Susan M. Sullivan

In a child protection motion under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act, the Society sought a temporary supervision order while leaving the children in the parents’ care, with drug testing as a central term.

The court accepted that some anonymous and collateral reports deserved limited weight, and that many proposed supervisory terms were overbroad, but found the family’s recent and documented history of parental drug abuse, deception, treatment attendance, and renewed reports of use created a probable risk of harm absent court-ordered supervision.

Applying the temporary protection standard and the least intrusive placement principle, the court held the children could remain with the parents under supervision rather than be removed.

Random drug testing for both parents was ordered as a cornerstone term of supervision.

In a child protection status review proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act, a caregiver sought an order placing two young children with another adult family member while the caregiver served a custodial sentence arising from criminal conduct involving concealment of a relative’s death and fraudulently receiving social assistance payments.

The Society opposed the proposed kin placement, citing concerns raised in a kinship assessment, lack of cooperation with supervision, instability within the household, and serious credibility issues.

The court assessed the children’s best interests under s. 37 and s. 64(8) of the Act and found the caregiver’s evidence unreliable and the proposed placement unsafe.

Given the applicant’s history of deception and troubling conduct, the court concluded that supervision could not adequately protect the children.