WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (being 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. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87.— (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. — Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,

( c ) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.

(8) Prohibition re identifying child. — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged .— The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142.— (3) Offences re publication. — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)( c ) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

Ontario Court of Justice

DATE: December 6, 2021 COURT FILE No.: C 52300/10

BETWEEN:

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto Applicant,

— AND —

KG Respondent/Mother

DB Respondent/Father

Before: Justice Paulseth

Heard on: November 15, 16, 17, 18, 2021 Reasons for Judgment released on: December 6, 2021.

Counsel: Karen Ksienski, counsel for the applicant society Mira Pilch/Gilead Kaye, counsel for the respondent/Mother Nancy Charbonneau, counsel for the respondent/Father Julia Vera, counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for B. Catherine Bellinger, counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for Ka./S. Nav Rai, counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for M.

Paulseth, J :

Current proceeding:

[1] This proceeding is two Status Review Applications pursuant to the Child Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act) brought by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the society).

[2] The respondents are the parents of the four children who are the subjects of this proceeding. KG is the mother who was born on […], 1987 and DB is the father who was born on […], 1971.

[3] B. is the oldest child before the court. She was born on […], 2007. This proceeding is a status review application pursuant to section 113 of the Act. The society is seeking an extended society care order for her with specific access provisions to each parent. She has been in the care of the society beyond the statutory limit, cumulatively almost three years.

[4] For the other three children: (1) Ka G. born on […], 2008, (2) M.G. born on […], 2010, and (3) S.G. born on […], 2014, this is a status review application pursuant to section 115 (2) (a) of the Act. These three children were placed on extended society care by court order on September 9, 2020. The society is seeking to maintain the extended society care order for the other three children, with specific access provisions for each child with siblings and each parent.

Position of the Parties and the Children at Trial:

[5] Father is seeking to have all of the children placed with him and his partner under a twelve month supervision order.

[6] Mother has reached an agreement with the society which respects B.’s views to stay in her current placement under an extended society care order and to have specific access with mother. Mother agrees that each of the other three children would remain in the care of the society under the current extended care order, with specific access to her. Mother is opposed to the father’s plan.

[7] B. is in grade 9. B.’s counsel offered her views at the beginning of the trial as wanting to be with father. Later in the trial, counsel for B. indicated that her views are now to remain where she is. B. may want to move to father’s for grade 10.

[8] Counsel for M. agrees with the society’s position. M. does not want to see mother and wants to see father only supervised at the society offices or at a cousin’s home.

[9] Counsel for S. generally agrees with the society regarding minimum access for the mother and father of once per month with each parent with conditions attached.

[10] Counsel for Ka. seeks weekly overnights for Ka. with father with some conditions and a minimum of once a month visits with mother with conditions. Ka. also attended parts of this hearing.

[11] The society seeks extended society care for all 4 children with specified minimum access for the parents with conditions.

A Summary of Orders and Statements of Agreed Facts:

First Protection Application:

[12] B., Ka., and M. were originally found to be in need of protection on June 15, 2011 pursuant to previous protection legislation.

[13] The parties agreed to these facts to support the supervision order placing the oldest three children with both parents after eight months in care: (1) In October of 2010, there were two referrals to the local society from Toronto Police Service (TPS) regarding domestic violence between the mother and father. The maternal grandmother and maternal aunt reported concerns about inappropriate supervision, physical discipline, the father’s very serious criminal history, and both parents’ drug use. (2) The parents attended supervised access visits with the children and were noted to have some challenges with structuring the visit and managing the behaviour. Both parents were receptive to suggestions. A parent support worker provided support for the visits. (3) Father’s outstanding criminal charges initially kept him from having home visits but the charges were eventually dismissed. (4) Mother attended Women’s Habitat for counselling for domestic violence and for support. She also worked with an Outreach counsellor. Both parents attended a seven week parenting program at Rexdale Women’s Centre. (5) Ka. and B. were both developmentally assessed. Ka. was referred to speech and language services. For B., recommendations were made regarding activities to support attention and memory issues.

[14] After the supervision order was terminated in December of 2011, the society remained involved on a voluntary basis.

The Second Protection Application:

[15] The society filed a new Protection Application in October of 2013. In support of a finding in need of protection on the basis of risk of harm and a supervision order with the placed with mother, the parties agreed to these facts on May 1, 2014: (1) On August 7, 2012 and on October 29, 2012 TPS contacted the society due to disputes in the home between the parents. (2) On December 11, 2012, mother called the society to report relationship issues; including domestic violence and verbal abuse by father. (3) On March 13, 2012, the TPS reported another phone call from mother due to a dispute in the home in front of the children. On March 23, 2013, mother contacted police again to report a dispute in the home. (4) On July 24, 2013, TPS again reported a dispute in the home and father was cautioned to stay away. (5) On October 2, 2013 TPS reported they had been called to the home and found that father had kicked in the front door and mother said he had assaulted her two days before by grabbing her hair (6) At that time mother was working cooperatively with the society and there was an outstanding warrant for several months for the father. Numerous efforts to meet with the father were unsuccessful. (7) The society agreed to assist father in registering for a Salvation Army program called Anger and Relationship. (8) On January 22, 2014, mother gave birth to S., who was included in the finding and disposition. (9) The supervision order conditions related to recommended services for the parents and not exposing the children to adult conflict. Father’s access was to be daytime only and in the community.

[16] On the Status Review Application, the parties agreed to extend the supervision order with the children placed with mother for a further 6 months. The attached conditions related to cooperation and services with day access only to the father.

[17] On the next Status Review Application, the parties agreed to a termination of the order with continued voluntary involvement. The agreed upon facts filed on April 28, 2015 to support this disposition included: (1) Mother was doing well with the children and receiving help from her extended family. (2) The daycare supervisor reported that B., S., and Ka. were attending regularly without any behavioural concerns. M.’s teacher reported oppositional and defiant behaviour. (3) The father attends the home and the parents continue to have an on and off relationship. The children are aware of the adult issues. The parents have not followed through with couple counselling.

The Third Protection Application and proceedings until these Status Review Applications.

[18] On February 7, 2017, the society filed a new Protection Application. All four children were placed with the maternal aunts, LG IG. Father contested the placement and a motion was argued, which resulted in a temporary order for the children to remain with the maternal aunts under supervision.

[19] By November of 2017, the placement with the maternal aunts had broken down and the children were brought into the care and custody of the society. Father again sought to have the children placed with him and his partner (JL) but the society was successful in the temporary care and custody motion.

[20] On June 11, 2018, the court made a finding in need of protection for all four children pursuant to the risk of emotional harm subsection of the Act based on these agreed facts: (1) The parents separated in June of 2015 and father has had little contact with the society since then. (2) From September to December of 2015, M. lived with maternal great aunts, LG and IG. (3) In December 2015, mother advised she was in a new relationship with a police officer who lived in Whitby. (4) In August of 2016, mother brought M. to Humber River Hospital for an assessment and possible medication. A family centred conference was held in November of 2016 to review supports for M. It was agreed that the maternal great aunts would again care for him and work with his school and Etobicoke Children’s Centre. (5) On February 2, 2017, father reported suspected abuse of the children by mother’s boy friend. The investigation verified various forms of physical discipline by the boyfriend; such as, M. being hit with a closed fist on his head and body; M., Ka. and B. being forced to eat hot sauce; Ka. was forced to do extreme physical exercise. Ka. said that the boyfriend would grab him roughly and say “I’ll give you a reason to cry”. Ka. reported his mother would hit him with a wooden spoon and a metal spatula. (6) The children were placed that same day with the maternal great aunts again. (7) Father completed an 8 week Being a Dad program in June of 2017. He was reported to be an engaged participant, making positive contributions to the group. (8) During the summer of 2017, there were concerns at M.’s daycare about his behaviour. IG also reported having difficulty managing him. (9) On August 23, 2017, M. returned from a visit with mother with bruises on his hand. When interviewed, each of the four children reported how mother had tried to restrain M., causing scratches. (10) On August 25, 2017, father met with M.’s therapist at Etobicoke’s Children’s Centre. M. had been seeing this therapist on a weekly basis and had been accepted into their day treatment program. Father questioned the use of restraints and medication. (11) On August 30, 2017, M. was admitted to the in-patient program in the child and adolescent unit at Humber River Hospital, where he remained until September 19, 2017. He was 7 years old at that time. (12) On September 25, 2017, father reported that the aunts were spanking M. and S. Peel Children’s Aid Society determined that S. was patted on her diaper. The aunts were told not to use any form of physical discipline. (13) By October 19, 2017, M.’s treating psychiatrist recommended that access to his parents be suspended. (14) On November 7, 2017, LG and IG asked the society to place all of the children. (15) On November 9, 2017, all four children were placed in the care of the society. (16) On February 19, 2018, father and his partner, JL, were arrested. Father had 11 charges including robbery with a firearm and attempted murder. JL had 9 charges, including being an accessory after the fact. Father was held at Toronto South Detention. (17) Mother began working with an addictions’ specialist and attended for counselling

[21] On December 10, 2018, the parties agreed to the following dispositions under the Act: (1) B. be placed with mother under supervision for 6 months with conditions. (2) M. and S. placed in the interim care of the society for 6 months. (3) Ka. in the interim care of the society for 4 months. (4) Father’s access was to be in the discretion of the society, in consultation with the mother, and considering the children’s views.

