Manager of Child, Youth and Family Services, Zone D (Nfld. and Lab.) v. S.D., (2015) 370 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 20 (NLTD(F))

JudgeButler, J.
CourtSupreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador (Canada)
Case DateAugust 26, 2015
JurisdictionNewfoundland and Labrador
Citations(2015), 370 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 20 (NLTD(F))

CFS v. S.D. (2015), 370 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 20 (NLTD(F));

    1153 A.P.R. 20

MLB headnote and full text

Temp. Cite: [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. TBEd. SE.002

In the Matter of the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, S.N.L. 2010, c. C-12.2, as amended.

Manager of Child, Youth and Family Services, Zone D (applicant) v. S.D. (respondent)

(201002F0788; 2015 NLTD(F) 32)

Indexed As: Manager of Child, Youth and Family Services, Zone D (Nfld. and Lab.) v. S.D.

Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court

Trial Division (Family)

Butler, J.

August 31, 2015.

Summary:

The Manager of Child, Youth and Family Services applied for the continuous custody of the infant son of the respondent, removed from her care at birth. The respondent sought the return of her son under either a supervision or temporary custody order. She had three other children who, while in the continuous custody of the Manager, had been placed with her mother.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (Family), in a decision reported at [2015] Nfld. & P.E.I.R. Uned. 24, adjourned the hearing for an assessment pursuant to s. 34 of the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, to provide relevant information on the respondent's character, home, and current partner. The trial resumed. The Manager's focus was on the respondent's lack of a true commitment to parent the child.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (Family), concluded that the child remained a child in need of protection, based on ss. 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Act (risk of physical and emotional harm), and not s. 10(1)(l) (domestic violence). The Court placed the child in the continuous custody of the Manager, pursuant to s. 32(2)(d) of the Act.

Editor's Note: Certain names in the following case have been initialized or the case otherwise edited to prevent the disclosure of identities where required by law, publication ban, Maritime Law Book's editorial policy or otherwise.

Guardian and Ward - Topic 816

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Child or adult in need of protection - Permanent appointment - [See Guardian and Ward - Topic 818.2 ].

Guardian and Ward - Topic 818.2

Public trustee or guardian - Appointment - Child in need of protection - Custody application - The Manager of Child, Youth and Family Services applied for the continuous custody of the infant son of the respondent, removed from her care at birth - The respondent had three other children in the continuous custody of the Manager (placed with her mother) - A court ordered assessment (Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, s. 34) provided relevant information on the respondent's character, home, and current partner - The Manager's focus was on the respondent's lack of a true commitment to parent the child - The Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (Family), concluded that the child remained in need of protection, based on ss. 10(1)(a) and (c) of the Act (risk of physical and emotional harm), and granted a continuous custody order - The point had been reached in the child's life "when the decision about his future must be made so that there is no compromise to his opportunity for a permanent, secure, stable family relationship" - Had the respondent taken greater initiative with the drug tests and suitability of the home, the supervised access visits might have transitioned to longer, more frequent visits with decreasing levels of supervision - The respondent had not demonstrated that the child's best interests would be met under a temporary custody order - Her lack of commitment was the only reason why she continued to be someone who merely visited the child - The respondent presented no evidence that she was able to appropriately parent the child or that she was prepared to take the steps necessary to appropriately parent him in the future - Her life choices were inconsistent with a safe home for an infant - See paragraphs 76 to 85.

Cases Noticed:

Manager of Child, Youth and Family Services (Nfld. and Lab.) v. M.M., 2012 NLTD(F) 16, refd to. [para. 40].

Statutes Noticed:

Children and Youth Care and Protection Act, S.N.L. 2010, c. C-12.2, sect. 10(1)(a), sect. 10(1)(c) [para. 39].

Counsel:

Krista M. Atkins, for the applicant;

Mary L. Boulos, for the respondent.

This application for continuous custody was heard on May 27, July 6 and 7, and August 26, 2015, at St. John's, Newfoundland and Labrador, before Butler, J., of the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, Trial Division (Family). The Court delivered the following judgment, dated August 31, 2015.

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT