Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington v. J.G.​

Issue

Family and Children’s Services (FCS) sought Crown wardship without access for two children, S.L.E.W. (4 years old) and L.A.K.W. (1 year old), due to concerns about their mother’s (J.G.) ability to care for them.​

Key Findings

Background & Concerns

• The mother, J.G., faced mental health struggles and substance abuse issues.

• The children were placed in FCS care in June 2015 under a Temporary Care Agreement.

• The mother showed initial improvement in mental health and substance abuse treatment but relapsed in April 2016, leading to concerns about her long-term ability to care for the children.

Legal Standard for Summary Judgment

• The court followed Rule 16 of the Family Court Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, and principles from Hryniak v. Mauldin (2014 SCC 7), which allows summary judgment if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial.

• The test is whether the summary judgment process can fairly and justly resolve the dispute.

Mother’s Attempts at Rehabilitation

• Initially, the mother attended programs, took prescribed medications, and passed drug tests.

• However, in April 2016, she stopped attending programs, missed medical appointments, and admitted to using crystal meth.

• In August 2016, she was discharged from a residential drug treatment program after only four days due to her unstable mental health.

• By the hearing date, she had enrolled in school but had no substantial evidence of stability.

Children’s Best Interests

• The children had been in stable foster care for over a year, meeting developmental milestones.

• The mother had inconsistent supervised visits and struggled to develop a relationship with her younger child.

• The judge found no reasonable prospect that the mother could provide a stable home in the near future.

Court’s Decision

• Crown wardship granted: The children were placed in permanent care under Family and Children's Services.

• No access granted: The mother failed to prove that her relationship with the children was both meaningful and beneficial.

• The judge emphasized the importance of stability for the children, stating that child development cannot wait.

Conclusion

The court ruled in favor of Family and Children's Services, granting permanent Crown wardship without access to the mother. The judge found that the mother’s mental health and substance abuse struggles made reunification too risky, and the children’s best interests were served by remaining in their foster home with adoption as the likely outcome.

​

Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866

Case Overview

The case concerns a child protection proceeding involving three children: JSP (8 years old), JS (4 years old), and RS (9 months old). The applicant, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the Society), sought final custody of JSP and JS with their paternal grandparents and extended society care for RS. The respondent mother, R.S., opposed the Society's application and sought custody of her children or, alternatively, joint custody with her own mother.

Legal Framework

1.     Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), S.O. 2017, c. 14

o   Section 74(2)(b)(i): Defines a child in need of protection due to the risk of physical harm from inadequate care, supervision, or protection by a parent.

o   Section 87(7)-(9): Governs restrictions on media reporting and publication to protect the identity of children and parents in proceedings.

o   Section 93(1): Allows consideration of past conduct of a parent towards any child in determining protection concerns.

o   Section 101(1): Provides options for court orders upon finding a child in need of protection, including extended society care.

o   Section 102(1): Allows for custody orders to persons other than a foster parent if deemed in the child’s best interest.

2.     Case Law Considerations

o   Children's Aid Society of Rainy River v. B. (C.), 2006 ONCJ 458: Established that risk of harm must be real and likely, not speculative.

o   Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. S. (L.), 2011 ONSC 5850: Discussed factors leading to findings of risk of harm, including repeated parental conflict, police involvement, and instability in caregiving arrangements.

o   Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.M., 2019 ONSC 2251: Affirmed the necessity of considering evidence up to the date of the court hearing.

o   Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.B., 2014 ONCJ 518: Stressed the importance of a stable and secure home environment for children.

Court Findings and Analysis

1.     Mother’s Conduct and Risk Factors

o   The mother exhibited mental health concerns, including paranoid delusions and volatile behavior.

o   She had multiple involuntary hospitalizations for cannabis-induced psychosis and was diagnosed with narcissistic personality traits.

o   She lacked insight into her mental health issues and refused to engage in recommended treatment.

o   She engaged in confrontational and aggressive behavior, often in front of the children.

2.     Determination of Protection Status

o   JSP and JS had already been found in need of protection in a prior proceeding and were placed with their paternal grandparents.

o   The court found RS to be a child in need of protection under s. 74(2)(b)(i) CYFSA due to the mother’s mental health instability, lack of appropriate housing, and inability to work cooperatively with child protection authorities.

3.     Disposition Orders

o   JSP and JS: Placed in the final custody of their paternal grandparents with limited access for the mother at the discretion of the caregivers.

o   RS: Placed in extended society care with no access for the mother, except supervised sibling visits as agreed upon by the legal guardian.

Conclusion

The court determined that the mother's unresolved mental health concerns, history of volatile behavior, and lack of stable housing presented a significant risk to her children. The best interests of the children necessitated their placement in the care of their paternal grandparents and, in RS's case, extended society care. The ruling emphasized the importance of stability, appropriate supervision, and cooperative engagement with child protection services.