WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to one or more of subsections 48(7), 45(8) and 45(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
45.— (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. — The court may make an order,
(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing,
where the court is of the opinion that . . . publication of the report, . . ., 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.
(8) Prohibition: 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) Idem: order re adult. — 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.
85.— (3) Idem. — A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(c) or subsection 45(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.
Court Information
Ontario Court of Justice
Date: 2014-02-24
Court File No.: Orangeville 172/12
Between:
The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin, Applicant
— AND —
R. No, Respondent Mother
R. Na, Respondent Father
Before: Justice Philip J. Clay
Heard on: February 11, 2014
Reasons for Judgment released on: February 24, 2014
Counsel
- Christine Torry — counsel for the applicant society
- Kristen D. Van Arnhem — counsel for the respondent father
- R. No — on her own behalf
- Judith Birchall — counsel for the Office of the Children's Lawyer, legal representative for the children
CLAY J.:
Application for Summary Judgment
[1] The Society brought an application for Summary Judgment in which they sought:
a) Statutory findings pursuant to subsection 47(2) of the Child and Family Services Act (the Act) as follows:
Legal Name: Ja Na
Date of birth: […], 2003
Full Legal Name of Mother: R. No
Full Legal Name of Father: R. Na
Child's Religion: No Affiliation
Child's Native Status: Not an Indian or Native Person
Legal Name: Jo Na
Date of birth: […], 2006
Full Legal Name of Mother: R. No
Full Legal Name of Father: R. Na
Child's Religion: No Affiliation
Child's Native Status: Not an Indian or Native Person
b) Child protection findings: That the children shall be found to be in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2)(b)(ii), (f) and (g) of the Act.
c) Disposition: That the children be placed in the care of their father R. Na subject to the supervision of The Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin for a period of six months, on the following terms and conditions:
Mr. Na shall provide the children with a safe and secure home environment, appropriate to meet their needs.
Mr. Na shall cooperate with the Society and shall follow the reasonable recommendations of the child protection workers.
Mr. Na shall allow the Society workers access to the home and to the children by way of both scheduled and unscheduled visits, and the Society workers shall have the right to meet with the children, independently, at home, at school or in the community.
Mr. Na shall meet with the Society workers, as requested, at mutually agreed upon times, at home or at the Society's office.
Mr. Na shall ensure that the children are adequately supervised at all times and shall make appropriate child care arrangements when unavailable to care for the children.
Mr. Na shall sign any consent forms or documents required for the release and exchange of information between the Society and any service providers involved with him and the children, as requested by the Society from time to time.
Mr. Na shall cooperate with the Society in developing an appropriate plan for access between the children and their mother and he shall ensure that such access takes place in accordance with the direction the Society in the exercise of its discretion.
Ms. No shall cooperate with the Society and shall follow the reasonable recommendations of the child protection workers.
Ms. No shall meet with the Society workers, as requested, at mutually agreed upon times, at home or at the Society's office.
Ms. No shall advise the Society immediately with respect to any changes to her residence address, telephone number or any other contact information.
Ms. No shall not attend at the children's school, child care centre and extra-curricular or athletic activities, without prior written approval to the Society.
Ms. No shall continue to attend counselling for her mental health and personality disorder as recommended by the assessments of Dr. Henderson and Dr. Badoe.
Ms. No will continue to follow through with her alcohol abuse after care.
Ms. No shall sign any consent forms or documents required for the release and exchange of information between the Society and any service providers involved with her as requested by the Society from time to time.
Access between the children and Mr. No, shall be in the discretion of the Children's Aid Society of the County of Dufferin.
The parties will proceed to resolve the custody/access matters currently pending before the Superior Court of Justice.
d) In the alternative an order pursuant to R. 16(9) of the Family Law Rules specifying what facts are not in dispute, stating the issues and giving directions about how and when the case will go to trial.
Procedural History
[2] This matter took 14 months for a final determination on the Society's protection application. It is important to set out the history of this matter so the delay in resolution can be seen in some context.
[3] This child protection application began with the apprehension of the children pursuant to a warrant, from the care of their mother on December 17, 2012. The children were immediately placed in the care and custody of their father as the Society was able to designate his home as a place of safety. A child protection application was issued on December 19, 2012. That application sought an order that the children be placed in the custody of the father with access between the children and their mother to be as agreed between the parents.
[4] On December 20, 2012 the Honourable Justice T. Wolder made a temporary, without prejudice, order placing the children in the care of their father subject to the supervision of the C.A.S. of Dufferin under certain conditions. The matter was adjourned to a temporary care and custody motion on January 2, 2013.
[5] On January 2, 2013 the Honourable Justice D.B. Maund heard argument on the Society's motion and made an order placing the children in the temporary care and custody of the father subject to terms of supervision that applied to the father and separate terms and conditions that applied to the mother.
[6] Justice Maund also ordered that the Office of the Children's Lawyer appoint counsel for the two children. The matter was then adjourned on January 23 and again on February 13 for the appointment of the children's counsel to be confirmed.
[7] Well before May 1, 2013 Ms. J. Birchall was appointed and the matter was adjourned to a June 12 Settlement Conference.
[8] On May 27, 2013 the Honourable Justice J. Baldock in chambers addressed the mother's motion for leave to be heard on a Notice of Application and Constitutional Question for the "appointment of state funded counsel". The mother was granted leave to speak to the matter on June 12.
[9] On June 12 the Honourable Justice B. Pugsley set July 30 for the hearing of the constitutional question. On that day the Honourable Justice L.S. Parent heard the Attorney-General's request for an adjournment which was opposed by the mother. The motion was adjourned to September 23, 2013 for argument.
[10] On September 23 the Honourable Justice P.W. Dunn denied the mother's request for counsel to be appointed to act on her behalf.
[11] On November 6, 2013 the Society advised Justice Maund that they wished to bring a motion for Summary Judgment. The matter was adjourned to November 27 so that the mother could obtain legal advice about the procedure that would be followed and for the court to arrange a special date for the matter to be heard as soon as possible in 2014.
[12] On November 13, 2013 the Society amended their Application to seek an order that the children be placed in care and custody of the father subject to the supervision of the Society. This Amended Application was returnable November 27, 2013.
[13] On November 27, 2013 Justice Pugsley set February 11, 2014 as the date for the summary judgment motion.
