WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice 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.
87.— (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.
87.— (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.
Court Information
Date: June 3, 2020
Court File No.: C71022/14
Ontario Court of Justice
Parties
Between:
Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto Fatima Husain, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
K.S. and R.B. Lauren Israel, for the Respondent, K.S. The Respondent, R.B., acting in person
Respondents
Heard: June 1, 2020
Justice: S.B. Sherr
Endorsement
Part One – Introduction
[1] This is the court's decision on a temporary care and custody motion regarding the subject seven-year-old child, T.S.B. (the child).
[2] The child was in the care and custody of the respondent K.S. (the mother) when the society issued its protection application on May 15, 2020. The society seeks an order that the child be placed in the temporary care and custody of his father, the respondent, R.B. (the father), subject to terms of supervision. It asks for a temporary order that the mother's access be in its discretion, such discretion to include the right to permit overnight access.
[3] The father consents to the society's request for the child to be placed in his care and the proposed terms of society supervision. He opposes the society's request that the mother have overnight access with the child. He proposes that she have day access three times each week for two hours, or if access takes place less frequently, for four hours each visit.
[4] The mother asks for an order that the child be placed in her temporary care and custody, subject to terms of society supervision. She proposes that the father have access with the child each week from Thursday at 5 p.m. until Sunday at 5 p.m. In the alternative, if the child is placed with the father, she asks for access on alternate weekends and for three visits during the week.
[5] On May 19, 2020, on a without prejudice basis, the court placed the child in the temporary care of the father, as a term of the adjournment of this motion. The court ordered that the mother have frequent day access, for four hours each visit, pending the return of the motion.
[6] This motion was conducted by teleconference. The court read two affidavits from the society, two affidavits from the mother and an affidavit from the father. During submissions, the society advised the court that the father had been involved in a domestic conflict incident with his partner over the prior weekend. The court was provided with two police reports. The father was permitted to give oral evidence to respond to them. The parties were also given the opportunity to make additional written submissions regarding this incident by the end of the day. Only the society made submissions.
[7] The legal issues for the court to determine are:
a) Has the society met its onus under the Child Youth and Family Services Act 2017 (the Act) to establish that the child cannot be adequately protected in the mother's care through terms of supervision?
b) If not, what terms of supervision should be ordered and what access order for the father is appropriate?
c) If the society has met its onus, is it in the best interests of the child to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to society supervision?
d) If the child is placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, what access order for the mother is appropriate?
Part Two – Background Facts
[8] The mother is 42 years old. The father is 44 years old. They lived together from September 2012 until August 2014. They are the parents of the child.
[9] The mother has another adult child who does not live with her.
[10] The father has another child, age 4, who lives with him and his partner.
[11] The mother and the father both have a long history of involvement with child protection agencies.
[12] The mother's child protection history goes back to 1999 with her first child. The protection concerns were about her inappropriate physical discipline of that child, her challenges in managing his behaviour and struggles with her mental health.
[13] The child was removed by the society from the mother's care from June 3, 2014 until July 3, 2014. The protection concerns involved the mother's mental health, domestic violence with the father and the mother's struggles in managing the child's needs. The society's protection application was withdrawn in 2015.
[14] The child was again removed from the mother's care by the society in May 2017 due to concerns about her mental health, her domestic conflict with the father, concerns about the father's criminal history and concerns about the parents' ability to manage the child's behaviour. The child was returned to the mother, subject to society supervision, on July 5, 2017. On October 11, 2017, on consent, the child was found to be a child in need of protection pursuant to clauses 37(2)(f), (f.1), (g) and (h) of the Child and Family Services Act. A final order was made placing the child with the mother for six months, subject to society supervision. The father exercised regular access with the child.
[15] On August 29, 2018, on the status review application, the parties consented to a custody order in favour of the mother pursuant to section 102 of the Act with access to the father to be as agreed upon by the mother and the father.
[16] The father has also been involved with the society regarding his other child. That child was removed by the society from the care of her mother. Protection concerns about the father in that case were similar to those in this case – domestic violence, his criminal history and failure to follow court orders. The court eventually made a custody order for that child in favour of the father pursuant to section 102 of the Act, after the father had complied with the terms of a supervision order.
