Sukhpaul Tut

The Children's Aid Society of Niagara brought a summary judgment motion within a status review application for twin children, G.D. and J.D., seeking a final order for extended care and custody without access for the purpose of adoption.

The mother, T.A., failed to file responding material or attend the motion, and the father, J.D., was in default.

The court found no genuine issue requiring a trial, noting the mother's lack of progress in addressing protection concerns and her failure to exercise access.

The court determined that it was in the children's best interests to grant the Society's request for permanency through adoption, permanently severing parental ties.

The Children's Aid Society of Niagara Region brought a summary judgment motion seeking Extended Society Care without access for three children (ages 7, 5, and almost 4).

The motion was based on long-standing concerns regarding parental substance abuse, domestic violence, homelessness, hazardous living conditions, and lack of insight or commitment to addressing these issues.

The parents opposed, proposing kinship care with the maternal grandfather or continued foster care until the father's release from incarceration.

The court found that the children continued to be in need of protection, parental plans were unrealistic and unsafe, and the maternal grandfather was unsuitable as a kinship provider.

Applying the principles of summary judgment and the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court granted the Society's motion, emphasizing the children's need for permanence and timely resolution, and concluding that continued parental access would not be in the children's best interests and would likely impair future adoption opportunities.

The Children's Aid Society brought a child protection application seeking to make a two-year-old child with special needs a Crown ward without access.

The child had been in foster care since birth.

The mother had significant cognitive and physical limitations, and her five previous children had been made Crown wards.

The father had serious health issues, including stage 4 cancer.

The parents sought a supervision order placing the child in the mother's care.

The court found that the parents lacked the capacity and skills to care for the child and that a supervision order would not mitigate the risks.

The court ordered that the child be made a Crown ward without access to facilitate adoption.

The applicant children's aid society sought a temporary order to keep three children in the care and custody of their father, subject to society supervision, following their apprehension from the mother and stepfather.

The apprehension was triggered by suspicious bruising on the youngest child, which a medical assessment concluded was highly suspicious for inflicted injury.

The mother and stepfather opposed the motion, seeking the return of the children and offering an alternative explanation for the bruising.

The court found the society's evidence credible and trustworthy, concluding there were reasonable grounds to believe the children would be at risk of harm if returned to the mother and stepfather.

The court granted the society's motion for temporary care and custody with the father.