Andreas Solomos, Toronto Family Lawyer, Children's Aid cases

Go to content

Main menu

Family law disputes. Divorce, child custody, separation agreements, children’s aid lawyers CAS, cohabitation agreements, prenuptial agreements, mobility issues,  custody and child support variation, division of assets, children aid lawyer, child protection, parent’s rights, grandparents access rights, shared parenting, child abduction hearings, Toronto, Brampton.
For over 33 years, Andreas Solomos has helped thousands of clients faced with family and criminal problems. He appeared before the Ontario Court of Justice, the Ontario Superiour Court of Justice and the Ontario Court of Appeal. Andreas is dedicated to providing the best legal representation to safeguard the interests of his clients.

This Toronto barrister and solicitor provides an informal, non-threatening atmosphere where you can be assured that your legal issues and problems will be dealt with in a completely confidential and respectful setting. His objective is to help minimize the emotional and financial trauma that many people experience when faced with family law issues. He works hard to represent, defend, and provide the information and guidance you will need to make the best possible decisions for you. Andreas Solomo fights for your legal rights!

Andreas brings a tenacious and strategic approach in dealing with your legal situations with the goal of achieving positive solutions that work for you, the client.

Our law office is located in Toronto, Canada at the intersection of Danforth & Greenwood.  If you are involved in a legal dispute, face cas proceedings or entangled in a litigation call Mr. Solomos for a private consultation.

In the area of family law, Mr. Solomos provides efficient legal representation to parents and spouses regarding custody of and access to children, child support claims, spousal support applications, applications for division of property, negotiation of separation agreements, paternity agreements, marriage contracts, restraining orders, mobility rights, grandparents’ rights to access, variations of court orders and agreements, and he defends parents and others in child protection applications.

Andreas Solomos has been practising family and criminal law for over 33 years. He represents clients facing divorce and separation. He prefers to negotiate legal disputes, as he believes that litigation too often hurts the children and creates antagonism and bitterness that take years to heal. He does not hesitate to refer his clients to other professionals for help, including mental health professionals, doctors, business valuators, accountants, counsellors, and psychologists.

Children's aid representation

Where a children’s aid society believes that a child is in need of protection from the child’s parents and other custodians, and a court order is required to protect the child, the CAS must bring an Application to the court on notice to the persons having charge of the child.
If the time required to make an Application would result in the child being at risk, the protection worker may act to protect the child first, and seek a court order afterward. If time permits, the worker first obtains a Warrant of Apprehension from a Justice of the Peace. If the time required to obtain a warrant would result in the child being at risk of harm, the worker may apprehend the child without a warrant. Police have the same powers of apprehension as a child protection worker.

When a child has been removed and brought to a place of safety, the society must, within five (5) days, either return the child to the person who had charge prior to the intervention or to the person who has a custody order that is enforceable in Ontario, or enter into a Temporary Care Agreement with the parent, or bring the matter to court for a hearing.

“Bringing the matter to court” means the society must commence a Protection Application, and generally the society will also bring a motion regarding the temporary care and custody of the child pending final disposition of the Protection Application.

As a result of the short time frame, the parent is often advised orally about the court date and time, and may be served with copies of the society’s documents at the courthouse. If the parent retains counsel before the first appearance, the lawyer will contact the society for copies of the society’s Application, notice of motion, affidavit(s) and other court documents.

On the first appearance, the court generally has only the society’s evidence before it.  Normally the parents’ legal advisor would ask for an adjournment to file responding material, such as an answer and plan of care, a notice of motion for a temporary care and custody and an affidavit in support.

The onus is on the Society to establish on credible and trustworthy evidence that there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if the child is returned to his parents, it is more probable than not that the child will suffer harm and the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order.

On the first appearance, the lawyer for the children’s parents may wish to argue for the return of the children.  There are occasions, however, that the Children's Aid Society cannot meet this test on the face of its own affidavit materials before the Court on a First Appearance. If that is the case, the parent's lawyer can bring this to the attention of the Court and argue for the return of the child on the First Appearance. This does not prejudice parent's lawyer in still requesting a temporary care and custody motion at a later date so that the parents' responding materials can be filed if this argument at the First Appearance is not successful. Lawyers appearing on child welfare matters normally request that any temporary care and custody order made at the First Appearance be made on a without prejudice basis so that the parent can then file responding materials and the motion can be argued at a later temporary care and custody motion.

Under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, the court cannot adjourn for more than 30 days without the consent of the parties. Depending upon the circumstances, it may be in the parent’s interests to request as brief an adjournment as possible (in order to argue as soon as possible that the child should be returned), or seek sufficient time to make a realistic plan before arguing the motion (especially if resources need to be put in place to shore up the plan).

If an alternate family or community member is proposed as the caregiver, notice of this plan should be brought to the society’s attention as soon as possible as it may take some time for the society to assess the plan. Proposing an alternate family member at this stage does not mean that the parents are acknowledging that they cannot care for the child. The parents’ position may well be that they wish the return of the child, but in the event that is not the outcome, there is an alternate plan available. This approach can reduce delay if it becomes obvious that the child cannot be safely returned to the parents’ care.

If the child has been removed and placed in foster care, he or she will most likely remain in the CAS placement on a “without prejudice” basis following the first appearance. The lawyer for the child’s parent can seek an access order that maximizes the amount of contact with the child during the adjournment while being sufficiently realistic that the parent will manage to attend at all ordered and scheduled visits and will not be unduly disruptive to the child. The access order set up at the first appearance often sets the stage for future developments in the case.

When an application is commenced without the child having been removed (for example, where the society is seeking a supervision order on notice), reasonable notice should be given to the parties so as to enable them to prepare responding evidence in advance of the first appearance.

Back to content | Back to main menu