[22] These disposition orders were based on the following agreed facts: (1) Mother began attending a parenting program at Jean Tweed Centre and working with an addictions’ counsellor. (2) Mother began to gain insight into the children’s needs and her access improved. (3) Mother was given some financial support and moved into her own apartment on November 1, 2018. (4) B. began to visit mother at her home on November 6, 2018 and wanted to live with mother. While in foster care, B. was not happy with the foster mother and made false allegations against her, which she would later recant. Since November 6, 2018, B. began to struggle at school. She was suspended twice; once for threatening a teacher and then for dialling 911 three times in one day. B. also became difficult to manage during the visits. Mother and B. are on the wait list for George Hull. (5) Father remained incarcerated. He proposed a plan for the children with his brother. This plan was not approved by the society as the brother had difficulty managing the children at visits. Further, this uncle proposed to live with another uncle who was on the child abuse registry. (6) Ka. and S. remained in foster care. They both have significant behavioural issues. Ka. also has behavioural issues at school. They enjoy visits with mother and also see their maternal great aunts for day visits. (7) M. changed foster homes after making unfounded allegations against the foster parent. He began the day treatment program at Etobicoke Children’s Centre in September of 2018, where he also attends school. M. wants to return to the great aunts’ home. The great aunts are both in therapy for attachment issues in hopes of strengthening their relationship with M. The plan is to place him with them at the end of the school year. (8) Mother attended all visits on time and after August of 2018, she would remain after the visit for feedback. The children’s behaviour remains challenging. (9) From the time of father’s incarceration in February of 2018 until this disposition order was made, father had two telephone calls with the children

[23] The Status Review Applications from the December of 2018 orders concluded with these dispositions on September 9, 2020: (1) B. came back into the care of the society on February 3, 2020. On September 9, 2020, she was placed with her maternal aunt under a six month supervision order with conditions. (2) M., S., and Ka. were placed in extended society care with specified access to each of their parents

[24] These dispositions were based on the following agreed facts: (1) B. felt she was being teased at school because her father was incarcerated. Mother enrolled her in a special program for children of incarcerated parents. On February 3, 2020, B. was brought to a place of safety due to concerns with mother’s housing and her difficulties working with the society. (2) Mother proposed her sister BG as a caregiver for B. and B. wanted to live with this aunt. (3) Mother was not able to offer a plan to care for the children at this time. (4) Mother obtained new employment through Purolator. (5) Father remained incarcerated and had telephone contact with the children, (6) M. had returned to the home of LG and IG. in June of 2019. By September 23, 2019, these maternal great aunts were no longer able to care for him and he was placed with a former foster mother. Two months later this foster mother contacted the emergency after hours service for the society and requested M.’s removal from the home. On December 4, 2019, M. was placed in a staff operated specialized treatment home with Stratford Children’s Homes, where he continues to reside and do well. The staff are supportive of his family access. (7) Ka. and S. remained in the same foster home since November of 2018, Miss A.. The parents have always been very respectful of Miss A.. (8) Ka. began seeing a therapist on a weekly basis. He has also worked with a child and youth worker for various lengths of time over the previous two years and is on a waiting list to see one again. Ka. struggles with school both academically and socially. He completed grade 6 in June of 2020 and has just started grade 7 in September of 2020. In grade 6 he spent half the day in a special education class due to the need for additional academic and behavioural support. Ka. was also assessed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (9) In April of 2020, S. was referred to an individual therapist but had difficulty focusing during the pandemic and the need for virtual sessions. This therapy has been placed on hold for now. An early childhood development specialist has been assigned to work with the foster mother. (10) S. began junior kindergarten in September of 2018. She did well academically but struggled with behaviour issues. (11) Both Ka. and S. have consistently wanted to live with family. They have maintained contact with their maternal family, most consistently with mother and maternal great grandmother (12) Both M. and B. have been discharged and then re-admitted to foster care during this time. This has negatively impacted the consistency of their contact with siblings.

Evidence in this Hearing:

Evidence for the society – since the date of the last order:

[25] The current family service worker became involved with the family in January of 2018. She gave the following evidence: (1) She said that B.’s placement with her maternal aunt broke down within two weeks of the formal order being made. B. went to mother’s and refused to come into the care of the society. (2) On September 29, 2020, the society sent two workers to pick up B.at mother’s home. At about the same time, Father called this worker from prison, using a three way connection with his partner, despite that being against the rules. He later phoned this worker again to report a shooting and drug related crime in the mother’s house. There was no such report made to the local police. (3) On October 1, 2020, the court ordered B. into the temporary care of the society. B. was still resistant. Finally, on October 6, 2020, she was placed with her current foster mother DN and has remained there until the present time. (4) During a supervised visit with mother and Ka., S., and B. on October 21, 2020, Ka. announced that father was due to be released from prison next month. He also said that he was going to move in with father once father was released from the half-way house. (5) On November 8, 2020, mother reported that B. was refusing to return to the foster home after a visit with the maternal grandmother. Eventually mother was able to get B. into her car. During the course of this dispute, mother took B.’s phone from her as a consequence and then B. refused to see mother for a time. (6) On December 7, 2020, father called this worker, from prison, to request that the phone his partner had given to B. be returned to B. (7) During a supervised visit between mother and Ka. and S. on December 9, 2020, this worker spoke to Ka. about the mean names he calls S. Ka. also had a discussion with this worker about having his charger taken away by the foster mother and about stealing from the foster mother. (8) In February of 2021, father was released from the penitentiary to a halfway house in Oshawa. (9) On February 19, 2021, this worker discussed with mother the misunderstanding between the society, mother, and Ka. about the agreement made with the court for Ka. (and M. and S.) to be placed in the extended care of the society. Mother claimed she did not understand it was permanent wardship but thought she could get the children back in six months when she obtained housing. Ka. was very angry with mother and as a result, his behaviour was causing challenges in his placement. (10) On April 9, 2021, this worker met with mother at her apartment. The home was clean and appropriately furnished. They talked about B.’s visit to the apartment and mother provided her new boyfriend’s written consent for a vulnerable criminal check. This check was clear. (11) On June 17, 2021, this worker and a children service worker for M. attended the father’s home about 11 a.m.in north Pickering to check on the home before home visits would begin: (a) The home is a large two story house with a finished basement apartment on a large piece of property with a garden, swing, and a trampoline. (b) Father was advised that every adult would require a criminal record check. (c) The residents of the home included father, his partner JL, JL’s ex-husband and their 4 children, including a special needs child in a wheel chair. JL’s father, and JL’s brother and his two teenage sons live in the basement. (d) Father also has a 13 year old daughter with another woman who lives in Oshawa and this child occasionally visits. This daughter was present that day. (e) The children all appeared well cared for but none were signed in for school. (f) The house is rented and the adults each contribute to the rent except JL’s father. (12) On Friday, June 19, 2021, mother had a domestic dispute with her boyfriend in front of B.. Mother went to hospital and called father. Father’s partner, JL, picked up B. at the hospital and took her to the Pickering home. B. remained in that home for several days, despite court orders to the contrary. B. was angry with mother and would not resume visits with mother until October 2, 2021. (13) On Monday June 21, 2021, this worker spoke to both father and B., emphasizing how important it was for B. to go with the foster mother when she arrived that day to pick her up. Father blamed the society for the dispute at mother’s, as the society in his view had not checked out the boyfriend thoroughly enough. (14) The foster mother came to father’s home and B. refused to get into the car. (15) On June 22, 2021, this worker attended the home of father and his partner to pick up B. The worker was told by father that B. was logged into her school. This worker observed B. and two other girls in the home to be playing video games. In front of this worker, father told B. once to go with the worker. B. refused and the worker left. (16) On June 24, 2021, B. agreed to return to the society’s care only after she was allowed to bring a phone given to her by the father. Father drove B. to the society office (17) With respect to Ka., S. and M., mother’s visits have been primarily supervised. The visit is more manageable for mother with only S. and Ka. together. A visit with all four children tends to be chaotic and the children tend to pick on each other in a mean way. (18) Currently B. sees mother two Saturdays a month for the day. (19) In August of 2021, father completed his time in the half-way house and moved into JL’s home full time. (20) In September of 2021, this worker had several conversations with father and made a further home visit: (21) Father was concerned about B. having unsupervised access to mother. B. and the society were looking into day visits. Father was advised that he would need to support that relationship. (22) JL advised that all her children, except for one, are being home schooled. (23) Father wanted weekend visits with B. (24) When this worker arrived for a visit at the home on September 29, 2021 at 11 am, father was just making breakfast for the children. One of JL’s nephews and JL’s father were also there. (25) On November 3, 2021, Ka. took a video of the kin caregiver dragging S. across the floor in an effort to get her dressed for school. S. is kicking the caregiver. The video as described by this witness, also has the father’s voice in the background encouraging Ka. to take the video. This scene led to an investigation and a breakdown in the placement for both S. and Ka. (26) S. has returned to Ms A.’s foster home and Ka. has been placed separately with a couple who are also racially similar with a strong male foster father. (27) This worker spoke to the plan to have individual visits for each of the children with mother. (28) In this worker’s view, a supervision order would not work with father because: (a) He is not trustworthy. (b) He does not follow through with commitments. (c) He is not cooperative with the society. (d) She is concerned about his undermining of the placements; for example, father could not persuade B. to return to her foster home.