Evidence
[14] It should be noted that prior to this application the parties had been involved in heavily contested litigation in the Superior Court of Justice. In the course of that litigation an order was made for an assessment pursuant to s. 30 of the Children's Law Reform Act. The mother proposed that Ms. Jan Schloss Registered Social Worker complete the assessment and she was retained. In the course of her work Ms. Schloss became concerned about the mother's mental and emotional well-being and she asked Dr. Olga Henderson to complete a psychological assessment for her use. That assessment report was completed on December 3, 2012 and was used by the Society in support of their position in this child protection application as is set out below.
[15] The Society filed the following evidence in support of their position:
a) The affidavit of Jeannette Main, child protection worker sworn December 20, 2012
b) The affidavit of Tiffany McCabe, child protection worker, sworn January 22, 2014 which attached Dr. Olga Henderson's psychological assessment of the mother and the Partial Parenting Recommendations of the assessor Ms. Jan Schloss dated February 13, 2013.
c) The affidavit of Tracey Morse, family support worker, sworn January 22, 2014.
[16] The father filed affidavits dated February 22, 2013 and February 6, 2014.
[17] The mother filed the following affidavits:
a) the affidavit of her friend P.N. sworn December 19, 2012
b) the affidavit of her friend H.G. sworn December 19, 2012
c) her affidavit of December 20, 2012
d) her affidavit of December 28, 2012
e) her affidavit of December 31, 2012
f) her affidavit of March 6, 2013
g) her affidavit of February 6, 2014
h) the affidavit of her sister N.W-N. dated February 4, 2014
i) the affidavit of her sister Ro. No. dated February 4, 2014
j) the affidavit of her mother I.N. dated February 6, 2014.
Preliminary Issue
[18] Ms. Van Arnhem asked for an order removing certain exhibits from the mother's affidavit. These reasons need to identify which documents were removed so that the evidentiary record for this motion is clear. Ms. Van Arnhem asked that the following be removed:
a) Exhibits O, P, Q and R being transcripts of conversations that the mother had taped without the knowledge or consent of the father. Exhibit P dealt with a conversation that the mother was a party to but Exhibits O and Q dealt with telephone conversations that the mother had secretly taped between the children and their father.
b) Exhibits dealing with matters in the litigation in the Superior Court of Justice being exhibits G I J K L M N V.
c) Exhibits D being letters or reports from medical practitioners concerning the mother that for which the author had not sworn an affidavit.
[19] I ruled that Exhibits O, P and Q should be removed as not only were the tapes made illegally but the actual recording was not placed in evidence and the transcript was prepared by the mother and was not certified.
[20] I ruled that the affidavits from the Superior Court of Justice should be removed as they were not directly relevant to this child protection proceeding.
[21] I ruled that the exhibits relating to medical information should remain in the mother's affidavit. These reports were by medical professionals and with the exception of the letter from Dr. Mansour were all signed and dated and on letterhead. I required that Dr. Mansour confirm to the parties at a recess that the letter being tendered was written by him and he did so. It was not in the best interests of the children on a Summary Judgment motion to strike relevant evidence from third parties who had prepared records or reports as part of their professional responsibilities.
[22] Ms. Torry for the Society advised that the Society was now seeking more specific relief than was set out in the Amended Application. She said that while the Society had sought an order for access to the children by the mother in the discretion of the Society it now wanted a more detailed access order set out by the Court. The parties confirmed that the access at the time of the motion was as follows:
a) Access to the child Jo Na every Tuesday from 5:30-8:00 p.m. supervised by the mother's sister N. W-N.
b) Access to the child Ja Na was not occurring although there had been a Christmas visit supervised by the Society.
[23] The Society now proposed that access for Jo become unsupervised and that in addition to the Tuesday evening visit there now be a visit every alternate Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
[24] With respect to Ja the Society proposed re-unification counselling offered by the service known as Branching Out. If that was ordered the Society would contribute $3,000.00 to the cost of therapy which had an estimated total cost of approximately $8,000.00. The Society stated that if a re-unification therapist recommended access then the parties could try to seek an agreement on the terms of same or failing that bring the matter back to court for an Early Status Review.
[25] No party objected to the amendments sought and the Society was allowed to amend its Application accordingly.
[26] The mother was granted leave to file her Amended Answer.
The Position of the Parties
[27] The Society sought a finding that there was no genuine issue for trial. Ms. Torry asked the Court to make the orders set out above.
[28] Ms. Van Arnhem for the father said that he agreed with the position of the Society except that he thought that all access between the mother and the children should continue to be supervised by the Society and that Ja should not be required at this time to attend for assessment with the possibility of counselling with his mother.
[29] The mother sought an order of custody in her favour and a 3 month suspension of the father's access. She was advised that it was not open to the Court to make a custody order given the Superior Court order for joint custody that still existed.
[30] Ms. Birchall on behalf of the two children stated that she agreed with the position of the Society. She said that the child Ja Na had been clear and consistent in stating that he wanted no contact with his mother. She said that the child Jo Na liked living with his father but did want continued access to his mother. Ms. Birchall did not object to Jo Na's access becoming supervised by the mother's sister N W-N and she was open to the access becoming unsupervised if the exchange of the child was supervised.
THE LAW
[31] A motion for summary judgment is permitted in child protection cases. The governing rule is Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules. R. 16(6) reads as follows:
(6) NO ISSUE FOR TRIAL — If there is no genuine issue requiring a trial of a claim or defence, the court shall make a final order accordingly.
[32] The use of the word shall in Rule 16(6) means that if no genuine issue for trial exists the court has no choice but to grant the summary judgment.
[33] On a motion for summary judgment, the Court is required to take a hard look at the merits of the case to determine if there is a genuine issue for trial. The onus is on the society to show that there is no genuine issue for trial. Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. M.N., [2007] O.J. No. 1526 (SCJ) per Gordon J.
[34] In determining if there is sufficient evidence led by the parent, the question is not whether there is any evidence to support the position, but whether the evidence is sufficient to support a trial. CAS Dufferin v. J.R., O.J. No. 4319.
ISSUES
[35] There were two main issues to be resolved in this matter:
Was there a genuine issue for trial as to whether the children were in need of protection as that term is defined in s. 37 of the C.F.S.A.?
If the children were in need of protection was there a genuine issue for trial as to the appropriate disposition to be made?
PROTECTION FINDING
[36] There had never been a protection finding made in this matter. The file was adjourned on each occasion in court on the basis that the child would remain in care and that access would be supervised with time and location to be in the discretion of the Society.
[37] If the Society is unable to establish that the children are in need of protection under one of the subsections of s. 37(2) of the Act then the child must be returned to the parent from whom they were apprehended which in this case was the mother.
[38] The relevant sub-sections read as follows:
s. 37(2) CHILD IN NEED OF PROTECTION — A child is in need of protection where,
(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person's,
(ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child.
(f) the children have suffered emotional harm, demonstrated by serious
i) anxiety,
ii) depression,
iii) withdrawal,
iv) self-destructive or aggressive behavior or
v) delayed development
and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the children results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the children's parents or the person having charge of the children.
(g) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv) or (v) and that the child's parent or the person having charge of the child does not provide or refuses or is unavailable or unable to consent to, services or treatment to prevent the harm.
Child Protection History
[39] The parties separated in 2009. Between 2009 and 2012 there had been nine referrals made to the Dufferin Society and two referrals to the Peel Society. Seven of these referrals came from the mother. Of the seven, five were not investigated as they did not raise child protection concerns. The balance of the investigations identified the presence of a significant and escalating pattern of conflict between the parents over custody and access issues which created a risk of emotional harm to the children.
[40] In May 2012 the mother attended at the Society's offices looking for help in addressing the parenting dispute. The parties had a joint custody arrangement at that time with week about time sharing although since separation the children had in fact resided more with their mother than with the father. The mother told the worker that Ja had been pestering her to let him live with his father and she was having so much trouble managing his behaviour that she let him stay there for six weeks. She then insisted on his return to her care two days before contacting the Society. She alleged that she was the victim of "parental alienation" and she insisted that her son Ja needed to be "de-programmed." She wanted support for terminating the father's access with Ja immediately to prevent further alienation. Her single minded focus that parental alienation is still occurring remains the dominant issue in this matter.
[41] The Society's current intervention with this family began on June 7, 2012 when the Society received a referral from the Vice-Principal at the children's school. She said that the mother had come to the school and made statements which raised concerns about her mental health and coping ability. They included "being at the end of my rope" and that "I feel like having myself committed". She also said "If I could kill myself I would, but I can't because of my children."
[42] A new investigation was initiated. Society worker Jeannette Main saw the children in the homes of both parents. In the mother's home Ja locked himself in his bedroom and resisted his mother's direction. When Ms. Main tried to talk with him he curled up under a blanket and did not productively engage with her though he stated that he wanted to live with his father and was unhappy with his mother. The mother admitted that she continued to struggle with the children's behaviours.
[43] When Ms. Main saw the children at the father's home both children were at ease and comfortable in the father's care. Ms. Main noted the clear difference in the presentation of the children in each parent's home. At the end of her investigation she concluded that the children were at risk of emotional and/or physical harm due to the mother's compromised mental health and coping ability.
Likelihood of Physical Harm
[44] The crux of the Society's case rested on demonstrating that the children and particularly Ja had suffered emotional harm as a result of his mother's pattern of behaviour. There was some evidence that the mother's inability to handle Ja's behaviour had led to her becoming potentially suicidal and to the children reacting in ways that put their physical safety at risk.
[45] The evidence of physical risk to the children included the fact that the mother admitted that Ja had tried to run away from her home and that he unbuckled his seat belt and opened the door when the car was in motion. The mother told the Society that she had to call 911 from her home as Ja was having a temper tantrum that would not end. Ms. Main was told by Ja that his mother had taken the door off of his bedroom as he was slamming it all the time. Ja had marks on his wrists that were a result of his mother holding him and scratching him when trying to get him to stay in his bed. The mother admitted to the worker that she was trained in restraint and that she would continue to restrain him for his own safety and to prevent him from "destroying the home". The mother expressed frustration to Ms. Main and asked whether she was just supposed to take it when Ja hit, kicked and punched her. The younger child Jo told the worker that Ja and the mother "fight often" and that when they fight it is his mother who starts it.
[46] Ms. Main said that the mother appeared to understand that the physical conflict in the home was escalating. She said she told the mother that she was concerned about the likelihood of accidental injury as a result.
[47] The incidents set out above need to be seen within the context of the mother's mental and emotional health at that time. The assessments reviewed below are relevant to the likelihood of accidental physical injury occurring.
Emotional Harm
[48] At the time of the motion the child Ja was refusing to have any contact with his mother. The child Jo did enjoy some contact though he clearly wanted to live with his father. There was no dispute that the children had expressed these views. A great deal of evidence was filed with respect to why the children were feeling the way that they were.
[49] The mother's consistent position was that the father was intentionally alienating the children from her. In fact she was the one who first contacted the Society about the children's behaviours and her belief that it was parental alienation. The mother clearly felt that the children were at risk of emotional harm. Most of the relevant facts were not in dispute. The children, particularly Ja presented with very challenging and aggressive behaviours at the mother's home. Those behaviours did not occur at the father's home, at school or anywhere else. The mother could not control the behaviours. She admitted this and she took the children to the emergency department, called 911 and attended at the Society all in aid of assistance in managing the children.
[50] The mother had a fixed belief that the father was alienating the children from her. Despite a number of interventions and assessments she was unable to see any other possibility for their attitude towards her and the behaviours that they displayed in her presence.
[51] The father said that the children were not a management problem in his home. He said that they had wished to live with him but he denied taking any steps to alienate them from their mother. He was convinced that the children's attitudes and behaviours were a legitimate reaction to the treatment that they had received at the hands of the mother and the children's observations of her very contentious parenting relationship with him.
Post-Separation Parenting
[52] The Society and the father filed evidence with respect to the impact of the separation and the subsequent high conflict between the parents upon the children. At the time of separation the mother left the matrimonial home and took the children with her to a women's shelter. She alleged that the father was both physically and emotionally abusive with her.
[53] Immediately after the separation the children primarily resided with the mother. The father had alternate weekend access and the mother expressed some frustration that the father would not take the children at mid-week times that she had offered. Litigation began in the Superior Court of Justice and in November 2010 the parties agreed upon joint custody with the children spending alternate weeks in each parents care. The father said that despite the order the mother insisted upon changing the time sharing schedule such that there had been five different schedules between the time of the order and the time of apprehension.