[17] On June 18, 2019, the mother was violently assaulted in her apartment (the assault). The assailant was someone known by both the mother and the father. The mother was left unconscious. The child was at home. He did not see the assault but heard it happen. The mother was hospitalized until July 8, 2019. She asked the father to care for the child.
[18] In August 2019, the mother asked the father to have the child returned to her care. He refused.
[19] In October 2019, the father was hospitalized for meningitis and asked the mother to care for the child. She kept the child when the father was released from the hospital. He asked that the child be returned to him. The mother refused.
[20] The father brought a motion to change the custody order in this court on October 31, 2019. The mother opposed this motion.
[21] A hearing of the motion to change was scheduled for April 16, 2020 but, due to the COVID-19 pandemic (the pandemic) and the direction of the Chief Justice of the Ontario Court of Justice, all trials have been adjourned. The matter was scheduled to be spoken to on August 7, 2020. It is now stayed pursuant to section 103 of the Act because of this protection application.
[22] The parties agree that the mother and the child were traumatized by the assault.
[23] The mother and the child have been engaged with several services to address their trauma and the mother's parenting.
[24] The society issued its protection application on May 15, 2020 arising out of concerns about the mother's mental health and her ability to manage the child's behaviour.
Part Three – Legal Considerations on Temporary Care and Custody Motion
[25] The legal test for the court to apply on this motion is set out in subsections 94(2), (4) and (5) of the Act that read as follows:
94(2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child:
(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part;
(b) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the society's supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate;
(c) be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the society's supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; or
(d) remain or be placed in the care and custody of the society, but not be placed in a place of temporary detention, of open or of secure custody.
Criteria
(4) The court shall not make an order under clause (2)(c) or (d) unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause (2)(a) or (b).
Placement with relative, etc.
(5) Before making a temporary order for care and custody under clause (2)(d), the court shall consider whether it is in the child's best interests to make an order under clause (2)(c) to place the child in the care and custody of a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child's extended family or community.
[26] At this temporary care and custody hearing, the onus is on the society to establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if the child is returned to the mother, it is more probable than not that he will suffer harm. Further, the onus is on the society to establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms of conditions of a temporary supervision order. See: Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., [2000] O.J. No. 2273 (Ont. Sup. Ct.). Simply stated, this is a two-part test that the society has to meet with respect to the mother.
[27] A court must choose the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child (subsection 1(2) of the Act). See: Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.D. and F.T.M., 2012 ONSC 2448.
[28] The degree of intrusiveness of the society's intervention and the interim protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk. See: CCAS of Toronto v. J.O.1, 2012 ONCJ 269.
[29] Subsection 94(10) of the Act permits the court to admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstance. In determining what evidence is credible and trustworthy, the evidence in its entirety must be viewed together. Evidence that may not be credible and trustworthy when viewed in isolation might reach that threshold when examined in the context of other evidence. See: Jewish Child and Family Services of Toronto v. A.K., 2014 ONCJ 227 at paragraph 18; CAS of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. S.S.H., 2019 ONSC 5365.
[30] The Act provides a clear pathway to determine where a child is to be placed after a temporary care and custody motion. Generally, the temporary care and custody hearing is not a best interests contest between the parents – unlike most temporary domestic motions.
[31] When following the statutory pathway in this case, the court does not even consider the merits of the father's plan for the child in the first step of its analysis. It only determines if the society has met the two-part test with respect to the mother, as she was the person who had charge of the child prior to society intervention under Part V of the Act.
[32] If the society does not meet its onus, the child must remain with the mother, with or without terms of supervision, even if placement with the father might be in the child's best interests. It is only if the society meets its onus that the court must then examine whether to place the child with the father.
[33] The reason for the different legal tests is that a child protection case involves state intrusion. This requires a higher threshold before the court will sanction the state's removal of a child from the parent having had charge of that child. At the temporary care stage of a child protection case the test is usually based more on risk than on the best interests of the child.[^1]
Part Four – The Two-Part Test
[34] The mother conceded in submissions that the first part of the two-part test was met by the society – that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if the child is returned to the mother, it is more probable than not that he will suffer harm. The mother focused on the second part of the test – submitting that supervision terms are adequate to protect the child in her care.