[26] The children’s service worker for S. and Ka. gave evidence. She has been their worker since February of 2021 and testified about the following: (1) This worker described a very poor relationship with mother. The mother has been very clear that she does not want to work with this worker. Mother has been verbally aggressive with this worker during phone calls and on one occasion threatened to harm this worker in front of the children. Mother has never asked this worker how the children are doing in the foster home nor at school. (2) Both parents said they had not understood what they were signing when the Statement of Agreed Facts was filed with the court for the 3 younger children in September of 2020 to support the extended society care orders. Mother said a worker forged mother’s name on the document. Mother’s discussions about this “mistake” in front of Ka. were very hard on him. (3) Mother obtained a job with Purolator and had trouble making her access visits. When access was moved outside the office of the society, it only lasted two weeks. At one visit mother became upset and told Ka. she “could kill him”. The society tried to get mother into the Saturday access program but then mother’s work schedule changed to include Saturdays. From January until April of 2021, mother put her visits on hold due to the covid pandemic. (4) When the visits resumed, mother had a difficult time. She yelled at the children and on one visit told Ka.to “shut up”. He was visibly withdrawn for the remainder of the time. Two workers started supervising the visits. (5) During the visit on May 21, 2021 with Ka., M., and S., mother’s comments included: (a) to Ka.: “you act like you’re perfect so shut up…don’t call your brother a fat ass, you piece of shit…”; (b) to S.: “”chunky…you’re a spoiled brat…eat the food or I will shove it up your butt”; (c) to M. – said she had been told he “was lazy” ; (d) at one point she scooped sour cream from a bowl with her fingers and smeared it over Ka.’s face, stating “now you’re baptized”; when Ka. tried to push her away, she said “what’s the problem” and he answered “you’re the problem”; and (e) despite redirection from two workers, mother began yelling and threatening to punch this worker, saying “I might as well go to jail as I am not getting them back any time soon”. (6) Father and this worker developed a good working relationship, initially. Father was able to take direction, even when he was not in agreement. When the visits transitioned to drop off and pick up at his cousins’ home, father became more resistant to that plan. (7) Father began visits with the children at the end of February, 2021, following his release to a half way house. They began as virtual supervised visits and progressed to the park area outside the office. On August 2, 2021, Father and his partner planned birthday activities for B. and Ka. (8) Ka. and S. were placed with Ms A. in November of 2017. Ka.’s behaviour was becoming more difficult to manage. In particular, since father’s release from prison in February of 2021, Ka. has been clearly saying he wants to live with father. A child and youth worker was provided to the foster home twice a week as support for Ka., in addition to weekend relief, and individual psychotherapy for Ka. (9) By early April, 2021, the foster home placement was breaking down. On the evening of April 9, 2021, the foster mother reported that Ka. had left the home and been caught on video breaking into a neighbour’s back yard. On April 26, 2021, Ka. was transferred to another foster home. While in this foster home, Ka. appeared to come into a large sum of money, which he used to order food, a new iPhone, and a drone. It came out that he had stolen Miss A.’s credit card before being moved. The society is repaying about $1500. to Ms A.. (10) This worker contacted each parent to advise about Ka.’s move. Mother became very verbally abusive on the phone and hung up on the worker after telling her to “go fuck a duck”. (11) Father’s cousins, BB and AB. proposed a plan for the children which was approved by the society. The children began a slow transition to their home from May to September of 2021. In September, father progressed to alternate Saturday visits from 11 am until 3 pm with pick up and drop off at his cousins. (12) On October 1, 2021, the children were moved fully to the paternal cousins’ home, while remaining technically in the care of the society. (13) While with the paternal cousins, S. was attending a community centre after school on Wednesdays and they were investigating organized sports for her. By September, S. was presenting with challenging behaviours. Arrangements were made for her to have a monthly weekend visit with Miss A.. (14) Ka. was playing basketball three times a week after school as well as taking music lessons and going to Cadets. (15) By October 18, 2021, BB reported that father was interfering with her ability to care for Ka. After Ka.’s visit with father at Thanksgiving, he became more unmanageable. Ka. said repeatedly he did not have to listen to the paternal cousins as he was going to his father’s. Ka. said “you can’t punish me”. Father gave him a cell phone and he would phone father whenever he didn’t like something. According to this witness, Father was definitely undermining the parenting in his cousins’ home. (16) On October 18, 2021, this worker spoke to father about the caregivers’ concerns. Father said he speaks to Ka. every day on the phone and he did tell Ka. that no one can take his phone away from him. Ka. had said that father told him to put the phone down his pants. Father said that Ka. complains about his chores and the consequences imposed on him; such as, removing his phone and charger. Father complained about the chores Ka. has to do in the home. This worker told father the visit exchanges would have to be moved from the kin home, as father is late and stays longer than the time schedules. It is too disruptive for the children. Father then complained about another relative who babysits in the home and said that Ka. had phoned him to complain (17) On October 23, 2021, Ka. was supposed to be at cadets. He phoned his father from downtown Toronto. Father agreed to send a taxi to pick him up at the Pickering GO station, rather than calling the caregivers. Father did not cooperate with the emergency after hours workers at the society and did not get Ka. back to the caregivers. It took five police officers and a police sergeant to go to father’s home and pick up Ka. The police felt more manpower was needed due to father’s criminal record including weapons. (18) After this incident, the society recommended supervised visits with father but father refused access until after this trial. He hung up the phone on this worker. (19) Father clearly encouraged Ka. to video the incident with S. and father then said he would take the photos to the media and would also share them on social media. (20) A second video was taken by Ka. that shows father asking S. if she was hit. S. lifts her shirt but there were no marks (21) This witness thought the paternal cousins’ plan could have worked for these two children, except for father’s interference. The cousins were prepared to work with many different professionals and participate in therapy and workshops. In addition, they were ready to do a workshop on children with attachment issues in order to better support S.. (22) S.’s return to Ms A.’s is a good placement for her. Miss A. cared for S. and Ka. for 3 and a half years previously. (23) This witness recommends father have a minimum of once a month visits, but says the society needs father’s cooperation and the access will be a transition. Ka. definitely wants to see father but S. doesn’t speak much about seeing father.

[27] Ms A. gave evidence. She is the much-loved foster mother of both S. and Ka. in the past and now for S. Her evidence follows: (1) Ka. has phoned her to apologise. She says he is a “good kid” but a “follower” who has to prove himself to his friends (2) Miss A. describes father as always encouraging the children to be polite and respectful, not call each other names, and to do the best they can at school. This communication was by telephone as father was incarcerated for most of that period of time. (3) Ka. has told Ms A., after a visit with father, “I am going to go and live with Dad”. In 2018, Ka. told her that father “has everything he needs: lots of money, a Lamborghini car and a gun.” (4) When S. returns from a visit – there is no change; she has never said she wants to live with father.

[28] The children’s service worker for M. gave evidence. She is part of a special needs team and has been his worker since November of 2019. M. has been diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), anxiety, and a mild intellectual disability.

[29] This worker describes M. as social and engaging. Prior to his placement with Stratford Children’s Services, he was impulsive with self-harming behaviours and tantrums.

[30] This worker gave the following evidence: (1) At Stratford, M. is in a staff operated highly supervised home. The caregivers have experience with children with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (ASD) and complex developmental needs. He is given support, structure, and consistent routines, expectations, and supervision. (2) In September of 2021, M. had an updated psycho-educational assessment and his learning potential is now deemed in the average range. He does have a learning disability in communication and presents with deficits in executive functioning [1] and attention. (3) M. is seen by a psychiatrist regularly and is prescribed 4 different types of medications for anxiety, regulation, and ADHD He is also waitlisted for a play and art therapist. (4) Currently M. is in grade 6 in a section 23 school. He still struggles with social and emotional regulation which impedes his academic progress. (5) M. receives 10 hours of one to one support daily. (6) Regarding access, M.: (a) has not seen his mother since May of 2021 at his own request; (b) sees his maternal aunts regularly and enjoys these visits; he prefers to spend Christmas with them; he sees them as his primary family. (c) likes to see his siblings and to spend time with his paternal cousins. (d) knows his dad wants him to live with him but says “why? I’m happy here. I don’t want to”. He has said he doesn’t want overnight visits; and is happy with day visits only if his siblings are there. He has not seen father since September 26, 2021. (7) This worker discussed access plans with father on October 8, 2021 and father said he was not agreeable to M. taking medication. This worker informed father of all the positive impacts of the medication for M. (8) M. started to show dysregulation when his father’s visits moved from the office to the community. M. was told by father to contact his lawyer and request to live with him. This has caused M. a lot of upset. (9) During a visit with M. on November 8, 2021, he told this worker clearly and consistently that he did not want day or home visits with father. He wants access returned to the office. He was anxious that adults wouldn’t hear him about these issues. Recently, M. has been self-harming again and can only tolerate one hour of school a day as opposed to his usual 5 or 6 hours.

[31] The senior manager from M.’s placement gave evidence. His evidence was consistent with the evidence from M.’s children service worker. It is set out as follows: (1) This witness described M.’s serious deterioration in recent weeks leading up to this trial. His behaviour has become more physically aggressive and he is banging his head against the wall and punching and hitting himself. He has been unable to manage more than one hour a day at school and sometimes only 30 minutes. He continues to have one to one support at school and in the home. (2) After visits with his mother, M. would appear “off” and isolate in his room. (3) M. looks up to his father. When he returns from visits with his father, he appears relieved. He has phone contact now about once or twice a month that is supervised. He has received gifts from his father such as a PlayStation, controllers, and other video game items. M. can initiate telephone calls to his father. (4) This treatment setting is hesitant to permit non-vaccinated people to visit in the home or the children to be in homes where people who could be vaccinated are not.