[54] Notwithstanding the joint custody order there was conflict between the parties about the children. The children were exposed to this tension particularly at access exchanges. Over time the children told the mother that they wished to live with their father. It appeared that when this did not occur the children, particularly Ja, began to act out at the mother's home and serious conflict developed between them which the mother could not manage.
[55] After Ja went to live with his father for six weeks in the spring of 2012 the situation escalated. It appears that both parents then sought a sole custody order in their favour. The litigation remained unresolved at the time of the December 17, 2012 apprehension although it is to be noted that Ja had been extremely reluctant to attend access visits and refused to engage with his mother.
[56] The agreements noted above occurred in the context of highly contested litigation. It appears clear that they were less about a meeting of the minds as to what was in the children's best interests and more about having some control over the resolution of litigation. The agreement for joint custody was reached on the eve of trial in November 2010. The litigation had become extremely emotionally and financially exhausting for both parties.
[57] It is to be noted that the psychological assessment of the mother was completed in December 2012 and the assessor's recommendations in February 2013. Even though both of those reports supported the children primarily residing with their father the litigation continued. In fact the mother filed as exhibits to her voluminous affidavit all of the letters of complaint that she had written about virtually every professional who had interacted with herself and her children. The mother made it very clear that she would not accept the opinion of anyone who disagreed with her. In most cases the mother initially sought out assistance and attempted to form an alliance with a professional such as the Society workers and the assessor only to become very angry with them and to accuse them of bias when they did not agree with her view that the children were being alienated from her.
The Psychological Assessment
[58] Ms. Jan Schloss was retained by the parties to do a s.30 custody and access assessment under the Children's Law Reform Act. The father stated that the mother had insisted upon using her as the assessor. In the course of her work Ms. Schloss became concerned about the mother's emotional and/or mental health and she sought a psychological assessment from Dr. Olga Henderson.
[59] Dr. Henderson's report was delivered on December 20, 2012. She noted that in the referral letter from Ms. Schloss the father was described as abusive and that he had alienated the child Ja from the mother. It was also noted that the CAS saw the mother's mental health as the problem and had no concerns about the father. The referral said "the father put up a good front and can influence people in authority". It appears that at the time of the referral Ms. Schloss had fully listened to the mother's concerns and by the wording of her referral letter she seemed to think that they had some validity. This is important as one of the mother's overriding issues is that no one will listen to her or properly evaluate the evidence that she has of parental alienation. When the referral came to Dr. Henderson it appears that Ms. Schloss was thinking that alienation had occurred. She wanted psychological assessments done on mother, father and father's partner as part of her investigation of the family dynamic. The Society filed the mother's assessment as part of their case. The mother filed a copy of the father's assessment as an exhibit to her February 6 affidavit.
[60] Dr. Henderson diagnosed the mother with alcohol abuse, adjustment disorder with anxiety and psychoactive substance abuse, dependent personality traits, borderline personality traits, and histrionic personality features. She also found that the child abuse potential inventory VI was significantly elevated which indicates that the mother
…has an array of personal and interpersonal characteristics that are similar to characteristics of the known physical child abusers…(which)… indicates an increased risk of physical child abuse.
[61] Dr. Henderson also reported that the mother's distress score was also significantly elevated which suggests a,
…high degree of personal distress and personal adjustment problems…reveals a pattern of feeling frustrated, sad lonely, depressed, worried, out of control, confused, upset, worthless and rejected as well as misunderstood and angry.
[62] The psychologist also noted about the mother:
…under stress when she becomes over stimulated or roused, her controls tend to deteriorate and she can become more aggressive, emotionally volatile and at times even inappropriate in her reactions.
[63] The mother felt that she was victimized by the psychological assessment simply because she told the "truth". Implicit in this is her suggestion that the father has continued to lie to or otherwise mislead any professional working with the family.
Follow-up
[64] To her credit the mother acknowledged that she had a problem with alcohol. In paragraph 48 of her affidavit of February 6 2013 she stated:
I have always been a social and occasional drinker but when I became unhappy and that stressed by these issues …(concerning the children and the father)…my drinking became worse and I was literally a functioning alcoholic. In November 2012 I gave up drinking entirely as it was affecting my ability to cope and making me depressed. In December when my children were taken I had a relapse in February and began again. In April 2013 I announced to Ms. Tiffany McCabe, my Family, the Court and my Employer that I was going to go into rehab and getting treatment. It was the right thing to do.
Since I was discharged from treatment I have not relapsed and have not been drinking. I have been doing blood tests to prove this which Dr. Mansour has been receiving. Complete abstinence from drinking alcohol has worked for me and I feel much better emotionally and mentally from this choice which I made on my own. I don't feel depressed and there is no risk to the children. I have a positive outlook on life and would like to resume a normal life with my children.
[65] The mother is to be commended for addressing her alcohol problems. It appears from her affidavit material though that this is the only issue that she will admit to that has impacted upon her parenting ability (although there is a reference in her affidavit to her recovery from mental health issues). It is impossible to know from the evidence filed the degree to which the mother's dependence upon alcohol and its impact on her parenting contributed to the estrangement of her son Ja from her. Certainly the mother feels that it explains many of her actions which have led to the child protection concerns. However, as the mother admits she was a functioning alcoholic and her drinking did not appear to significantly impact upon her education, her employment and her relationship with her own family. I am not able to conclude that by addressing this issue the mother has resolved the problems that have led to the children's attitude towards her. The issues are much more complex than that.
[66] One of Dr. Henderson's recommendations was that the mother obtain a psychiatric assessment and have a medication consultation. However while the psychologist felt that this would assist the mother in coping with her stressors she did not think that the mother would be open to any parenting recommendations. She concluded her report by noting the following:
…In her current state of mind, she would likely require a great deal of resource help with the children but even then she may not be able to tolerate or accept such assistance. She appears to be too stressed, too confused, or to anxious, to follow through with appropriate supports and expectations in this regard. She is certainly very reactive to the behaviour of the children which means that she is unlikely to follow through with any advice which (s)he received around their management of the present time. She's certainly very reactive to their behaviours and is very much focused on "protecting them" from what she perceives as their father's negative influence which from her perspective, contributes to the children's alienation from their mother.
