CAS of Haldimand & Norfolk v. J.-L.J et al, 2021 ONSC 546

Background

• The case involves a child protection application under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA).

• J. has been in the care of his maternal grandmother, D.J., under a temporary order since March 8, 2019.

• The CAS and Six Nations Band support placement of J. with his father, C.M., under a six-month supervision order due to concerns over the mother’s substance abuse.

• The mother, J.-L.J., seeks continued placement with D.J. instead of transferring custody to C.M.

Key Issues

1. Child Protection Concerns

   • J.-L.J.’s history of alcohol and prescription drug abuse, impacting her parenting capacity.

   • Multiple incidents involving police intervention and public intoxication.

   • Failure to comply with supervision and counseling recommendations.

2. Parenting & Supervision

   • CAS has no child protection concerns about C.M.

   • J.-L.J. exhibited ongoing struggles with substance abuse and lack of stability.

   • Maternal grandmother D.J. provided a stable home but was found to be uncooperative with CAS and did not fully adhere to supervision requirements.

3. Cultural Considerations

   • J. is a First Nations child and a member of Six Nations of the Grand River.

   • The Band supported placement with C.M. and agreed upon terms for J. to maintain cultural connections through designated contact and community events.

Legal Framework

• Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA):

  • Section 74: Defines the circumstances under which a child is considered in need of protection.

  • Section 102: Provides for custody orders where a child is removed from parental care.

  • Section 2(1): Emphasizes the paramount importance of child welfare and best interests.

• Relevant Case Law:

  • Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. C.T., 2019 ONCA 274 – Affirming the principle that a child’s best interests and stability take precedence over parental preferences.

  • R. v. K.B., 2018 ONCJ 465 – Addressing parental substance abuse as a factor in determining fitness for custody.

  • Re C.B., 2020 ONSC 3504 – Emphasizing cultural considerations for Indigenous children in child protection cases.

Findings & Decision

• On Consent: J. was found to be in need of protection under the CYFSA.

• Court Ruling:

  • Placement of J. with his father, C.M., under a six-month supervision order.

  • Mother, J.-L.J., granted supervised access on alternate weekends.

  • Six Nations Band granted designated contact with J.

Conclusion

The court prioritized J.'s best interests, emphasizing stability, cultural continuity, and parental fitness. The decision reflects a collaborative effort among CAS, the Band, and the court to ensure a protective and culturally appropriate environment for J.

​

CAS v. K.C. and Constance Lake First Nation, 2020 ONSC 5513

Background

This case involves a child protection matter under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), initiated by the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Waterloo (CAS). CAS sought a temporary order placing twin infants in its care, citing concerns regarding their mother, K.C., and her ability to provide proper care due to her history of drug use, mental health issues, and housing instability. The children, who are of Indigenous heritage, were placed in an Indigenous foster home near London, Ontario, despite their mother residing in Waterloo Region.

Legal Framework

This case is governed by both provincial and federal child protection laws, particularly concerning the care and placement of Indigenous children.

1. Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA):

   • Section 74(3): Outlines the best interests of the child test, considering factors such as safety, well-being, stability, and cultural identity.

   • Sections 90-94: Allow courts to issue temporary orders for care and custody based on a child's protection needs.

2. An Act Respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families (Bill C-92, 2019):

   • Section 9(1): Mandates that the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration in all decisions.

   • Section 10(3): Lists additional factors specific to Indigenous children, including cultural identity, community connections, and the child’s relationship with their family.

   • Section 16(1): Establishes a hierarchy of placement, prioritizing Indigenous children being placed with their parents, extended family, or an Indigenous foster home.

3. Key Legal Issue:

   • The conflict between CYFSA and Bill C-92: CAS argued that Bill C-92’s placement hierarchy required keeping the children in an Indigenous foster home, while the mother argued that the best interests of the children required returning them to her care.

   • The court was tasked with determining whether strict adherence to Bill C-92’s placement rules could override the individualized best interests test under CYFSA.

Key Issues

1. Child Placement:

   • CAS sought to keep the children in Indigenous foster care, citing Bill C-92’s placement hierarchy.

   • The mother sought to regain custody under supervised conditions or, alternatively, place the children with her maternal grandmother through a Customary Care Agreement.

2. Mother’s Fitness to Parent:

   • CAS expressed concerns about her mental health history, past drug addiction, and lack of stable housing.

   • The mother argued that she had been stable on methadone, receiving psychiatric treatment, and committed to caring for the twins.

3. Best Interests of the Children:

   • The court considered whether keeping the children in CAS care was justified or whether they should be returned to their mother under supervised conditions.

Court’s Decision

1. Return to Mother’s Care:

   • The court ruled in favor of the mother, determining that the children should be returned to her under a temporary supervision order with conditions.

   • The judge found that CAS’s concerns did not outweigh the mother’s demonstrated commitment to rehabilitation and parenting.

2. Cultural Considerations & Bill C-92:

   • The judge ruled that Bill C-92’s Indigenous placement hierarchy cannot override the best interests of the child.

   • The court found that placing the children far from their mother solely for cultural reasons was not justified if it harmed their relationship with her.

3. Supervision & Conditions:

   • The mother was required to:

     • Comply with CAS supervision.

     • Continue mental health and addiction treatment.

     • Attend parenting and relationship counseling.

     • Allow unrestricted access to service providers.

Significance of the Ruling

• Clarifies the interplay between CYFSA and Bill C-92, emphasizing best interests over rigid placement rules.

• Recognizes racial profiling concerns in child protection cases, stressing that Indigenous parents should not be held to a different standard.

• Highlights the importance of culturally appropriate child welfare approaches while ensuring parental rights are not unjustly restricted.

Conclusion

The court overturned CAS’s temporary placement order and returned the children to their mother under supervision, balancing Indigenous cultural protections with a child-centric best interests approach.