[35] The court finds that the society has met its onus on both parts of the two-part test.
[36] The court received little evidence about how the mother was parenting the child prior to the assault. The court draws the inference that the mother was parenting the child appropriately before then. The child has special needs and was in a special behavioural class. The evidence indicated that the mother worked cooperatively with the child's school.
[37] The mother's functioning deteriorated after the assault. She acknowledges that she has been traumatized by it. She was understandably afraid to return to her home and stayed in a shelter. She was taking medication for depression and anxiety.
[38] In August 2019, the society reported receiving many calls where the mother was highly agitated.
[39] Several services were arranged for the mother. Victim Services reported to the society that they arranged private therapy for the mother, but she missed some sessions. The society's Violence Against Women worker and the mother's Ontario Disability Support Worker tried to find alternative housing for her. The mother was able to connect with the Community Care Access Centre, who referred her to a personal support worker, physiotherapist, psychiatrist and a housing worker.
[40] The society worker reported that the child adjusted well to living with the father during the summer of 2019.
[41] On November 26, 2019, the child reported to his school that the mother hit him because he was bad. In a joint investigation with the police, the child said that the mother had spanked his bottom with a belt. The mother claimed that he tripped over an art easel. No charges were laid, but the mother was cautioned about using inappropriate physical discipline.
[42] The child's functioning deteriorated after he returned to the mother's care in October 2019.
[43] The society received multiple calls from the child's teacher, principal and vice-principal setting out that:
a) The child was demonstrating escalated aggressive behaviour to staff and students.
b) The child was more sensitive and quicker to anger.
c) The child said that he wanted to die and that no one loves him.
d) The child had been calmer when he lived with the father.
e) The child's academics were suffering.
f) They were concerned about the mother's emotional stability as she spoke of panic attacks and would sometimes cry uncontrollably.
[44] The father deposed that early in 2020, the child started self-harming behaviour. He reported to the society that the child would scratch the back of his neck until it bled.
[45] In December 2019, the society referred the mother to the Priority Access program through Aisling Discoveries. The mother met with its therapist in February 2020 but missed the next two meetings. The therapist reported to the society that this program was not the best fit for the mother.
[46] The mother attended at Centenary Hospital to obtain her anti-depressant medication. The hospital crisis worker called the society on February 7, 2020 reporting concerns about the mother's mental health. She reported that the mother came in for medication but when asked for clarifying information, she became upset and left the hospital. The mother had told the hospital crisis worker that she would contact the family doctor, but never did.
[47] On March 30, 2020, the society worker spoke to a social worker and teacher at the child's school. They reported that the mother had been in distress, crying and incoherent, stating to them that the child was abusing her, hitting and beating her. They reported that the mother had calmed down by the end of the conversation.
[48] The mother began seeing a counselor at Access Boundaries in March 2020. On April 23, 2020 the counselor reported to the society that the mother had been very emotional, stating that no one cared about her and it would make sense if she killed herself. The society worker called the mother later, at which time the mother said that she was not going to kill herself.
[49] The mother also started Play Therapy with Playful Hearts Therapy. On April 26, 2020, the society received a call from the play therapist who had had a virtual session the day before with the mother and the child. She said that the mother had asked her if she had seen the child put a fist to her face. She said no. The mother then started screaming at the child, saying he did it all the time and was abusing her. The play therapist told the society that the mother struggles to regulate her emotions, is quickly heightened and that the mother and child trigger each other. She told the worker that at other times the mother can become calm and self-reflect.
[50] On April 28, 2020, the mother called the worker upset because the child had clogged the toilet and was urinating in the hallway.
[51] On April 30, 2020, the society received a call from the child's teacher saying that the mother had called him several times that day. The mother reported that the child had trashed the apartment and threw a table at the door because she tried to put him in a time out. The child's teacher was concerned about the mother's level of distress and expressed that she needed a break to take care of herself. The worker then spoke with the mother, who admitted that she was having a bad day. The mother suggested that the child stay with the father for a period of time as she knew she should stop yelling at the child and give him consistent messages.