[67] The mother has seen a psychiatrist and filed a letter from both him and from her family doctor. Those letters can only speak to the mother's mental health. They are not in any way assessments of her ability to parent. The only professional opinions before the Court that address the mother's ability to parent are the reports of Ms. Schloss and Dr. Henderson.
Conclusion on the Finding Issue
[68] I find that there is no genuine issue for trial on the issue of whether the children should be found to be children in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2) of the CFSA.
[69] There is ample evidence that the parties highly conflicted relationship has had an emotional impact upon their children. Both parents acknowledge that the child Ja refuses to see his mother and displays anger and aggression towards her. They disagree about why their son acts in this way. The mother feels her son has been emotionally damaged by being alienated from her by his father. The father does not explicitly agree that Ja has been emotionally damaged as he says that the child's statements and behaviours are understandable given the mother's actions.
[70] I find that for this young child to completely reject a parent is evidence that that child has been emotionally harmed and that emotional harm has been caused by the actions of one or more of his parents.
[71] I find that given the level of hostility that Ja displays and the physical conflict that has already occurred between mother and child that there is risk of the likelihood of physical harm to the child.
DISPOSITION
[72] Once a child protection finding has been made the Court is required to make a disposition under s. 57 of the said Act.
[73] The Society seeks a placement with the father subject to a supervision order for six months. The father and the children's lawyer agree with such a disposition although the father disagrees upon the terms of the mother's access.
[74] The mother seeks a custody order in her favour and an order for no access to the father for a period of three months. As there is an existing joint custody order made in November 2010 by the Superior Court of Justice this Court has no jurisdiction to award custody to either party under s. 57.1 of the Act. The Court could order a placement with the mother under supervision if the facts warranted such a disposition which in this case they clearly do not.
The Children
[75] Ms. Birchall was appointed to act for the children in the winter of 2013. She stated that she met with the children on a number of occasions and spoke to the parties and other collaterals.
Jo
[76] Ms. Birchall stated that Jo was a well behaved boy who was very talkative. She observed a definite bond between the brothers. Jo was the more easy-going of the two. He had more of his mother's personality in that he does not require a lot of structure in his life which is very unlike his brother Ja.
[77] Jo was said to have a bond with both parents. At 7 years of age he accepts his mother's physically affectionate behaviour towards him. By contrast her "babying" comments and ruffling of the children's hair causes 10 year old Ja to become quite upset.
[78] Ms. Birchall said that Jo wants more time with his Mom as the access he had had until this point was for a very short time. While his mother's space is small Jo did not see that as a difficulty. While the father was worried about the mother's friends and her boarders, Jo got along well with friends and did not see other boarders come into their space.
[79] Jo does not want an overnight visit at this time but he feels safe without a supervisor present.
[80] Ms. Birchall said that there is no evidence to support the mother's expressed concern that the father's influence will cause Jo to grow up just like his older brother. Jo still wants to engage with his mother and has not developed the negative attitude towards her that his brother has displayed.
[81] Ms. Birchall said that the father had good reason to move the children from the French immersion program where Jo was struggling. He is doing better academically in his new school although he does have an individual education plan and is not as strong academically as his brother. Ms. Birchall saw Jo in his father's home and said that he was doing very well there. He had lots of friends. She said that she was supportive of a disposition that moved the mother's access to daytime Saturday.
Ja
[82] Ms. Birchall said that Ja had the more structured personality of the father. She opined that given their respective ages at the time, 6 and 3 respectively, that Ja may have been more affected by the separation. She said that Ja enjoyed school more than his brother and from the report cards filed this was reflected in his better marks. Ms. Birchall said that he appeared to thrive on routine.
[83] With respect to Ja's relationship with his mother Ms. Birchall said that it was difficult to watch Ja in the same room with his Mom. The child maintained a complete hands-off approach. He would not give his mother more than one word answers.
[84] Ms. Birchall said that Ja has no trust in his mother. Despite her efforts to forge a relationship with him he still perceives her as same person she was and he will not forgive her for actions that really upset him.
[85] The OCL lawyer noted that Ja was in mother's care when she was a functioning alcoholic. He remembers that she drank a bottle of wine a day. She notes that the mental health issues identified by Dr. Henderson were not being addressed at all when she was parenting the children. Ja has very potent memories of the chaos, the constant yelling and the extremely stressful atmosphere.
[86] When Ja went to live with Dad for six weeks in the spring of 2012 he found it to be a huge relief. He felt that he had escaped all of the stress. When he was returned to his mother's he was very upset.
[87] In general Ja did not feel that his mother listened to him or did what was best for him. He was able to describe to Ms. Birchall, as he had to workers, actions taken by his mother at the school, at the hockey arena and elsewhere that had embarrassed him.
[88] There were also two separate occasions in which the mother refused any further contact with him for extensive periods. As Ja was already acting out prior to what may be viewed as her rejection of him it is difficult to know how significant those periods were in his present view. However it appears that at the very least it played into Ja's view that his mother did not care about him and did not really love him.
[89] Ms. Birchall noted that the mother has taken some steps to deal with her issues. However it is her view from speaking with the child and interviewing collaterals that she will have to take it slowly with Ja in order to begin to repair the broken relationship. As Ja is very aligned with his father if the mother continues to take the position that the father is engaged in parental alienation her son will not engage with her. Ja wants his mother to apologize to him and acknowledge responsibility for her actions.
[90] Ms. Birchall was supportive of re-unification counselling occurring. However like the Society she felt that there would need to be an assessment of Ja before counselling involving both child and mother could begin.
The Mother's Evidence
[91] The affidavits filed by the mother and her family and friends address the history of her parenting and speak to her strengths as a parent.
[92] The mother's sister N W-N had been approved by the Society as a supervisor for the mother's visits when they moved outside of the Society offices. She filed an affidavit in which she noted that she was very close to her sister. She and the mother had children who were similar in age and they had each taken 5 ½ years off work to raise their children.
[93] N W-N said that raising their children together was the best part of her life. She described in detail the mother's skills in initiating fun activities for the children. She said that her sister is "a very caring and involved parent of her children". She said that her sister is very close to her children as well.
[94] It should be noted that the affidavit of Society worker Tracey Morse at paragraphs 15-24 set out a number of examples from access visits that showed that the mother could be quite creative and imaginative in her interaction with her sons.
