This case discusses the motion brought by the father of the child to have access to the child, after all parties had consented to a final order that found the child needed protection and a six-month order placing the child in the interim care of the Children’s Aid Society (CAS) as well as an extension of the statutory time frame of care was made. The father seeks information regarding the child’s birth weight and height as well as regularly occurring information/contact such as, yearly photographs, report cards, reasonable virtual/electronic/telephone access with notice, and the ability to provide correspondence from the father to the child.
This falls under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. All respondents, other than the father, are opposed to the motion.
In December 2022, the father was charged under the Criminal Code with sexual assault, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, compelling the commission of bestiality under s 160(2), forceable confinement in relation to the mother, and flight from a peace officer. In June 2023, he pled guilty to sexual assault, assault with intentional use of force, forcible confinement, assault with a weapon, and flight from a peace officer and was sentenced to a term of incarceration for just over seven years. Sentencing terms included that the father have no contact with the mother as well as the child.
The father has a history of sexual abuse offences against relatives, non-relatives, and his own children (twelve biological, and three step-children, all removed from his care), a history of neglect spanning the last thirty years, and has served and is currently serving lengthy prison sentences for these convictions. In addition, the child was removed from the mother’s care at birth due to signs of withdrawal displayed by the newborn.
The motion was dismissed, and there shall be a specific order that the father not have access to the child, nor entitled to obtain or receive information about the child.
This case was included here as an example of the intersections between criminal and child protection cases that involve a lengthy history of sexual abuse and neglect, and where compelling commission of bestiality was not included in the final guilty plea.
https://canlii.ca/t/k3tkz