[52] On May 5, 2020, the father reported to the society that he picked up the child from the mother's home and drove him to the hospital because the mother was concerned that his sugar levels were high. He said that he couldn't ascertain from the mother why she had doubled the child's insulin medication.[^2]
[53] This timeline demonstrates that the incidents were escalating in intensity and the mother's ability to care for the child was rapidly deteriorating prior to the society issuing its protection application.
[54] Although much of this evidence came from third parties, the mother did not deny the specifics of these incidents. Rather, she said that these interactions do not reflect the totality of her interactions with the child and these professionals.
[55] The mother filed letters from several professionals she is working with. They reflect that she is trying very hard to deal with her personal issues and her issues in managing the child's behaviour. She has been proactive in seeking services and is cooperative with the child's school and service providers. The issue in this case is not whether the mother would cooperate with terms of supervision – the court believes that she would. The issue is whether they are adequate to protect the child.
[56] Unfortunately, the evidence shows that the mother is presently in crisis and this has adversely affected her ability to care for the child. The court accepts the mother's submission that this crisis has been exacerbated by the isolation due to the pandemic – a fragile situation that has been made much worse.
[57] The court also accepts the mother's evidence that her mental health has suffered because she continues to live in the home where she was assaulted and does not feel safe there. Significant efforts have been made to assist her to find new housing. Through no fault of her own, the mother has still not been able to obtain new housing.
[58] The evidence shows that the child is suffering from his own trauma and from the mother's compromised parenting arising from her mental health challenges. His behaviour has seriously deteriorated and the mother is not able to adequately manage his behaviours at this time. The deterioration in the functioning of the mother and the child has accelerated since March 2020 despite intensive services being in place.
[59] The child is suffering emotional harm and is at high risk of suffering further emotional harm, and possibly physical harm, if returned to the mother at this time. Despite her best intentions, supervision terms are inadequate to protect the child in her care. She needs to stabilize her mental health issues before she will be able to adequately care on a full-time basis for the child.
Part Five – The Father
[60] Before making a temporary order for care and custody placing a child in the care of the society, the court shall consider whether it is in the child's best interests to make an order under clause 94(2)(c) of the Act to place the child in the care and custody of a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child's extended family or community. Here, that person is the father. See: Subsection 94(5) of the Act.
[61] The parties all agreed that if the two-part test was met against the mother, the child should be placed in the temporary care of the father.
[62] However, the court is not bound by this agreement and it must still assess if such an order is in the child's best interests.
[63] The court is not satisfied that it has the necessary evidence to make this order at this time, other than on a temporary without prejudice basis. The evidence raised concerns about the father that need to be further investigated and this aspect of the motion will be adjourned for the necessary evidence to be obtained.
[64] There are positive considerations that support a finding that it is in the best interests of the child to be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father. These include:
a) His parenting of his other child was good enough for the court to make a custody order pursuant to section 102 of the Act.
b) The society has had no concerns about his parenting of his other child.
c) The society observed that the child was comfortable in the father's home.
d) The child has a positive relationship with the father and the father appears able to constructively manage the child's behaviour.
e) The society reports that the child is doing well in the father's care.
f) The child was calmer when living with the father.
g) The mother chose to place the child in the father's care after the assault. She also proposed to the society that the child temporarily live with the father as recently as April 30, 2020.
h) No one is asking for the child to be placed in the society's care.
i) The court always prefers to keep the child out of society care if there is an adequate family or community alternative to care for him.
[65] However, the evidence raises concerns about the father, including:
a) He has had considerable involvement with the criminal justice system.
b) Multiple women have made domestic violence allegations against him, including the mothers of his two children and his current partner.
c) While the eyes of the court were on him, he could not control his temper and on May 30, 2020, was involved in a domestic dispute with his partner that involved the police.
The police occurrence report sets out that his partner called the police as she wanted him removed from the home and he was refusing to leave. He threw and broke a fan. She was afraid for her safety. No charges were laid at her request.[^3]
The report sets out that he was not forthcoming with any information and refused to provide his children's particulars.
d) He minimized this incident when explaining it to the court.
e) He is facing criminal charges for threatening. The court needs more detail about these charges.
f) The mother alleges that he unilaterally determines when she will see the child and has overheld the child.
g) The mother alleges that he is undermining her relationship with the child.
h) The mother alleges that his behaviour and threats to take the child from her have adversely affected her mental health.