[95] N W-N said that she started noticing changes in the boys shortly after separation when they were only 3 and 6 years old. She said that when they returned home from their fathers Ja was not his affectionate self. Jo would scream and cry when he had to go back for his week with his father.
[96] By Christmas 2011 N W-N stated that Ja had become avoidant of her, her mother and her sister. She said it was like he was scared to show emotion or feeling around the mother's family.
[97] N W-N noted the aggressive behaviours exhibited by Ja with his mother in 2012. Ja said in her presence "I hate my mom, I want to go and live with my Dad". She said that Ja told her that his father told him to act this way.
[98] N W-N stated that despite her best efforts the father has refused to allow the children to have any relationship with the mother's side of the family. In short, she was clearly of the view that the father was alienating the children from their mother.
[99] Ro No the mother's other sister swore an affidavit to similar affect. She spoke of a close relationship with her nephews that changed after their parent's separation. She said that Ja had a "dark cloud" over him "and he was petrified to show any emotions or love for any of us". She also reported that Ja would have tantrums and scream that he wanted to live with his Dad.
[100] I-N the maternal grandmother swore an affidavit. She addressed her grandsons' relationship with her during the parties marriage, during the separation prior to the apprehension and after the December 2012 apprehension. She spoke of how close the mother was with her sons and how after the separation the children particularly Ja began to turn against her side of the family and how the father will not permit any contact between the mother's family and the children.
[101] In summary the mother's evidence was that she had a strong relationship with both children at the time of separation in 2009. It was unclear from the totality of her evidence as to when she believed that the father tried to alienate the children from her. The affidavits of her family members suggest that the alienating behaviour began from the outset of the separation. Yet the mother's material and her submissions traced a change in the father's attitude towards her which resulted in alienating behaviour at the time that she sought sole custody in 2011.
[102] The mother recognizes that there has been a rupture in her relationship with her son Ja. She blames the father for Ja's behaviour and does not see that she had any role in it. While she accepts that she had an alcohol problem and makes reference to mental health difficulties from which she is recovering it appears that she did not identify either issue until the psychological assessment was conducted in November 2012. She takes the position that since then she has sought help and she has no ongoing issues that would impact upon her ability to parent.
[103] The mother notes that at the time of the separation the children primarily resided with her. Even after the November 2010 joint custody week about order the schedule was changed on a number of occasions and it appears that all the changes resulted in the children spending more time with the mother than with the father (with the exception of the six weeks in the spring of 2012 when the boys lived with father). The mother states that the father did not want the children with him in the early stages. She states that even after he obtained the week about schedule the father fell back to an alternate weekend pattern because he did not want the children that much. This view appears to contradict her assertion that the father wanted to turn the children against her as she alleges that the father wanted less, not more, time with his sons.
[104] The mother states that the father's efforts to alienate the children are purely vindictive. She believes that he was angry with her reports to the Society about what she says were his unsafe actions with the children and angry about having to pay child support to her. She feels he was successful in alienating Ja from her and is now working on doing the same thing with Jo.
[105] The mother has become very frustrated with the fact that not one of the professionals involved with this family (which including Society workers amounts to well over 20 people) believes that parental alienation is occurring. Most importantly Ms. Jan Schloss the assessor that the mother chose reported the following:
The Assessment revealed no determination of Parent Alienation by Father. There was however, a determination of Justified Rejection by …Ja… of Mother. Since the children have been resident with their father there have been no concerns of acting out or negative behaviours articulated by collateral professionals. Ja and Jo need time to settle into their current living arrangements while Mother follows through with recommendations as outlined in this Plan. Should behavioural or emotional issues arise in the future the children would benefit at that point from a psychological assessment by a mental health professional experienced in working with post separation high conflict families.
[106] I am not in a position to conclude on the evidence before me that there is no evidence of possible alienating behaviour by the father. I cannot completely reject the affidavits of the mother's family out of hand. However the only evidence of alienation comes from the mother and her immediate family. The parties have been involved in a high conflict separation that has taken a tremendous emotional and financial toll on all concerned including the families of the parties.
[107] There is no evidence from any other person that supports the mother's theory that Ja's total rejection of her is due to the father's alienating behaviour. In fact the assessor Ms. Schloss who spent a tremendous amount of time with both parents and with the children concluded that this was not a case of parental alienation but justified rejection.
[108] I conclude from the evidence that there is no genuine issue for trial as to the source of the mother-child estrangement. Ja absolutely refuses to spend time with his mother and is thriving in the care of his father.
[109] The mother's position has changed over time. At times she has stated that she only wants to have Jo live with her given Ja's attitude. At the time of the motion she took the position for the first time that she wants both children to live with her and to have no contact with their father for three months so that they can be de-programmed.
[110] The mother's position is clearly not in the children's best interests. It would be traumatizing for them to lose contact with their father. There is no genuine issue as to disposition in this matter. The only viable option is for the children to continue to live with their father and to have access with their mother.
[111] Short of the death of a child there can be no more agonizing circumstance for a parent than to be totally rejected by a child. The situations where this occurs all have their own unique set of facts. There are usually multiple factors involved and the use of such terms such as "parental alienation" and "justified rejection" does not mean that there is an objective set of criteria that has led to a firm conclusion. This is not to say that the labels are meaningless. I find that clinicians are generally very careful before attaching any label to a set of facts. Given that caution Ms. Schloss' opinion that this is not a case of parental alienation but one of justified rejection must be given a lot of weight. If this matter were to proceed to trial there would be no other professional evidence on the issue.
[112] The fact that there is no non family evidence that alienation is occurring here allows the Court to place the children with the father. The fact that he will be subject to a supervision order means that the Society will continue to have a responsibility to work with this family to address the outstanding issues.
Placement with Father under Supervision
[113] Given the high conflict in this matter the supervision order needs very specific terms. I find that the terms in the Society's Amended Protection application are not only appropriate but necessary.
[114] I will amend the terms sought in light of the Society's oral motion for same discussed above. Paragraphs 7 and 15 relating to access shall be deleted. Terms will be added for access and for assessment/counselling as set out below.
Access
Jo
[115] There is no doubt that the child Jo enjoys spending time with his mother. Until quite recently her access was only 1.5 hours per week at the Society's offices. It then moved to 2.5 hours a week first at the Society's offices and just recently at the mother's home supervised by the mother's sister N W-N.