[32] B.’s current children service worker gave evidence. He described her as very quiet and reserved and doing well in her foster placement. She is in grade nine and requires help from her foster mother to complete homework and assignments. He provided the following evidence: (1) B. came back into the care of the society on October 2, 2020 and has remained in the same foster home since then. The foster mother has special expertise, having trained as a child and youth worker and worked for several children’s mental health services. Also in the home is the foster mother’s daughter who provides one to one support for B. and is also bi-racial. (2) Since June of 2021, B. put the visits with her mother on hold. During the visit of June 18 th , 2021, mother’s partner assaulted mother in front of B. Both mother and B. ended up in hospital and B. called her father. This series of events is described above. (3) B. now sees her father alternate Saturdays and has just resumed seeing her mother on the other alternate Saturdays. She has advised this worker that she is content with this arrangement. On November 10, 2021 she advised this worker that at some point, maybe grade 10, she might want to live with father. She said he is “moving to a new place”.

[33] The foster mother for B. gave evidence: (1) She is concerned about B.’s increased anxiety. She has recently been assessed for a possible ulcer. She describes B. as “young” for her age and shy. She often spends time alone in her room. She is very secretive and also very protective of her family. (2) B.’s father gave her a cell phone and she is spending more time on her cell phone with her dad and Ka. (3) B. is very serious about school and hopes to pursue a post secondary and graduate program, such as law. (4) Foster mother believes this court case has been very stressful for B. and thinks that B. just wants the adults to make the decisions. B. doesn’t want to hurt either of her parents. (5) Foster mother had contact with Father when she drove to pick B. up on June 20,2 021, after she had failed to return from a visit with mother on June 18, 2021. Foster mother and her daughter arrived at about 7 pm to find 4 men and several children outside the home. Father and his partner met the car. Father went into the house and came out saying B. refused to see anyone. (6) Foster mother testified about the incident when father’s partner, JL, sent an insta-cart to the foster mother’ s home with a case of pop, cookies, and some cold medication as B. told JL that she had a sore throat. This was during the early covid-19 pandemic period when all such items would need to be washed down. This witness said she did not appreciate that surprise delivery. (7) Just before the beginning of this school year, B. had an access visit with her father, from which she returned late without any contact with the foster mother to let her know. (8) B. has told her within the last month that she wants to stay put for now and get to know her father. B. does not feel safe at mother’s home right now.

Police records

[34] Police records were filed as business records with the consent of all counsel.

[35] Father has a lengthy and very serious criminal record, including: (1) 4 counts of robbery and a theft over; sentenced February 19, 1992 to 7 years’ incarceration and a firearms’ prohibition; (2) further charges through 1994 and 1995- withdrawn or conviction set aside on appeal; (3) in 1998 a lifetime firearms’ prohibition; (4) December of 2005 arrested for parole violations; (5) in 2006, he pled guilty to weapons offences and was sentenced to 18 months in custody. (6) in July of 2008, he was sentenced to 5 months’ time served plus 8 months and 12 months’ probation for firearms offences; (7) on May 31, 2011, assault charges withdrawn for a 12 month peace bond; (8) numerous occurrence reports for domestic disputes with the mother in this case; (9) numerous occurrence reports for trafficking in cocaine, weapons, fail to complies, robbery while armed, and threats; (10) in November of 2017, mother reported to police that Ka. had seen nude photos of a 16 year old girl while visiting his father; and (11) on February 15, 2018, father and his partner, JL, and another male were involved in a robbery and shooting. Father pled guilty to several weapons charges and an attempted murder charge and JL pled guilty to being an accessory after the fact. Father was sentenced to federal prison and just released to a half way house in February 2021 and to full parole in August 2021. JL served one day in custody.

School Records

[36] School records for all of the children were filed as business records with the consent of all counsel.

M.

[37] By grade one M. required one to one assistance for about 40% of his school day. A priority referral had been made in the fall of grade one to the Etobicoke Children’s mental health Centre for day treatment.

[38] His artistic strength is highlighted.

Ka.

[39] In Junior Kindergarten, Ka. needed help handling his emotions. By grade 2 he had an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and was still registering “D’s” in most subjects. By grade 3 he was doing much better. In grade 4, the tendency to be a follower was observed.. By the end of grade 5, Ka. is still learning how to get along with others.

S.

[40] In junior kindergarten, S. needed reminders to use an inside voice, play well with others, and stay focused. She learned to make good friends.

B.

[41] B.’s reports indicate that she is now a solid student. In her early years she had some behavioural issues. She is now respectful and friendly.

Mother’s Evidence:

[42] Mother supports B.’s views and wishes with respect to placement and visits.

[43] Mother opposes father’s plan for B., because: (1) Father has been convicted of serious crimes and his current partner has also been convicted for a crime they committed together; (2) Father and JL have a pattern of disregarding the society’s rules and instructions; (3) There are currently 11 people living in their home. B. can be withdrawn and have trouble engaging with people so this environment will not meet her needs; and (4) Father has a history of violating parole and committing violent crimes. Both of these factors could lead to a breakdown of the placement;

[44] Currently, mother sees B. for day visits on alternating Saturdays, which works well. She and B. also text and phone each other regularly.

[45] Mother denies many of the reports from Ka.’s children service worker. She has not seen S., Ka. or M. since May 21, 2021. Her telephone calls were also stopped in June of 2021.

[46] Mother also expresses concern that she has not been provided with the information about the children that she was promised.

[47] The society has changed its original position of reducing mother’s access to recommending a minimum of one access visit a month with each child and mother agrees with that recommendation. This recommendation was predicated on mother being engaged in counselling.

[48] Mother testified that S.is happiest and safest with Miss A.. Mother thinks Ka. is in a good home now with a strong male role model, which is good for him.

[49] Mother is enrolled in counselling so she can see her children.

[50] Mother understands that M. doesn’t want to see her.

[51] B. has been with her foster mother for a long time now and likes it there. She is a quiet person and feels safe with that foster mother.

[52] It is mother’s evidence that before the parents formally separated in 2015, she was the primary caregiver. Father came around when he pleased and was in and out of jail a lot. She and the father had a dysfunctional relationship, with a lot of screaming and violence. The children were exposed to this.

[53] Mother thinks that M. would get lost with so many children in father and JL’s home. M. has a lot of needs and gets a lot of attention where he is now.

[54] Mother is working full time as a courier now. Because of work she could not attend all of the court days for this hearing. She is attending counselling through her employer’s assistance program and is on the waiting list for George Hull.

Evidence for the Father

[55] Father called the other two adult males who live in the house to give evidence.

[56] S.G. is JL’s ex-husband. He and JL co-parent their 4 children: J. is 12; G is 10; S Jr is 8 and Bx is 5. G has cerebral palsy and there is additional supports for her in the home: 5 hours a day of nursing care and an additional personal support worker in the morning and evening. Two of the children are being home schooled.

[57] This witness believes father is a great addition to the home. He describes father as amazing with the children and he helps with cooking, cleaning and yard work.

[58] B. is welcome to live with them. She was with them for 5 days in June of 2021 and she got along well with his daughter. They watched TV together.

[59] On October 21, 2021, Ka. was there too. He knew Ka. wasn’t supposed to be there. This witness supports both Ka. and S. coming to live there. He has only met S. by video on two occasions. “M. can come too”. He has met M. by video once.

[60] The house is a rental property and each adult contributes to the rent. S.G. is supported by Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). He was in a car accident with JL’s brother in 2012 and he has received a cash settlement in 2016 of $250,000. He has about $5,000 left, after using some of the money to repay Ontario Works (OW) and ODSP.

[61] On October 13, 2017, he wrote a letter to support father’s motion for temporary custody of the children. He didn’t know about the father’s criminal history.

[62] He has not been vaccinated and not sure when they might decide to get vaccinated.

[63] Jo.L. is JL’s brother . He gave evidence. He and his two teenage sons live in the basement of the same home with father. They eat downstairs and are only upstairs for a few hours a week and on special occasions.

[64] In Jo.L.’s opinion there are no difficulties in the home and no conflict. He describes father as great with his teenage sons.

[65] Jo.L. and JL grew up with foster children as their parents were foster parents.

[66] Jo.L. was in the same car accident with S.G. and also received a financial settlement. .He has used the money to support his family and will also invest in father’s new business venture.

[67] Jo.L. knew about father and JL’s criminal convictions. He described them as “trumped up charges by mother’s ex-boyfriend who was a cop”.

[68] Jo.L. has a girlfriend with whom he has 2 small children, aged one year and 4 months. This girlfriend does spend a lot of time at the house but there isn’t enough space for her and the children to move in.

[69] Jo.L. has met B. when she came to the house. He described her as a sweet girl who “mostly stayed to herself.”

[70] Jo.L. is not vaccinated because the line ups are too long for his health limitations. His sons are not vaccinated either.

