When Children's Aid Called: A Grandparent's Path to Kinship Care

The situation

Minh worked as a transit operator, driving the same routes through St. Catharines for over a decade. Her husband Taras worked as an administrative assistant at a local college. Together they earned a modest household income, enough to keep their small home comfortable but not enough for surprises. Their daughter Iryna, in her late twenties, lived across town with her two children, aged four and seven.

On a Tuesday evening, Minh's phone rang. It was a caseworker from the local children's aid society. There had been a report — a neighbour had called after hearing a loud argument at Iryna's apartment, followed by police attending the home. No one was arrested, but the responding officers had flagged the household to the society, as they are required to do whenever young children are present at a domestic incident. The caseworker was calling every listed relative, including Minh, to ask what she knew and whether she could help.

Minh had never dealt with children's aid before. She did not know whether the caseworker's call was routine or a warning that her grandchildren might be taken that week. She lay awake most of the night running through scenarios — should she drive over uninvited, call Iryna and demand answers, or simply wait for the society to call back? None of those instincts turned out to be the right first move. She said she would help however she could, hung up, and called Treadstone Law the next morning, before doing anything else.

What a society investigation actually involves

In Ontario, children's aid societies operate under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, the provincial law governing child protection. When a society receives a report suggesting a child may be at risk, it opens an investigation, which can range from a single conversation to months of contact with the family. The society's job is not to punish parents — it is to assess risk and, wherever possible, keep children safely with their own family, using the least intrusive option available.

That last point matters more than most families realize. Removing a child from their home is meant to be a last resort, used only when no safer, less disruptive option exists. One of those options is a kinship placement — moving a child temporarily to live with a relative, such as a grandparent, aunt, or uncle, instead of into foster care with strangers. Societies generally prefer kinship arrangements when a suitable relative is available, because they cause far less disruption to a child's schooling, friendships, and sense of stability.

The problem is that families rarely know this option exists, or how to present themselves as a workable placement, until a caseworker raises it — sometimes with very little notice. A grandparent who assumes the society will simply ask if they are willing to help, on a relaxed timeline, is often surprised by how quickly an assessment can move once a household is judged unsafe for even a short period. Our team explained to Minh and Taras that the caseworker's call was not a formality. It was the opening move in a process that, within days, could result in the children either staying with Iryna under a supervision plan, moving in with Minh and Taras, or — if no safe option could be arranged quickly enough — being placed in foster care while the investigation continued.

What we did

1. Clarified what the society needed from Minh and Taras, in plain terms. We contacted the assigned caseworker directly, with Minh's authorization, to understand the society's current concerns, what a safety plan for the children would need to include, and what timeline the society was working with. Families often assume they cannot speak with a lawyer and the society at the same time; in child protection matters, cooperation with the society and legal advice work together, not against each other.
2. Prepared Minh and Taras to be assessed as a kinship placement. Before a society places a child with a relative, it typically conducts a home visit, a background check, and an assessment of whether the relative can provide day-to-day care safely. We walked Minh and Taras through what to expect, helped them gather documents the society would want — proof of address, information about their work schedules and who would supervise the children after school — and made sure they understood that saying yes to a placement meant real, immediate responsibility, not just a title.
3. Negotiated a written kinship care arrangement rather than an informal handshake deal. An informal arrangement can be changed or ended by the society at any time, with no clear rules for either side. We worked with the caseworker to put the arrangement in writing, addressing how long it was expected to last, what contact Iryna would have with her children while the investigation continued, and what would trigger a review. A written plan gave Minh and Taras something concrete to rely on and gave Iryna clarity about what she needed to do to work toward having her children return home.
4. Advised Iryna, separately, on her own position. Because Minh and Taras were our clients and Iryna was not, we could not represent her — a lawyer cannot act for both a parent and the relative caring for that parent's children, since their interests can diverge. We did, however, explain to Minh what independent legal advice Iryna should seek for herself, so the family was not relying on one lawyer to speak for everyone with the society.
5. Prepared for the possibility of a court application. If the society had decided the risk was too high for a voluntary kinship arrangement, it could have brought the matter to family court seeking a formal protection order. We prepared Minh and Taras for what that would involve — including that grandparents in their position are generally entitled to be heard by the court on a proposed placement — so that if the file escalated, they would not be caught unprepared.

The outcome

The society completed its assessment within about three weeks and approved Minh and Taras as a kinship placement rather than pursuing a court application. The children moved in with their grandparents on a temporary basis while Iryna worked with the society on the conditions it had set — including addressing the circumstances that led to the original report. Iryna had regular, supervised visits with her children throughout, arranged through the caseworker under the written plan.

About five months later, the society closed its file. Iryna's household was assessed as safe again, and the children moved back home with her, with Minh and Taras continuing to see them regularly, as they always had. No court application was ever filed. The whole matter was resolved through cooperation between the family and the society, guided by a written arrangement that protected everyone's expectations along the way.

Minh has said since that the outcome felt less like a legal case and more like her family being given the room to fix a hard moment without losing the children in the process. That is, in large part, what the kinship placement option in Ontario's child protection system is designed to do — and it worked here because the family understood how to use it early, rather than reacting to it after the fact.

What you can learn from this