G.C. (an added party) sought an order for access to the child, V.E.B.P., and S.P. (the mother) brought a cross-motion seeking to have G.C. supervise her access to the child.
The Children’s Aid Society, the father, and the child's kin caregivers opposed both motions.
The court denied G.C.'s motion for interim access, finding that the relationship was not sufficiently beneficial or meaningful to the child, citing concerns about G.C.'s transparency, involvement in adult conflict, and negative messaging about the father.
The court also denied the mother's request for G.C. to supervise access, concluding that G.C. was not a suitable supervisor due to lack of neutrality and past conduct.
The child's stability and positive development in kin care were significant factors in the decision.