[116] The Society is now prepared to add alternate Saturday daytime access to the Tuesday evening access. The Society is prepared to have that access unsupervised but is concerned about exchanges between the parents. Ms. Birchall also supports the expansion and the move to unsupervised access.
[117] The father opposes any access that is not supervised. He expressed concern in his affidavit for the tenants in the mother's home and wanted background checks done on them before his child would be allowed to visit. He also said that the mother's family were too enmeshed in the conflict and that their lack of neutrality would mean that Jo could regress from the progress that has been made since December 2012.
[118] The father states that the mother has not sought effective treatment for her mental health issues and has not accepted her role in Ja's estrangement from her. The father's position is that until the mother takes such steps access should remain supervised.
[119] While I agree that the mother has not accepted any responsibility for Ja's attitude towards her I find that this is not a sufficient reason to deny Jo unsupervised time with her. If the concern is that Jo will become as emotionally damaged as his brother to the point of rejecting his mother the solution is not to restrict his time with his mother to supervised visits at the Society.
[120] I find that it is in Jo's best interest to have more time with his mother. He should see her at her home. He should be able to interact with her family. It will not assist him in developing a healthy relationship with his mother if he just sees her in a very time limited artificial setting at the Society.
[121] Ms. Birchall advised that Jo wanted the unsupervised visits. He is not yet ready for overnights. The father was concerned that if Jo was with his mother on alternate Saturdays that he would not be able to participate in soccer or participate in other family activities with his father and brother.
[122] The overriding concern of the Court must be to ensure that Jo establishes a good relationship with his mother. This is best done if he sees her frequently. The mother and the Society should be provided with information about extra-curricular activities and the mother should be able to take her son to his soccer games on the alternate Saturdays. If she does so she shall stay at least 50 meters away from father. Neither parent shall discuss the custody/access problems or the child protection issues, with any other person during the games or any public event. I am advised that as Jo is not playing hockey this year he does not currently have any Saturday activities that would impact upon access.
[123] There is the practical issue of the exchange of the child for access with his mother. The Society is prepared to facilitate exchanges when their offices are open. Therefore the child Jo will be brought by the father to the Society's offices by 5:15 p.m. every Tuesday evening. He will then leave so that the Society worker can release the child to his mother when she attends at 5:30 p.m. The child shall be returned to the father's home by the mother at the end of the visit at 8:00 p.m.
[124] On the alternate Saturdays the child Jo will be taken by the father to the mother's residence at 10:00 a.m. and he shall be returned by the mother to the father's residence by 4:00 p.m. At the time of the exchanges at the respective homes the party delivering the child shall not exit the car when dropping off or picking up. The party receiving the child Jo off shall not approach the other's vehicle. Neither parent will talk to the other during access exchanges.
[125] While I have considered allowing access to expand further if this next expansion goes well I have ultimately concluded that any other changes should await the Status Review in this matter. There is no history of co-operation between the parents and the Society is asking the Court not to leave access decisions in the Society's discretion given the conflict between the parties and the mother's current attitude towards the Society's involvement in her life.
Ja
[126] With respect to Ja I agree with Dr. Henderson that the children needed to settle in with their father. I also find that any possible access between Ja and his mother should await the determination of an assessment. I recognize that the father is not supportive of Ja being seen by an assessor given his son's clear and consistent views as expressed by his own counsel. The father appears to believe that Ja should be left alone to have a break from all of the stress.
[127] While there can be merit in giving a child in a high conflict separation an opportunity for a break from the conflict that break has already happened in this matter and nothing has changed. Also while there have been many professionals involved in this matter neither child has yet seen a counsellor. Everyone agrees that the children have been damaged by the conflict but to this point no direct therapeutic intervention has been attempted to see if some of the damage can be ameliorated.
[128] Ja is only 10. If he were sixteen the Court might have no choice but to accept his views and not try to impose any access upon him. In this case Ja must be seen as an emotionally damaged child. He is entitled to have the adults in his life make all efforts possible to address the damage that has been done.
[129] There is evidence that the mother has put a great deal of emotional pressure on Ja. Frustrated by his words and actions she has cut off contact with him only to want to resume contact a few weeks later. She has insisted in the presence of others that he display affection towards her. She has been observed to be emotionally distant at times towards him. She even took the position at one point that she would give up on Ja and "fight for Jo.."
[130] The mother-child estrangement issue here is likely much more complex than either parent understands. It requires the assistance of an experienced assessor/counsellor.
[131] The mother had been trying to get the children into counselling for some time. It is clear that the purpose for this proposed counselling was to deal with the father's alienation of them from the mother. Given this premise the father would not agree to counselling. Until very recently the Society had not agreed to counselling either.
[132] By the fall of 2013 it was clear that, whatever the reason for it, Ja's absolute refusal to engage with his mother and his very negative and aggressive attitude towards her should be addressed. Based upon some urging from Justice Pugsley the Society did consult with Dr. Finlayson who reviewed the file with the Society and recommended re-unification counselling that would begin with an assessment of Ja and a determination by the assessor as to whether he was ready for counselling with his mother at that time.
[133] I find that it is very disturbing that Ja has totally rejected his mother. I have found that the children are at risk of emotional harm. They may appear to be doing well in every other aspect of their life but if Ja continues to harbour these intensely negative feelings about his mother it will inevitably have an impact on his entire life. I find it is in his best interest of Ja that every effort be made to try and change the mother-child relationship.
[134] While the overall acknowledgement that Ja should be seen by a professional was welcomed by the mother she was upset that Dr. Finlayson felt able to comment upon what was required without meeting with the parents or the children. Once again a professional had not accepted her premise that the only problem with her son was that his father was alienating him from her. There had been efforts to identify an assessor/counsellor and the Society was prepared to support the Branching Out service. At the time of hearing the parents had not agreed to that service being involved.
[135] Obtaining counselling for Ja will not be an easy undertaking. It is clear that for both parents the focus needs to change from trying to identify the source of the problem to taking steps to work on a solution. The time for blaming each other is over. The child Ja has been emotionally damaged and there is a very real risk that the same thing may happen to the child Jo.
[136] Both parents must take responsibility for the mental and emotional health of their son. This means that both must support Ja's assessment with a view to re-unification counselling with his mother. They cannot waste time arguing about whether the assessment is needed because of parental alienation or because Ja has legitimate reasons for his feelings. The Society is prepared to financially support a process through Branching Out. The parents should both accept this assistance and begin the process as soon as possible.
