Children’s Aid Society of Peel Region v. C.S., 2018 ONCJ 329

Facts of the Case

The case involved a motion concerning the care and custody of Z.S., a child born in 2017. The Children’s Aid Society of Peel Region (the "Society") sought an order placing Z.S. in extended society care, following concerns regarding the mother’s mental health, unstable housing, and prior child protection involvement. The child had been apprehended at birth and had never been in the mother's care. The father did not present a care plan for the child but expressed a preference for placement with a sibling in kinship care.

Legal Framework

Statutory Provisions

The case was adjudicated under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (CYFSA), which replaced the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11.

1. Section 101(1)3 of the CYFSA – Governs extended society care (formerly known as Crown wardship) for children found in need of protection.

2. Section 94(2) of the CYFSA – Establishes the standard for temporary care and custody orders when a child protection hearing is adjourned, placing the onus on the Society to prove that the child cannot be adequately protected in the parent’s care.

3. Section 87(7)-(9) of the CYFSA – Governs publication bans related to child protection proceedings to protect the privacy of the child and the parties involved.

Relevant Case Law

• Children’s Aid Society of Peel Region v. C.S. (2018, unreported decisions)

  • The court referenced two prior decisions concerning the respondent parents' older child, where the mother’s parenting capacity and mental health challenges were key issues.

  • In February 2018, an order for Crown wardship was granted for the older child.

• Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S.(T.), 2013 ONCJ 586

  • Reinforced the two-part test under section 94(2) CYFSA:

    1. Whether returning the child to parental care presents a real possibility of harm.

    2. Whether conditions imposed on the parent could sufficiently mitigate the risk.

Court’s Analysis and Decision

The court found that the Society met its burden under section 94(2) by demonstrating:

• The mother’s continued struggles with mental health and housing stability.

• Her inconsistent participation in parenting programs and therapy.

• Concerns about the child’s well-being if returned to her care.

The court ruled in favor of the Society, placing Z.S. in its interim care with access at the Society’s discretion. The matter was scheduled for a settlement conference.

Conclusion

The decision highlights the court’s role in balancing parental rights with child welfare concerns, emphasizing the necessity of credible and trustworthy evidence to justify extended society care.

​

Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington v. B.H., 2014 ONSC 4594

Key Issues

1. Temporary Care Hearing

   • The Family and Children’s Services (FCS) sought to move two children (Z.B. and C.C.J.) into kin placement instead of foster care.

   • The mother, B.H., opposed this and wanted the children placed with her.

2. Background and Facts:

   • B.H. is the mother of three children from different fathers.

   • She has a history of drug abuse, criminal activity, and unstable housing.

   • The children were previously removed from her care due to concerns about drug abuse, poor supervision, and unsuitable caregivers.

   • FCS placed Z.B. and C.C.J. in foster care and later with kin (Z.B.'s paternal grandmother, Ms. C.S.).

   • B.H. was later arrested for drug trafficking and incarcerated briefly, prompting further concerns about placing the children with a very unsuitable caregiver while incarcerated. The children were apprehended.

3. Developments Before the Hearing:

   • B.H. and D.H. (one of the fathers) reconciled and moved in together in May 2014.

   • She entered a court-ordered diversion program for drug recovery but refused to provide a drug test.

   • FCS allowed increasing access between the children and T.B. (another father), who had previously acted as a parental figure.

   • FCS sought a temporary custody order to place Z.B. and C.C.J. with T.B., while B.H. requested custody under supervision.

Legal Framework

• 51(2) and (3) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O., c. C.11 as amended

Court’s Analysis and Decision

• Risk of Harm:

  • The court found that there were reasonable grounds to believe that returning the children to B.H. would pose a risk of harm.

  • B.H. was still in early recovery and had refused drug testing.

  • Balancing recovery obligations and parenting young children could jeopardize both her progress and the children's well-being.

• Supervision Order Rejected:

  • B.H. proposed a supervision order similar to the one for her youngest child (C.D.J.), but the court found this inappropriate.

  • Unlike C.D.J., who was in D.H.’s custody, the boys would be in B.H.’s direct care, which was not deemed safe at this stage.

• Temporary Placement with T.B.:

  • The court ruled in favor of placing Z.B. and C.C.J. temporarily with T.B. under the Society’s supervision.

  • T.B. had demonstrated responsible parenting, and reports on his care were positive.

• Access and Future Considerations:

  • The court acknowledged that B.H. was on a path to recovery and encouraged the Society to monitor her progress.

  • The goal remained a safe return of the children if conditions improved.

Final Decision

• The motion by FCS to place the children with T.B. was granted.

• B.H.’s request for custody was denied.

• No order for costs was made.

This ruling prioritizes child safety while allowing B.H. the opportunity to prove her stability over time.