[71] Vidoll Regisford is a licensed psychotherapist for Ka. who was called by the father to give evidence. He started his professional life as a probation officer for youth and then obtained a Master’s degree and a PhD in counselling, as well as a post doctorate in psychology. He has worked for 30 years for non-profit organizations in the counselling field. He was not offered as an expert witness but gave evidence about his work with Ka.: (1) In 2020 Dr Regisford was assigned to Ka. in April of 2020 through Ka.’s fostering agency. Ka. was in the care of the society and suffering from past trauma, as well as exhibiting oppositional behaviour and anger. This witness, who is a black male professional, saw an opportunity to counsel Ka. about his masculinity and his identity as a young bi-racial male. (2) Ka. was connected to this witness’s boys’ group that met for 7 – 8 weeks on a weekly basis. Dr Regisford then had a contract to work with Ka. individually. He last saw Ka. in September or October of 2021. (3) During the year and a half that this doctor worked with Ka., he spoke with the mother once by phone and had two or three phone conversations with father. (4) In his opinion, Ka. has a real veneration for his father. Father is the most influential person in Ka.’s life. Father encouraged Ka. to attend school and to treat his sister properly. When Ka. broke into a neighbour’s backyard and stole some food, Dr R spoke to father and encouraged him to discourage this behaviour in Ka. Based on these few conversations, he found father to be very caring and appreciative. Ka. told this witness that he wanted to live with father when father was released from jail. (5) When asked what supports Ka. needs, based on his thirty plus therapeutic meetings with him, this witness suggested: counselling on a one to one basis, community activities, school attendance and school activities, facilitating a cultural and racial identity with other boys, and most essential: structure. The foster home with the more rigorous approach is better for Ka. than loving but passive care.

[72] Father’s partner, JL , gave evidence. She testified that she has known the father for 9 years and has been in a committed relationship for 6 years. She testified about the following: (1) In 2016 and 2017, the children’s aid society had an open file on JL because she refused to consent to surgery for G’s feeding tube. G was not gaining weight and had pneumonia. JL was hesitant to consent to the feeding tube surgery and the society helped her to review the various options. Eventually JL did consent and the surgery was done. The local society closed their file. (2) In 2020, JL was involved with the Durham society. JL had befriended a young mom and her two month old child, letting them stay with her for several months. The society insisted the mother give JL custody for that temporary period of time. (3) JL grew up in a home with many foster children, as her parents were foster parents. In her testimony there “were lots of children and lots of love “. Her mother passed away and her father lives with her. She does not charge him rent. He is now visiting with her siblings in the Maritimes. (4) JL spoke about her four children and showed the court photographs of them at their home and in the very spacious yard. They are allowed to rent this home for the next 6 years as the owners are building a new home on a different part of the lot. Currently there is a construction project underway to divide one of the living rooms into bedrooms for father’s children. (5) JL and her ex-husband S.G. Sr. have been co-parenting since S Junior was 6 months old. (6) JL has special funding for the nursing and personal support workers she needs to care for G, who is 10 years old. She also gets funding for a cleaning lady and other resources. G participates in an online special needs class in Uxbridge. (7) S Jr and J are both home schooled, but S Jr also has a tutor for 6 hours a week. S Jr. has ADHD and was struggling with regular school. JL was being called to the school on a daily basis, so being home schooled works better for him. (8) Her youngest child, Bx, is five years old and is at home also. Bx watches educational videos. JL said she was not planning on sending her to school until she was 6 years old, in any event. (9) JL first met father’s children in 2017 at the daycare when they reported mother’s boyfriend was abusing them. (10) In 2017, JL was part of the plan father put forward for temporary custody of the children. Then in 2018, father went to prison. JL would use Instagram to text B. and Ka. She wasn’t allowed to contact the children by phone so they had to call her. Father would use three way calling to call the children, even though it was against the prison rules. (11) JL spoke of all the gifts that father and she gave the children – video games and controllers and cell phones. (12) When father was released in February of 2021, they had their first supervised visit. JL took photos of the children with their dad and each other. She also took photos of the special August 2 nd birthday party they had outside the maternal aunts’ home. (13) JL described M. as polite loving and affectionate. She has a good relationship with him. He gravitates to father. (14) JL said she has a good relationship with B. They “talk about anything and everything”. Her daughter Bx idolizes B. (15) When B. was apprehended from mother in February of 2020, JL brought her a cell phone to her school. B. stayed for 5 days in June of 2021. B. would not come out of the house when her foster mother came to get her. Eventually JL and father negotiated with the family service worker to bring B. back to the society office when they were scheduled to visit the other children. They have not seen B. since September of 2021. (16) Ka. came to them last month when father sent a taxi to the Pickering GO station for him. He was supposed to be at cadets. JL and father told Ka. that the police were coming to get him. She couldn’t recall the conversation between Ka. and father. (17) JL has a good relationship with S. needs lots of affection. (18) The children do have chores at her house. They do the dishes and are responsible for their rooms. Father helps a lot. He is “the cook” and will take the children outside to play and does laundry. (19) JL’s father who is not at the home now is the only person who is fully vaccinated in the home. JL says she is not vaccinated as she hasn’t done enough research. They may get vaccinated in the winter. (20) JL testified that she did not know father had a gun the day he shot someone. She was convicted as an accessory after the fact and pled guilty. JL says she has been through a lot with father. She visited him in prison where she could stay for 3-4 days at a time. (21) JL knows about father’s other five children. The teenage girl visits them on an open invitation but the twin boys not so much. They have an “on again off again” relationship with the mother of those three children. (22) JL operates several businesses: a storefront for Amazon; babysitting in other homes(maybe only 4 times in the past six months), a cleaning business, and a currently active nail salon. She has seen upwards of 75 people during the last six months, during the pandemic, in a private part of the house that has an external door which she uses as a nail salon. (23) She is not vaccinated. (24) She has a video camera outside the home to protect them from the society.

[73] The father of the children gave evidence.

[74] Father says that, while in Warkworth penitentiary for more than three years, he has attended several programs and received certificates for: (1) a rehabilitative program that ran every morning for 6 months, (2) a meditation program that ran for 8 months three times a week for two hours each time, and (3) an entrepreneurship program, from which he plans to develop a baby stroller business.

[75] Before his conviction, father participated in a music production mentorship program at Toronto south detention centre in January 2018.

[76] Prior to his last criminal conviction, father said he also took a parenting program with mother in 2016 and in March of 2011. The society made the referrals. In May of 2016, he took an anger management program through the Salvation Army justice sector. Father maintains he does not need any parenting courses.

[77] When father and mother first broke up, father did not seek custody as he believed mother to be a good mother. At that time, there was a restraining order against him, so he would visit the children at their school and daycare. During a school visit, the children told him and the principal about mother’s policeman boyfriend abusing them. Both he and the principal reported this to the society

[78] Father then proposed a plan to care for the children in 2017. He and JL had access to two apartments in the same building. JL’s ex-husband would live in one apartment upstairs with their four children and he and JL would live in the downstairs apartment with his children.

[79] Father was unsuccessful in two temporary motions for custody of the children. He appealed the last temporary order of custody to the society but was arrested in early 2018 before the appeal could be heard.

[80] Father offered his explanation for the shooting that resulted in his recent incarceration – essentially, he was trying to recover money from the man he shot.

[81] While in Warkworth most recently, he testified that he has made many changes. He received no discipline charges as compared to his previous lengthy prison stay in 2000, when he incurred over 500 discipline charges. Even then, he was still paroled in 2002. He did receive a further custody sentence of 8 months in 2008 and then some further charges that were withdrawn.

[82] While in prison father said he would speak to the children through three way telephone calls, even though these types of phone calls were not permitted by the prison rules.

[83] When father spoke to B., he told her to stay in school and keep her spirits up.

[84] Father was granted day parole in February of 2021 and placed in a halfway house in Oshawa. The rules of the halfway house were that you had to be in the house from 9 pm until 6 am and this was reduced to midnight to 6 am. He was also allowed to stay over at JL’s from Friday to Monday.

[85] At first his visits with the children were supervised and they went really well.

[86] Father’s evidence with respect to M. was: (1) He never had a problem with him; (2) he didn’t know why M. was on medication and didn’t think he needed it; (3) he asked and no one would tell him why M. was on medication; but (4) he would “give it to him if he is visiting me”.

[87] With respect to Ka. and S., father said : (1) he was happy when they were moved to his cousins’ home and they did well there; (2) he made sure that Ka. was helping the cousins; (3) he started to get complaints from Ka. about the chores so he spoke to the cousins; father also complained to the cousins about the consequences of removing Ka.’s phone, his electronics, all his clothes and his gear; (4) the cousins asked father not to interfere but father told Ka. he didn’t have to give up his phone – s “he’s 13, you can’t take his phone”; (5) Ka. phoned him 2 or 3 times a day and through the night; (6) when the first video was made by Ka., he had spoken to father about it; when the second video was made, father was “in shock”; (7) he committed to his cousins to co-parent the kids with them but communication broke down – “they are young women with no kids of their own”; and (8) he supported Ms A. and would tell both S. and Ka. to help her but Ka. started getting in with the wrong crowd.

[88] Father actually has 5 other children: his eldest daughter is 33 and lives in Toronto; his next daughter is 20 and works in a mall in Oshawa; he also has three children by a woman named P.: a 13 year old daughter and five year old twin boys. These last three children live with P. in Scarborough. He sees the thirteen year old but does not see the twins as often as he would like.

[89] There are four different mothers for his 9 children. For his eldest child, he did live with the mother for maybe 5 years but was in custody for about 15 years of this daughter’s life. For the second oldest daughter, father said he did live with her and her mother from 2002 or 2003 until 2005. The thirteen year old daughter with P. is about the same age as Ka. Father lived with Ka. til he was 6 and was also living with P. at the same time. The twins are five and father has been in custody most of their lives. Mother didn’t know about P..