[137] As I have no information about the process other than it might cost about $8,000 of which the Society states that it is prepared to pay $3,000 I cannot make a specific order that the parents attend. However I will order the Society to serve and file the information needed for the Court to make an informed decision on the issue. I am satisfied that the Society in consultation with Dr. Finlayson will be able to put before the Court the best therapeutic approach to the mother-child estrangement problem. I am also convinced that the parents will be unable to organize what is needed without the Society's and the Court's assistance.
[138] Therefore this matter will be placed upon the Society's regular Wednesday list at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday March 26, 2014. By March 12 the Society will serve and file an affidavit with the court attaching all of the particulars of the assessment/counselling service that they wish to engage in this matter. The parents will have until March 19 to serve and file one affidavit each addressing the financial terms of the service only. This does not mean that either parent has to financially contribute but it means that the Court will make a determination as to the payment of the costs of this service on the return date.
[139] I will make a final order for assessment/counselling. The identification of the counsellor/assessor and the terms of same will be the implementation of the final order and I find that I am not seized of that matter. Any justice of this court may hear submissions and make an order as referred to above on the return date of March 26, 2014.
ORDER
There shall be an order as follows:
1) The child Ja Na born […], 2003 shall be found to be in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2)(b)(ii), (f) and (g) of the C.F.S.A.
2) The child Jo Na born […], 2006 shall be found to be in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2)(b)(ii), (f) and (g) of the C.F.S.A.
3) The said children shall be placed in the care and custody of their father R. Na subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. Mr. Na shall provide the children with a safe and secure home environment, appropriate to meet their needs.
2. Mr. Na shall cooperate with the Society and shall follow the reasonable recommendations of the child protection workers.
3. Mr. Na shall allow the Society workers access to the home and to the children by way of both scheduled and unscheduled visits, and the Society workers shall have the right to meet with the children, independently, at home, at school or in the community.
4. Mr. Na shall meet with the Society workers, as requested, at mutually agreed upon times, at home or at the Society's office.
5. Mr. Na shall ensure that the children are adequately supervised at all times and shall make appropriate child care arrangements when unavailable to care for the children.
6. Mr. Na shall sign any consent forms or documents required for the release and exchange of information between the Society and any service providers involved with him and the children, as requested by the Society from time to time.
7. Ms. No shall cooperate with the Society and shall follow the reasonable recommendations of the child protection workers.
8. Ms. No shall meet with the Society workers, as requested, at mutually agreed upon times, at home or at the Society's office.
9. Ms. No shall advise the Society immediately with respect to any changes to her residence address, telephone number or any other contact information.
10. Ms. No shall not attend at the children's school, child care centre and extra-curricular or athletic activities, without prior written approval to the Society.
11. Ms. No shall continue to attend counselling for her mental health and personality disorder as recommended by the assessments of Dr. Henderson and Dr. Badoe.
12. Ms. No will continue to follow through with her alcohol abuse after care.
13. Ms. No shall sign any consent forms or documents required for the release and exchange of information between the Society and any service providers involved with her as requested by the Society from time to time.
14. The parties will proceed to resolve the custody/access matters currently pending before the Superior Court of Justice.
15.
a) Ms. No shall have unsupervised access to the child Jo:
i) every Tuesday from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. beginning Tuesday February 25, 2014
ii) every alternate Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. beginning March 1, 2014
iii) private telephone contact for up to 15 minutes between 7:00 and 8:00 p.m. every Thursday and alternate Saturday provided that the parties can change the dates and times upon 7 days e-mail notice to each other and the Society. No reasonable request for a change will be refused.
b) The exchanges of Jo for access shall be as follows:
i) Mr. Na shall bring Jo to the Society's offices by 5:15 p.m. every Tuesday evening. He will then leave so that the Society worker can release Jo to Ms. No when she attends at 5:30 p.m. The child shall be returned to Mr. Na's home by Ms. No at the end of the visit at 8:00 p.m.
ii) Mr. Na shall bring Jo to Ms. No's residence at 10:00 a.m. every alternate Saturday and he shall be returned by Ms. No to the Mr. Na's residence by 4:00 p.m.
iii) At the time of the exchanges at the respective homes the party delivering Jo shall not exit the car when dropping off or picking up. The party receiving Jo shall not approach the other's vehicle. Neither parent will talk to the other during access exchanges.
iv)
A) If Jo has a family holiday with Mr. Na outside of Orangeville on a Saturday visit day or Jo has a private special activity i.e.; family or friend's birthday party, then with at least 7 days' notice by e-mail to Ms. No and the Society Mr. Na may request that Ms. No give up that Saturday in favour of a make-up Saturday visit. This request shall not be unreasonably refused. This may result in Ms. No having two or more Saturday visits in a row.
B) If Jo has been registered in soccer or any other sport or activity that requires attendance every alternate Saturday in a public place then Ms. No and the Society shall be provided with the schedule. Ms. No shall take Jo to that activity during her time with Jo. However she shall stay at least 50 meters away from Mr. Na when there. Neither parent shall discuss the custody/access problems or the child protection issues, with any other person during the activity.
C) Mr. Na may cancel up to two Tuesday evening visits, on 7 days' notice to Ms. No and the Society, during the summer school vacation. These visits can only be cancelled if Mr. Na is taking Jo outside of Orangeville on a family holiday and he provides the particulars of same to the Society. These cancelled Tuesday visits will not be made up.
16.
a) There shall be no access by Ms. No to the child Ja with the exception of therapeutic access that may occur after an assessment of the child and as part of mother-child re-unification counselling as set out below.
b) This matter will be placed upon the Society's regular Wednesday list at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday March 26, 2014.
c) On or before March 12, 2014 the Society will serve and file an affidavit with the court attaching all of the particulars of the assessment/counselling service that they wish to engage in this matter.
d) The parents will have until March 19 to serve and file one affidavit each addressing the scheduling and financial terms of the service only.
e) A decision will be made by a different justice of this court as to the terms of the reunification assessment/counselling process at that time.
17. This matter shall be adjourned for a Status Review hearing on Wednesday August 20, 2014 at 9:30 a.m.
Released: February 24, 2014
Justice Philip J. Clay