Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. J.M.-G., 2016 ONCJ 835

Date of Decision: November 23, 2016. The case concerns child protection proceedings under the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA).

Key Points of the Decision:

1. Case Background:

   • The proceeding involves five children from blended families, with multiple statutory and biological parents involved.

   • The Children’s Aid Society (CAS) intervened due to concerns about the children's safety and well-being, citing issues such as physical abuse, neglect, poor living conditions, and substance use.

2. Temporary Care and Custody Orders:

   • The court had to determine where the children should be placed on a temporary basis while the case was ongoing.

   • Under section 51(2) of the CFSA, the court considered whether the children should stay with their parents, be placed under supervision, or be removed from their care.

3. Findings and Decisions:

   • R.G. (2 years old): The court ruled that he should remain with his maternal grandparents, despite an unfavorable kin assessment, rather than be returned to his parents.

   • D.W.2: The child was allowed to stay with his biological father, as the placement was stable. However, the court noted the child's reluctance to have contact with his mother and stepfather.

   • D.D.: Continued placement with his paternal grandparents was deemed appropriate, with supervised access to his parents.

   • V.G. and A.G.: They were placed in the care of their biological mother, B.-L.S., despite objections from their father, J.G. The court noted that they consistently wanted this placement and that there was no evidence it would be harmful.

4. Concerns About the Parents:

   • The father was found to have been physically abusive, used demeaning language, and created a fearful environment.

   • The mother was accused of not intervening in the abuse and possibly allowing substance use in the home.

   • The court acknowledged that the parents had completed some parenting and substance use programs but found that anger management issues remained unresolved.

5. Supervision and Access Conditions:

   • Parents were allowed access to the children under supervision, with some children receiving overnight visits.

   • The court emphasized that efforts should be made to maintain sibling relationships despite the children being placed in different homes.

Conclusion:

The court ruled in favor of placing the children in environments that were deemed safer and more stable, rather than returning them to their parents immediately. The decision was made in the best interests of the children, focusing on their protection from harm, stability, and well-being.

 

Children’s Aid Society of Halton Region v. C.L.E.A., 2009 ONCJ 785

Temporary care and custody hearing under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA). Involving a child, L.J., born in 2008, who was apprehended by the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) due to concerns of non-accidental injuries while in parental care.

Legal Framework

The judgment is guided by Ontario’s Child and Family Services Act (CFSA), particularly:

• Section 51(2) & (3): Determines conditions for temporary care and custody.

• Section 37(3): Outlines factors for determining a child’s best interests, including physical, mental, and emotional needs.

Key Findings and Decisions

1. Child’s Condition & Risk Factors

   • L.J. suffered chronic subdural hematomas, indicating shaken baby syndrome. 

   • It was noted at McMaster Children’s Hospital that L.J. was displaying early signs of stranger anxiety – this is unusual for a child of this age.

   • There was evidence of retinal eye hemorrhages.

   • The Society outlined the following concerns about the parents:

     • Limited parenting capacity – changed the formula without consulting the doctor, bouncing the child up and down, not supporting her head when holding her, not bathing her regularly, did not sterilize her bottles, and using anti-flatulent without consulting a doctor.

     • Lack insight and problem solving - failed to seek timely medical care, 

     • Expose the child to unsafe conditions – both parents smoke, unsanitary environment, use of alcohol and marijuana, excessive clutter (wires and cables, clothing, garbage, etc.)

     • Lack of medical follow-ups or access to community services and supports.

     • Mother has a history of physical and mental health issues 

   • The father’s sister’s boyfriend admitted possible responsibility for the injuries and was criminally charged.

2. CAS Position & Proposed Care Plan

   • CAS sought an order for temporary care due to concerns about medical fragility and parental incapacity.

     • If the court is not satisfied by the plan of care, the Society shall undertake a maltreatment assessment to determine the child’s needs.

     • It is the Society’s position that:

       1. The child was harmed in the parents’ care.

       2. If the child is placed with the paternal grandparents (S.J.2 and H.R.) they will not be appropriately cared for and exposed to further risk

       3. The plan proposed by the paternal grandparents is not a plan to care for the child – it is a plan for the parents of the child to live in their home and care for the child.

   • The Respondents proposed the child be placed in the temporary care of the paternal grandparents.

     • Alternatively, they propose that there be daily access between the child and the parents and the paternal grandparents.

   • Placement with the paternal grandparents was opposed due to:

     • History of parental negligence in their knowledge.

     • Household conditions (smoking, past lack of intervention).

     • Lack of preparedness for a medically fragile child.

3. Court’s Ruling

   • The court found reasonable grounds under Section 51(3) of the CFSA to believe the child faced risk in parental and grandparental care.

   • Ordered L.J. to remain in CAS care with minimum two supervised visits per week for the parents.

   • Grandparents may seek future custody but must demonstrate preparedness.

   • Urged CAS to assess long-term needs to inform future custody decisions.

Conclusion

This decision prioritizes child protection under Ontario’s CFSA, ensuring care continuity, safety, and medical oversight while allowing supervised parental access. The ruling also sets conditions for potential kinship care if grandparents can prove suitability in the future.