[90] For the children before this court, they were in care in 2010 and 2011. When they were returned to the mother under supervision, one of the court conditions was that father would not be living in the home. By May of 2015, the parents’ relationship was completely over and thereafter, father only saw the children at school or in the community for day visits

[91] Father has never had a court order for custody or access or paid child support.

[92] Father is on Ontario Disabilities Support Program (ODSP), based on his time in solitary confinement while in prison in 2000. He is part of a class action lawsuit about this. He says that ODSP keeps him stable. He wants to focus on his children; “work is not in my mindset right now”. He plans to work on building a baby stroller business with JL’s ex-husband.

[93] Father tries to be generous with his children. He gives them cell phones and electronics, without permission of the caregivers nor the society.

[94] Father says: I never read court orders or court papers… I call foster homes when I want”.

[95] Father has not been vaccinated against Covid-19.

[96] Father describes his relationship with JL as “the best”. Her “love for my kids is unbelievable.” They are planning to get married in a couple of years

[97] Father has an excellent relationship with JL’s children. He plans to get training on how to work her disabled daughter’s feeding tube.

[98] Father’s plan is to have at least three children with him – B., Ka. and S. He wants to make sure his sons do not end up in the criminal justice system. He wants to co-parent with the mother. He plans to put the children into in-person school because that’s where they are now. He has not spoken to any of the local schools and has not identified a doctor or dentist for the children.

[99] If Ka. comes to live with father, father would take him to school. Father says “I love taking children to school”. He would tell the school he is a good kid but is easily distracted and clowns around. Father did have a meeting scheduled with Ka.’s psychotherapist but missed it.

[100] Father says he will respect M.’s views, which are currently not to have unsupervised visits with father. In the Stratford home, all visitors must be vaccinated, so father says he can visit outside. Father has never spoken to any of the children’s lawyers and has not asked to speak to M.’s treating physicians.

[101] Father says he “needs to have his children with him.”

[102] Father has now heard evidence in court that B. wants to stay where she is. He said that Ka. wanted B. to come to court like he did. He knows that B. is very intelligent and quiet. He doesn’t think it will impact her to change schools in the middle of grade 9.

[103] When B. called him from the hospital in June of 2021, he didn’t tell the police that there was a court order governing his access to her. When he sent the taxi for Ka. in October of 2021, he believes he did the right thing. In hindsight, father would not change any of his actions.

[104] Father wants S. back with him right away. He hasn’t lived with S. since she was one year old

Legal Framework:

Disposition – Continuing Need for Protection:

[105] The case of Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.P., 2019 ONSC 3482 confirmed that the court, when determining disposition, must first determine if a protection order is necessary to protect the child in the future (subsection 101 (1) of the Act). The need for continued protection may arise from the existence or absence of the circumstances that triggered the first order for protection or from circumstances which have arisen since that time.

[106] Determining that a protection order is necessary to protect a child in the future is not the same thing as finding the child in need of protection under clause 74 (2) of the Act.

[107] In this case, both parents and counsel for the children support the continuing need for protection. Mother agrees to the extended society care order for all the children and father is seeking a supervision order for 12 months with all the children. There is ample evidence to support a continuing need for protection in this case: (1) All of the children have special needs. (2) Neither parent can care for the children without the support of the society and other resources. (3) Neither parent has been consistent in ensuring the children have their needs met during access visits.

[108] Section 101 sets out a two step process, as confirmed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Children’s Aid Society of Oxford v. W.T.C., 2013 ONCA 491: (1) First, determine whether the child continues to be in need of protection and, as a consequence, requires a court order for his or her protection; and (2) If it has been determined that the child is still in need of protection, the court must determine which of the available range of orders is in the best interests of the child.

Best Interests

[109] Best interests is defined in the Act in subsection 74(3) with a non-exhaustive list of considerations.

[110] Once it has been decided that a child is still in need of protection, the court must consider the least restrictive alternative consistent with the child’s best interests. CAS Peel v. W., 1995 14 RFL (4 th ) 196 (OCJ).

[111] In determining what order is required to meet the child’s best interests, the court must consider the degree to which the risk concerns that prompted the original order still exist. This must be examined from the child's perspective. (Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. M. (C.), (1994) 2 S.C.R. 165).

[112] The Act sets out certain time limitations for children in the care of the society. Section 122 stipulates that children under the age of 6 cannot be in the temporary custody of the society for more than 12 months. Children aged 6 and over cannot be in temporary care for more than 24 months. This is consistent with the paramount purposes of the Act to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children and to make plans that secure permanency and enduring relationships for them. M. (C.) v. CAS of Waterloo, 2015 ONCA 612, 2015 ONCA 612 (Ont CA) ; CAS of Ottawa v. B.H., 2017 ONSC 4799, 2017 ONSC 4799 (Divisional Ct) .

[113] Subsection 101 (3) of the Act requires that the court look at less disruptive alternatives than removing a child from the care of the persons who had charge of the child immediately before intervention unless it determines that these alternatives would be inadequate to protect the child.

[114] Subsection 101(4) of the Act also requires the court to consider alternative placement with a relative, neighbor, or other member of the child’s community or extended family, with their consent, before considering society care and custody.

[115] The significance of the child-centered approach is that good intentions are not enough. The test is not whether the parents have seen the light and intend to change, but whether they have in fact changed and are now able to give the child the care that is in his or her best interests. There is not to be experimentation with a child’s life with the result that in giving the parents another chance, the child would have one less chance: Children’s Aid Society of Winnipeg (City) v. R. (1980), 19 R.F.L. (2d) 232 (Man.C.A.). There has to be some demonstrated basis for a determination that the parents are able to parent the child without endangering his or her safety. Children’s Aid Society of Brockville, Leeds and Grenville v. C., [2001] 2001CarswellOnt 1504.

[116] A comprehensive best interests analysis requires consideration of the strengths and weaknesses of every option.

[117] An order for extended society care is probably the most profound order that a court can make. The judge must exercise this option only with the highest degree of caution, based on compelling evidence and after a careful examination of possible alternative remedies. CAS Hamilton v. M., 2003 O.J. No. 1274 (UFC).

Analysis:

Credibility and reliability:

[118] The court found the society witnesses to be forthright, candid, and honest in their evidence.

[119] Despite being bullied and even threatened by father, they spoke in a professional and respectful manner about trying to gain his cooperation in the future.

[120] The court found the father to be unreliable and secretive in his actions and in his evidence; for example: (1) father had another partner and children when he was living with the mother and having children; (2) father failed to advise the police that B. was not permitted by court order to be in his home;. (3) father sent a cab to pick up Ka. at GO station Pickering when there was an access order restricting his access; (4) father admits that he doesn’t read or abide by court orders; (5) father admits that he encouraged the children to call him frequently and complain if they were consequence or disciplined; and (6) in the few months that father has been out of federal prison, he has broken down placements for the children, refused to abide by access orders, and encouraged the children to fight with their caregivers.

[121] Where the evidence of the society witnesses conflicts with the father’s evidence, the court prefers the society.

The Children:

B. :

[122] B. is described as quiet and reserved. She is serious about school but has to be encouraged to engage in extra curricular activities. Recently she has started staying after school for dodge ball. Father sees her as very intelligent but “closed” and “quiet”.

[123] B. was very anxious about starting grade nine but has settled in. Father sees no problem for her to change high schools part way through the year. This is very concerning.

[124] B. lives with an experienced mental health worker and has access to one to one support in that home. It is also concerning that she is currently being tested for a possible ulcer.

Ka.

[125] Ka. is described by his worker as a generally shy and reserved boy. In familiar company he can be loud, funny, and mischievous. He can also be sensitive, affectionate and empathetic to others. He worries about his family and idolizes his father. He loves basketball and video games.

[126] Ka. has been diagnosed with ADHD and will be assessed for FASD. He is prescribed Concerta but is not consenting to taking it at this time. He is identified with an exceptionality in communications and a learning disorder. Virtual learning was very challenging for him but he has returned to the classroom in grade 8 and has special education supports.

[127] Father describes Ka. as easily distracted and the class clown. He doesn’t see Ka. needing any kind of transition to his home. Father describes himself as having been very patient and taken all the steps asked by the society.

[128] Ka. has been encouraged by father to say he wants to live with him and to attend court for that purpose. Ka. has also encouraged B. to say and do the same.

M.

[129] M. has been described by his worker as very social and empathetic. He enjoys time with family, especially his siblings and maternal aunts. His recent aggressive and self harming behaviour is cause for concern. The professionals involved with him believe it is associated with this court case.

[130] M.’s needs are so great that he requires a one to one worker for most of the day.

[131] Father has not spoken to his doctor but wonders why M. is taking the medications he does. Father does not recognize M.’s special needs.

S.

[132] S. is described by her worker as energetic, talkative, affectionate, strong willed and humorous. She is constantly entertaining those around her. She can be indiscriminate with her affection and needs redirection regarding the personal space of others.

[133] S. can have difficulty with bedwetting and emotional dysregulation. Her behaviour can include frequent temper tantrums, refusing to listen to directions, swearing, refusing to go to bed or school. She is in a regular classroom for grade 2, but requires an additional resource worker to assist with the behaviour issues.

