother's lack of transparency, non-compliance with orders, exposure to domestic violence, and failure to address the children's complex medical and educational needs.

The mother and father opposed, arguing for the children to remain in the mother's care.

The court applied the "best interests of the child" test under section 113(8) of the CYFSA, finding that a significant change in circumstances impacting the children's best interests required a change in placement.

The motion was granted, placing the children in the temporary care and custody of the Society with discretionary access for the parents.

A motion concerning the temporary care of three children under the Child and Family Services Act.

The respondent parents sought the return of two children (Charles and Thomas) from Society care, while the Society sought Crown wardship for those children and Society wardship for a third child (Charlotte) born prematurely during the proceedings.

The court applied the test under section 51(2) and (3) of the Act, finding that immediate risks to Charles and Thomas could be managed through intensive Society supervision and imposed conditions.

Charlotte remained in temporary Society care due to her fragility and the parents' inability to manage three young children simultaneously.

In a child protection matter, the respondent parents sought costs against the Children's Aid Society following a case conference.

The Society had breached a court-ordered access schedule by failing to provide five community visits to the father over a five-week period.

Although the Society acknowledged the breach as inadvertent and subsequently complied with the order, the court found the breach to be significant and ongoing, occurring during a critical period for assessing parental capacity.

The court awarded costs to both parents, finding that a reasonably informed person would consider the Society's conduct unreasonable.

The Society's failure to comply with clear court orders, despite having the same family service worker throughout the case, was found to be sloppy and negligent.

The court emphasized the importance of child protection agencies complying with court orders to maintain the integrity of the child protection system.

This is a status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended at birth due to parental substance abuse and domestic violence.

The mother sought to have the child returned to her care under Society supervision, while the Society sought an order of Crown wardship with a view to adoption by the child's long-term foster parents.

The court found that while the mother had made significant progress in addressing her addiction and mental health issues, the durability of her plan remained uncertain due to limited personal supports and a history of relapse.

The court ordered Crown wardship, finding that the child's best interests required permanency and stability.

Access to the mother was ordered at the Society's discretion with a minimum of once per month.

Access to the father was denied due to inconsistent contact and failure to demonstrate a beneficial and meaningful relationship with the child.

The respondent brought a motion to change a final custody and access order, seeking supervised access to his daughter after being denied access for approximately three years.

The respondent had been convicted of sexual assault of a child in 2010 and was subject to a prohibition order restricting contact with minors.

The applicant opposed the motion, arguing there had been no material change in circumstances.

The court found that the respondent failed to establish a material change in circumstances relevant to access, as his circumstances remained substantially unchanged—he continued to be diagnosed as a likely pedophile, remained subject to the prohibition order, had undergone no treatment, and his only change was a change of mind.

The court rejected the respondent's claim that the applicant had agreed to allow unsupervised access in violation of the court order, finding his credibility questionable.

The motion was dismissed.

In this child protection status review application, the Children's Aid Society sought final orders placing two young children (ages 2 and 4) in the sole care and custody of their mother, with no access or contact for the father, and a restraining order prohibiting the father from contacting either the mother or the children.

The father did not participate in the proceedings and was noted in default.

The mother consented to all relief sought.

The court granted all orders requested, finding that the children's best interests were served by placing them in the mother's care, that the father posed a significant risk due to his history of domestic violence against the mother, and that a restraining order was necessary to protect both the mother and children.

In this child protection matter under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the court determined the appropriate disposition for a child found to be in need of protection.

The Children's Aid Society sought crown wardship with no access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother sought placement of the child with the grandmother for six months subject to society supervision.

The father was noted in default.

The court found that placement with the grandmother, subject to supervision terms, was in the child's best interests, despite the grandmother's significant prior child protection history.

The court emphasized that the grandmother had demonstrated substantial positive changes, including improved parenting capacity, commitment to the child, and ability to establish boundaries with the mother.

This is a status review application under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning a child apprehended at birth due to concerns about the mother's mental health, transience, lack of prenatal care, and domestic violence in the parental relationship.

The child was initially placed with the mother under a supervision order but was re-apprehended when the mother failed to maintain housing and comply with program expectations.

The father sought return of the child under a supervision order, while the Society sought a Crown wardship order with access.

The court found that the father, despite his love for the child and participation in various programs, remained too dependent on professionals and family members to accomplish basic parenting tasks, had breached court orders regarding contact with the mother, and lacked the capacity to provide stable, permanent care.

The court ordered Crown wardship with supervised face-to-face access three times per year to both parents, finding that such limited access would not impair the child's future opportunities for adoption while preserving the beneficial relationship between the child and her biological parents.

A temporary care and custody motion under the Child and Family Services Act concerning a newborn child.

The Catholic Children's Aid Society sought to place the child in their care, while the mother sought placement with herself or alternatively with the maternal grandparents subject to supervision.

The court applied the two-part test requiring the society to establish reasonable grounds that the child would likely suffer harm if returned to the respondents and that the child could not be adequately protected by supervision terms.

While finding the first part satisfied regarding placement with the mother alone, the court determined that placement with the maternal grandparents, jointly with the mother and subject to strict supervision terms, was appropriate and the least disruptive alternative consistent with adequate child protection.