[66] During the adjournment period, the court will want the society to:
a) Further investigate the domestic incident with the father's partner.
b) Interview the father's partner.
c) Assess the stability of that relationship.
d) Ascertain the nature and details of the criminal charges the father is presently facing.
e) Monitor the father's compliance with the supervision order.
f) Monitor how the father facilitates the mother's access with the child.
g) Interview the father's two sisters. The father attached unsigned letters that purported to be from them indicating that they would provide support for him. One of the father's sisters is a school principal, the other a teacher.
h) Assist the father in ensuring that the child can continue with his service providers.
[67] Before the court endorses the position of the parties to place the child with the father, the court wants to ensure that it is not moving the child from one unstable situation to another. Given the child's special needs and emotional struggles, this could cause him long-term harm.
[68] The court wants to emphasize to the parties that on the return date the court will not be reviewing its decision not to place the child with the mother – that decision has been made. The parties are put on notice that the court is prepared to place the child in the temporary care and custody of the society if it finds that it is not in the best interests of the child to be placed with the father and no other viable family or community plans are presented. The parties should be prepared to make submissions about this at the next court date.
[69] On a temporary without prejudice basis, the child will be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father subject to the supervision terms set out in the society's notice of motion.
Part Six – Access
6.1 Positions of the Parties
[70] The society seeks a temporary order that the mother have access to the child in its discretion, such discretion to include the right to permit overnight access.
[71] The father opposes the society's request that the mother have overnight access with the child. He proposes that she have day access three times each week for two hours, or if she exercises access less frequently, for four hours at each visit. He does not believe the mother is well enough to manage the child for overnight access and is concerned that overnights in the home where his mother was assaulted will emotionally harm the child.
[72] The mother asks for access on alternate weekends and for three visits during the week.
6.2 Legal Considerations
[73] Subsection 94(8) of the Act provides that where an order is made under clause (c) or (d) of subsection 94(2), the court may order access on any terms that it considers appropriate.
[74] In determining what order is appropriate, the court should consider the paramount purpose of the Act, being the best interests, protection and well-being of children and the secondary purposes of maintaining the integrity of the family unit, assisting families in caring for their children and recognizing the least disruptive action consistent with the best interests of the children (subsections 1(1) and (2) of the Act).
[75] In assessing best interests, the court should consider the relevant factors set out in subsection 74(3) of the Act. See: Jewish Family and Child Services v. H.B.S., [2012] O.J. No. 5055 (OCJ).
6.3 Analysis
[76] The parties agreed that the child has a close relationship with the mother and enjoys his visits with her.
[77] The father advised the court that the day visits with the mother are going well. The child told the society worker this as well.
[78] The child has been primarily in the mother's care for most of his life.
[79] It is in the child's best interests to maximize his time with the mother to the extent that she can manage her own mental health and the child's behaviour.
[80] The protection concerns about the mother parenting the child on a full-time basis are not as significant as when she will be parenting the child for shorter periods of time. Much of the pressure she has been facing in parenting the child should be reduced.
[81] Given the allegations of unilateral conduct by the father and the concerns about his ability to comply with court orders, it is in the child's best interests to set a fixed parenting schedule to ensure that the child's relationship with his mother is not compromised.
[82] The mother's responding material gives the court hope that she might be able to improve her mental health. When well, she has positive parenting qualities. The child's teacher said the following about the mother:
a) She has always ensured that the child comes to school each day, ready, with a good lunch, and with clean clothes.
b) She has always been available to support the child.
c) She ensured that the teachers were well trained to deal with the child's medical needs.
d) She always ensured that the school had what it needed to best set up the child for success.
e) She attended meetings regularly and always participated.
f) They were always able to reach her.
g) He has felt supported by her.
[83] The mother's case manager at Across Boundaries Mental Health Centre observed that the mother:
a) Has built a well-managed rapport with her.
b) Has been in consistent contact with her.
c) Is connected with their psychiatrist on a bi-weekly basis.