[134] Father’s plan does not take into account S.’s traumatic past experiences, including a number of moves and exposure to conflict at a very young age.

Duties of Society:

[135] Pursuant to section 35 of the Act , children’s aid societies are tasked with a number of functions, including the investigation of allegations that children may be in need of protection, and the protection of children. Part of their mandate is to provide guidance, counselling and other services to families for protecting children or to prevent circumstances requiring the protection of children. Children’s aid societies are also required to adequately supervise, when required to do so. See: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. T.T.L., 2019 ONCJ 530

[136] In accordance with section 1(2) of the CYFSA, the Society has a duty to consider and provide services, including early intervention services and community support services. The services are to build on the family’s strengths. And the Society is also to provide clear expectations to the family to assist them to address the issues before the Court. See: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. K.R., 2018 ONCJ 288.

[137] This society has provided a large number of services to the family and to the extended family members; such as, referrals for counselling for the parents and caregivers; assistance with housing and financial aid; in care services for each of the children; kin and kith assessments; transportation for visits; and ongoing supports for visits.

Plans for the Children:

[138] Mother’s plan is to support her children’s placements and to support the care they are currently receiving for their individual special needs. She is working full time and participating in counselling. She is also on a waitlist for therapeutic support from George Hull.

[139] Father’s plan is to have all of the children or at least B., Ka. S. home as soon as possible. He sees no need for a transition. He believes the local schools will accept them immediately but has not spoken to them. He does not mention any other possible or necessary services. He agrees to society supervision and indicates he will fully cooperate with the society and their recommendations.

[140] Father called Ka.’s psychotherapist to give evidence, but father does not address the needs that this witness described for Ka. : (1) counselling on a one to one basis, (2) community activities, (3) school attendance and school activities, (4) facilitating a cultural and racial identity with other boys, and (5) most essential: structure. The foster home with the more rigorous approach is better for Ka. than loving but passive care.

[141] The society plans for the children include the extended society care orders with the continued service plans as indicated in the evidence. The society supports access to each parent by each child for a minimum of once a month with telephone/video calls from the child once a week; all of which is subject to the consent of the child; the society to have discretion as to the level of supervision, the location and the duration.

[142] For mother, the society plans to provide a worker that mother knows for her supervised access and to provide early resolution meetings as issues arise in visits. If necessary, mediation would also be provided.

[143] Counsel for each of the children have suggested additional conditions that would be in each child’s best interests, relating to contact outside of the visits, conduct within the visits, information sharing, and communication generally.

The children’s needs and level of development:

[144] Each of the children have special needs. These needs are so great that they cannot be fostered together but require their own foster parent or placement with built in additional supports and role models.

The importance to the children of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family:

[145] All of the children love family. At different times, they wanted to spend time with some family members more than others. Their sense of family includes extended family, with whom they have been placed for various periods of time.

[146] Some of the children view former foster placements like family.

[147] It is very clear that the society and the placements intend to honour those relationships and to do so in a way that is consistent with the children’s individual needs.

[148] Father undermined the relatives who cared for these children. He does not appear to plan on having the children maintain any contact with them. Father likes Miss A. so he may, but did not say he would, be prepared to have some contact for Ka. and S. with her.

[149] Father announced in his evidence that he would co-parent with mother. He had earlier referred to their relationship, which ended in 2015, as toxic. The parents have had no therapeutic support to change their very negative relationship. They did not follow through with counselling as recommended by the society.

The children’s relationships with parents and extended family:

[150] The evidence points very clearly to the children having difficult relationships with their parents.

[151] Mother recognizes this concern and is getting therapeutic assistance.

[152] The children have formed attachments to several extended family members. Father does not speak to the importance of those relationships and whether he will work to maintain those relationships.

[153] Father does not recognize how he has put the children into the middle of another conflict; namely, this court case. The impact has been very hard on the children.

The children’s race, colour and cultural heritage:

[154] The children are biracial. Father is Black and mother is Caucasian.

[155] The evidence of the society was delivered by several professional staff of colour and placements with people of colour. The society clearly intended and implemented service plans with the children’s racial background playing an important role.

Importance of continuity of care:

[156] For S. M., and B., each of their placements is well known to them and they are each comfortable where they are.

[157] For Ka., he is in a new placement, essentially because father broke down the most recent kin placement. His needs are great but the placement is designed to meet those needs and to provide an alternative black male role model for him besides father.

The effect of delay:

[158] The evidence from all of the professional witnesses was consistent: the children are suffering from this litigation and are waiting for a decision.

The risk of harm to the children in being kept from family

[159] The children have never and will never be kept away from family.

The risk that justified the finding

[160] The same risk of emotional harm remains today. If anything, it has worsened into actual emotional harm with evidence of serious anxiety.

Children’s Views and Preferences:

[161] The children have benefitted from having counsel from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer. These counsel have ensured that the views of the children are in evidence before the court.

[162] With some variations in the conditions, all of the counsel support the society’s recommended order.

[163] Counsel for B., after hearing evidence from her workers in this hearing checked in with B. during the trial and provided her most recent views to the court. This is most appropriate and welcome by the court. Adults are entitled to change their positions; why can’t young people and children? B. is happy where she is for now.

[164] There is extensive evidence of the father trying to influence the children’s views towards his position. He has told several of the children to call their respective lawyers and say they want to live with him.

[165] Ka. and B. have recently spent time at father’s home, despite court orders to the contrary.

[166] There is consistent evidence of father undermining Ka. and S.’s most recent placement with the paternal cousins.

[167] Ka. is in very different circumstances. He is traumatized and more vulnerable after the recent events in particular. He is in a new placement. He doesn’t want as many restrictions on his access to father and would like overnight visits to father.

[168] M. does not want to see mother right now. He is prepared to see father in a supervised setting. M. is afraid that his views will not be respected.

[169] S. is very happy to be back with Miss A.. She lived with Miss A. from November of 2017 until August of 2021 and returned there November 12, 2021. Father does not know S. as well as Miss A. does. S.’ counsel supports the society access recommendation.

[170] The children’s views are very important but just one factor in the best interests criteria.

Insight:

[171] Neither father nor his partner recognize the special needs of these children.

[172] When asked about each of the children, father and his partner describe them mostly as “great” and describe themselves as having a “special relationship” with them.

[173] Father and JL do not see the role they have played in recent months as sabotaging the children’s treatment and stability.

[174] A lack of parental insight with respect to fundamental problems like physical and emotional harm may justify an extended care order (formerly crown wardship) even if there are other positive aspects to a parenting plan. Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. V.C., 2017 ONSC 5557; CCAS of Toronto v. M. (M.), 2012 ONCJ 369, 2012 ONCJ 369 (OCJ) ; CAS of Hamilton v. S. (A.), 2017 ONSC 2226, 2017 ONSC 2226 (SCJ) .

Community or family plans:

[175] There have been several family plans assessed and implemented in recent years with these children. They have lived with maternal aunts and paternal cousins. Where necessary, special supports have been provided to the caregivers. For various reasons, beyond the control of the kin placements, they were not able to meet the children’s needs.

[176] Currently, there is no kin or community plan being put forward.

[177] The court notes that the society plan is for the children to maintain contact with these caregivers.

The Paramount Objective:

[178] The CYFSA requires a careful balancing of the paramount objective to promote the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children, with the value of maintaining the family unit. The legislation does not emphasize parental rights but rather recognizes the importance of maintaining the family unit as a means of fostering the best interests of children. The values and purposes outlined under section 1(2) must be always be evaluated in contemplation of what is best for the child. A child-centred focus must not be lost at any stage of a protection hearing, see Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165

[179] There has to be some demonstrated basis for a determination that the parents are able to parent the child without endangering his or her safety. Children’s Aid Society of Brockville, Leeds and Grenville v. C., [2001] 2001CarswellOnt 1504.

[180] The children are growing up in the care of the society and deserve stability and permanency.

[181] The children deserve long term positive relationships with consistency and security.

[182] Further delay in long term planning for the children is not in their best interests.

[183] The disposition must be child-focused.

[184] The court would like to also observe the huge challenges for these two parents: they have been severely damaged by their past and both mother and father are making efforts to slowly overcome those challenges. It may be that institutions and/or individuals have negatively impacted these two people when they were younger. Life has not been fair to them. It may be that having not been parented themselves, they cannot see how to parent.

Why Not a Supervision Order:

[185] A placement with father under a supervision order would not be in the children’s best interests because:

• Although father’s supervised visits were generally positive, he quickly took advantage of B. and Ka.’s vulnerability in having them to his home without supervision. He was unable or refused to return them in compliance with court orders. It is difficult to jump from supervised access to a return home to the parent; see Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v R.H., 2016 ONCJ 181.
• Father is resistant to change and angry if asked to make any changes.
• Each of the children’s have special needs; some of those needs are very complicated and require coordinated professional support.
• Father is unable to identify or accept the needs of the children so he cannot make a plan to meet their needs.
• Even in a best case scenario, a placement with father would require compliance with services, schools, and the society at a minimum. Father has been consistently ungovernable; see Windsor-Essex CAS v. L.H., 2004 ONCJ 196, [2004] O.J. No. 3889 (OCJ) , and this court’s comments in Jewish Family and Child Services of Toronto v. A.K., 2014 ONCJ 227.
• Father stated very clearly that he does not read court orders.

[186] There is no pattern of trust or cooperation with father or JL. They keep a video camera outside their home so as to ensure the society does not trick them.