[84] The Access Boundaries program can also offer the mother access to a psychotherapist, and a social rehabilitation program that offers therapeutic, educational and health support.
[85] The mother's counselor at the AfriCaribbean Canadian Family Advocacy Centre indicated that she saw the child for three counseling sessions. Funding was stopped and the mother expressed a desire to start it again. The mother is engaged in on-line counseling with her. She observed that the mother:
a) Was willing to do the best to facilitate her healing process.
b) Was caring and attentive in her interactions with the child.
c) Has learned coping skills which she uses to help herself.
d) Is committed to the process. The counselor believes that the mother will continue to improve.
[86] There is no evidence, other than the father's conjecture, that the overnight visits taking place in the home where the mother was assaulted will cause the child emotional harm.
[87] This evidence informs the court that it is in the best interests of the child to increase the mother's access in stages as she continues to address her mental health issues. The first stage was the frequent periods of four-hour access the court ordered pending the return of this motion. This will be increased immediately to eight hours of daily access. After three weeks, the mother will have one overnight visit each week. After another three weeks, the overnight visits will be increased and extended.
[88] This graduated access order is based on the assumptions that the mother will continue to engage with her service providers and make progress. A motion to change the mother's access can always be brought if that does not happen.
[89] The court suggests (not orders) that the mother obtain a comprehensive psychiatric assessment. This will ensure that she is engaged with the appropriate services and will give her, the society and the court the best information to assist her. It will also give her the best opportunity to succeed.
Part Eight – Conclusion
[90] A temporary order shall go on the following terms:
a) On a without prejudice basis, the child shall be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, subject to the supervision of the society, on the terms and conditions set out in the society's notice of motion.
b) The issue of the placement of the child with the mother on a temporary basis has been determined. The child shall not be placed with her on a temporary basis.
c) The mother shall have access to the child at the following times:
i) Starting on Saturday June 6, 2020, every Saturday, Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 a.m. until 6 p.m.
ii) Starting on Saturday June 27, 2020, every Friday from 6 p.m. until Saturday at 6 p.m. and every Tuesday and Thursday from 10:00 a.m. until 6 p.m.
iii) Starting on Friday July 17, 2020, every other weekend from Friday at 6 p.m. until Sunday at 6 p.m. and every Wednesday from 4 p.m. until Thursday at 6 p.m. If this order is still in place when the pandemic lockdown is lifted and the child starts to attend school in person again, the mother shall return the child to school on Thursdays before the start of school.
d) The mother shall pick up the child at the start of visits from the father's home and the father shall pick up the child at the end of the visits from the mother's home, except if the mother is taking the child to school on Thursdays.
e) The parties are to communicate with each other respectfully and shall not expose the child to adult conflict.
f) The motion regarding placement of the child only is adjourned until July 10, 2020 at 11:00 a.m.
g) The society should serve and file any supplementary affidavits by June 30, 2020. The mother and father should serve and file any responding material by July 7, 2020. The society may serve and file any reply affidavit by July 9, 2020 at 2 p.m.
h) All affidavits shall be in PDF format. The documents filed by each party are to be attached to one email only and each affidavit shall be in a separate PDF attachment to the email.
i) The affidavits may be served by email and shall be filed by email to the trial coordinator at 47Sheppard.ocj.family.trialcoordinator@ontario.ca
Released: June 3, 2020
Justice S.B. Sherr
Footnotes
[^1]: There are circumstances where the best interests of a child are relevant to placement at a temporary care and custody hearing. Those include situations where the child is not going to be returned to the person who had charge of the child prior to society intervention under Part V of the Act and a community or family plan (or plans) are being assessed. Also, where there are multiple persons having had charge of the child prior to society intervention under Part V of the Act, those persons are on equal footing and the court will look at best interests considerations to determine temporary placement.
[^2]: The court placed much more weight on the evidence of the independent professionals as the father has a vested interest in the outcome.
[^3]: The report does say that this is the first domestic incident the police have regarding the father and his partner during their 20-year on and off relationship. A supplementary police report filed states that they have decided to continue their relationship and that the father's children were not present during the dispute.