Conclusion on Disposition:

[187] It is in the best interests of B. for her to be placed in the extended care of the society, for these reasons: (1) B. is in a secure placement that meets her needs; (2) Mother and B. recognize this (3) Father can only see his own need to be a father (4) Father has nine children with whom he has rarely, if at all, acted as a primary caregiver (5) Father and JL have modelled behaviour that disobeys court orders and lies. They have folded B. into their web of secrecy. (6) Father and JL do not have a plan that will meet B.’s needs; in that; there is insufficient structure and routine in their home; the children in the home now have various demanding needs for home schooling and nursing; and (7) In the eight months since father has been released from custody, and only three months since leaving the halfway house, father and JL have not complied with court orders and not cooperated with the society.

[188] It is in the best interests of Ka., S. and M. to remain in the extended care of the society, for these reasons: (1) They are in secure placements that meet their needs. (2) Despite sometimes wanting to be with family and sometimes wanting to be with father, they recognize this. Mother recognizes this. (3) Father has not been a parent to them and does not know how to be a parent to them; he does not recognize their needs. (4) Father and JL do not have a plan that would meet their needs. (5) Father and JL have placed Ka. in an awkward position of lying, disobeying court orders, and behaving in a secretive manner, if he wants their love and approval.

[189] There is no plan that is less intrusive that would meet the children’s best interests. Several kin plans have been attempted in the past. Mother realizes this.

Post Extended Society Care Access- Best Interests

[190] Subsections 105 (5) and (6) of the CYFSA set out a new legal test for children who have been placed in the extended care of the society. It is now a best interests test and the court has to consider whether the relationship between the child and the person seeking access is beneficial and meaningful for the child and whether access would impair the child’s opportunities to be adopted. It is no longer a presumption against access test.

[191] In Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, the court wrote that the new access test is significantly different than the old stricter test and represents a shift in approach to access to children in extended care. It is no longer a presumption against access test, but rather a best interests analysis.

[192] In Jewish Family and Child Service of Greater Toronto v. K.B., 2018 ONCJ 650, 2018 O.J. No. 4918 (Ont. C.J.), Justice Sager stated that the new access test should be given a liberal and flexible interpretation, writing as follows: The introduction of the best interests test in the CYFSA brings a less rigid and more flexible approach to deciding whether to order access to a child placed in the extended care of the society, as a court is now permitted to give consideration to any factor it considers relevant, one can assume, on the well accepted principle in cases involving children that one size does not fit all.

[193] This interpretation was endorsed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.G., 2020 ONCA 415. The court set out the following: a) Pre-CYFSA case law that provided a rigid definition of beneficial and meaningful is no longer applicable. This includes the requirement that access must be “significantly advantageous” for the child. b) In considering whether a relationship is beneficial and meaningful the court can consider any factor, whether past, present or future. This would include the prospect of an openness order. c) The child’s best interests clearly are not static. This is confirmed by the wording of s. 74(3) which requires the court to consider: (i) any other circumstance of the case; (ii) the child’s development of a positive relationship; (iii) continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity; (iv) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent [Emphasis added]. d) T he underlined words all demand considerations that continue through time. There is simply nothing in the plain wording of the current Act to suggest that access should be decided without reference to the future. e) The “beneficial and meaningful” test is not a separate pre-condition as it was before. Instead, it is a consideration within the context of the child’s best interests. f) The new access test now permits the court to conduct a more holistic and comprehensive analysis of what is best for a child. g) A child’s best interests in connection with future access involve a delicate weighing and balancing of multiple factors. It is not a fact-finding mission and the exercise is not assisted by determining what the onus is or where it lies.

[194] There are a number of benefits to children in having ongoing contact with their family; such as those set out in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.S., 2019 ONCJ 866, affirmed on appeal at 2020 ONSC 4993.

[195] The parents, counsel for the children, and the society agree that some form of access is in the best interests of the children. The court agrees.

[196] To meet the needs and best interests of these children, the access must include a consideration of : (1) their views and their consent, (2) their treatment and academic needs, (3) a reasonable flow of information about their needs and interests, with their consent, (4) maximizing the comfort level of all, (5) eliminating conflict occurring in front of the children, (6) a mechanism to resolve issues or disagreements that arise, and (7) concrete efforts by the parent to gain insight into the needs of the children and the needs of the parent, including individual counselling

[197] Ka. has asked for more frequent access and overnights to father on weekends. I have considered this very seriously but cannot agree, because: (1) Father’s actions were designed to benefit father and not Ka.; (2) Father does not know how to prioritize Ka.’s needs; (3) Ka. lost a positive placement with kin and with his sister because of father’s own needs; (4) Father has never provided for Ka. and cannot do so now; (5) father is currently a poor role model for Ka.; (6) Father has not shown a respect for the rules; and (7) No one in father’s home has been vaccinated for covid-19; nor have they taken any reasonable steps to inform themselves of the true value of the vaccine.

Access Holder:

[198] Pursuant to subsection 105 (7) of the CYFSA, the court must specify who is an access holder and who is an access recipient in its decisions.

[199] In Children’s Aid Society v. Y.M., 2019 ONCJ 489, the court found that the parents would likely delay any openness proceeding if made access holders, either through unreasonable litigation or through other methods, as they had delayed the protection case, often coming late for trial, or not at all. Court found that would put a chill on adoptive applicants and impair the child’s opportunities for adoption. Court found it in child’s best interests to make the child and not the parents access holders.

[200] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. E.U., 2014 ONCJ 299, the court found that granting the parents a right of access to a 9-year-old child would impair the child’s opportunity to be adopted by the foster parent as the parents kept trying to undermine the placement. Granting an access order would lead inevitably to litigation over openness and the foster parents were becoming increasingly frustrated with the parents. However, the child was granted access rights to the parents as the foster parents respected the child’s desire to have contact with the parents and could negotiate with the child an openness arrangement without the likelihood of litigation.

[201] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.F., 2015 ONCJ 678, the court set out the following attributes of persons who may impair a child’s future opportunities for adoption:

[166] The first attribute is a difficulty with aggression, anger or impulse control. Persons with this attribute are often confrontational. This attribute may threaten the physical or emotional security of the adoptive parents and their family.

[167] The second attribute is a lack of support for an alternate caregiver of the child. This might manifest itself in an undermining of the adoptive placement and the child’s sense of security with the adoptive family. Persons with this attribute may be relentlessly critical of the adoptive parents and make their lives very difficult. They are usually unable to accept their reduced role in the child’s life.

[168] The third attribute is dishonesty and secrecy. Persons with this attribute can often not be trusted to comply with the terms of court orders or to accurately report any important issues about the child.

[169] The fourth attribute is a propensity to be litigious. Persons with this attribute are usually unable to accept a reduced role in the child’s life and are likely to engage in openness litigation.

[202] A fifth attribute was added in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.P., 2019 ONCJ 631, being: a person with a mental health condition, substance abuse issues, transience or chaotic lifestyle. Persons with this background may be difficult to deal with and their personal issues may result in there being difficulty in making arrangements with them for contact and as a result dissuade adoptive parents.

[203] These attributes were approved as appropriate considerations in an appeal decision in JFCS v. E.K.B., 2019 ONSC 661 and in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. I.B., 2020 ONSC 5498.

[204] It is essential in this case that the children be the access holders and their parents are not because: (1) Both mother and father have had difficulty with impulse control and aggression. (2) Both mother and father each have needs that would overshadow the children’s needs. (3) Father has a very serious criminal record of weapons, violence and breaches of orders (4) Father has undermined caregivers to the detriment of the children. (5) Father has been dishonest and secretive; both he and JL have defied correctional rules regarding phone calls and family court access orders. (6) Both parents have a propensity to be litigious. (7) The children need each other.

Final Orders:

1. B. is to be placed in the extended care of the society. S., M. and Ka. are to remain in the extended care of the society.
2. The children are to be the holders of their access and the recipients to each other’s access.
3. The children are to be the holders of access to the mother and the father and the parents are the recipients.
4. Mother and father separately may have access visits at a minimum of once per month, subject to the views of each child and at the discretion of the society as to level of supervision, location and duration of each visit.
5. Subject to the views of each child, mother and father shall each have a minimum of one telephone/video call per week. The call will be initiated by the child. The supervision will be at the discretion of the society.
6. During each contact with the children, father shall (a) Not ask the children questions about their placement or their mother or their address (b) Not provide the children with any gifts/items without the prior written agreement of the society (c) Contact the society immediately if he is going to be late in returning the children
7. Father, or anyone associated with him, shall not contact the children outside of the access arrangements as out lined above and as facilitated by the society. This includes, but is not limited to calling their personal cells, playing games or having contact through social media, without the prior written consent of the society.
8. If the specific child consents, mother and father may be invited to his or her Plan of Care meetings
9. If the specific child consents, mother and father may be provided with copies of his or her report cards or other reports.
10. If necessary, the society will make best efforts to provide an access supervising worker with whom mother is familiar.
11. If issues arise at visits or with the society generally, the society will make every effort to have a meeting within 7 working days by phone, video, or in person. If the parties cannot resolve the issue, the society may arrange for mediation.
12. Every effort will be made to ensure the children have regular access with each other, subject to each child’s consent.

Released: December 6, 2021. Signed: Justice Paulseth

[1] Broadly defined as a group of mental skills that enable people to complete tasks and interact with each other.