Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-FO-96 DATE: 2020-03-25
WARNING
This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
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.
(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.
142 (3) Offences re publication — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
B E T W E E N:
Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk Applicant D. Clarke – Counsel for the Applicant
- and -
C.L. Respondent Mother J. Battin, Counsel for the Respondent Mother
C.S. Respondent Father W. Drescher, Counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer
HEARD: October 7, 8, 9, 10, 2019
The Honourable Madam Justice Walters
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
Brief Background
[1] This is a Status Review Application pursuant to section 113 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1, (the “CYFSA” or the “new Act”).
[2] On August 23, 2017, under the final Order of Justice Sherwood, the findings were made as follows:
(a) The children’s names and dates of birth are D.C.L.M.S., born […], 2015 and C.I.J.S., born […], 2015 (“the children”). (b) The children’s religious faith is none. (c) The children do not have Indian or Native Person Status pursuant to the Act. (d) The children were apprehended from the mother’s residence at A[…] Street, Delhi, Ontario. (e) The children’s mother is C.L. (f) The children’s father is C.S.
[3] These findings are made under the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, (the “CFSA” or the “old Act”).
[4] The Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk (“the Society” or “the CAS”) now seeks a final order for extended Society care without access to the parents, in order to place the two children for adoption. For ease of reading, I will refer to the parents as “the mother” and “the father” respectively, and the two children as “C” and “D” respectively.
[5] The mother seeks to have the children placed in her care, with a supervision order.
[6] The father has not participated in these proceedings. He was served by substituted service of the Application by Order of Justice Sherwood June 21, 2017. He did not file an answer. He did not attend the trial.
[7] The children have been in care since August 3, 2016, now almost 42 Months.
Issues
[8] The Court has been asked to decide the following issues:
(a) What disposition is in the children’s best interests? (b) Whether access is in the children’s best interests; and if so, (c) What the access should be?
[9] For the reasons that follow, this court finds that:
(a) The children, C.I.J.S., born […], 2015, and D.C.L.M.S., born […], 2015, shall be placed in extended society care pursuant to section 101(1)(3) of the CYFSA until the order is terminated under section 116 or expires under section 123. (b) The children shall have access to one another. (c) The children shall each have access to their three older siblings. (d) The children shall not have access to the mother or the father.
Previous Orders
[10] The following previous orders have been made in this matter:
(a) The temporary without prejudice order of Justice Sherwood dated August 8, 2016 placing the children in the care of the Society with access to the parents in the Society’s discretion and that the Office of the Children’s Lawyer be appointed to represent the children. (b) On November 16, 2016 Justice Sherwood made the Order of August 8, 2016 temporary. (c) On November 28, 2016, Justice Sherwood made a final Order. The following findings were made:
- the children’s names and dates of birth are C, born […], 2015; and D, born […], 2015;
- the children’s religious faith is unknown;
- the children do not have Indian or Native Person Status under the Act;
- the children were apprehended from the mother’s residence at A[…] Street, Delhi, Ontario;
- the children’s mother is C.L.; and
- the children’s father is C.S. The children were found to be in need of protection pursuant to subsections 37(2)(b)(ii) and 37(2)(g) of the CFSA. The children were made wards of the Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk for a period of six months. It was further ordered that the children shall have access to their mother and the father at the discretion of the Society as to location, duration, frequency and supervision. (d) The temporary Order of Justice Sherwood dated May 10, 2017, setting out reasonable access between all siblings (including the two subject children and their older siblings who are: E, born […], 2006; B, born […], 2007; and M, born […], 2010). (e) The final Order of Justice Sherwood dated June 21, 2017, ordering that service of the Status Review Application on the father shall be effected substitutionally by special service upon the mother, J.B. and S.C.. Time was extended to file Answers and Plans of Care until August 4, 2017. (f) The final Order of Justice Sherwood dated August 23, 2017, noting the father in default, granting findings previously made on November 28, 2016, dispensing with the father’s consent for any further Orders made in this proceeding and adjourning the balance of the Status Review Application to a summary judgement motion. (g) The final Order of Justice Edward dated February 5, 2018, found the children C and D to be children in ongoing need of protection. The issue of disposition was adjourned to March 12, 2018 at 10:00 a.m. (h) The final Order of Justice Edward dated March 12, 2018, ordered that C and D continue to be children in need of protection. The mother shall participate in bi-monthly, i.e. twice a month, drug testing for the next six months. The mother and her partner, Mr. D. (Mr. D) shall meet at least once a month with the worker. The mother shall permit the society worker bi-monthly, that is twice a month, unannounced visits to photograph and observe the state of the house. The society shall increase the mother’s access to C and D twice a week for four hours per visit for the next month, then once a week for four hours plus each Saturday from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. for the next month, that is the following month, with the Saturday visit in the mother’s home supervised by Mr. D, and then the following month, overnight access from Friday at 6:00 p.m. to Saturday at 4:00 p.m., again at the Respondent mother’s home supervised by Mr. D unless otherwise directed by the Society worker and unless otherwise ordered by the court. The matter was then adjourned to the ready list for trial. (i) Temporary order of Justice Kerrigan-Brownridge dated October 22, 2018, which varied the Order of Justice Edward regarding the mother’s access with the children as follows: (1) The mother shall continue to have access with the children twice a week for four hours per visit, with the location and supervision of that access to continue to be at the discretion of the society. (2) Thereafter, should the mother attend a minimum of three quarters of her scheduled access visits in the month of October, effective November 3, 2018, the Respondent mother’s access schedule will change, so that her monthly access will then consist of one visit per week for four hours, with the location and supervision of the access to be at the discretion of the society, and a second access visit every Saturday from 10:00 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. occurring at the Respondent mother's home and supervised by Mr. D, with the society permitted to make drop in visits during this access from time to time. (3) Thereafter, should the Respondent mother continue to attend a minimum of three-quarters of her scheduled access visits in the month of November 2018, effective December 1, 2018, the respondent mother's access schedule will change so that her monthly access will then consist of one overnight access visit per week, occurring in her home, supervised by Mr. D with that access to commence every Friday from 6:00 p.m. and last until Saturday at 4:00 p.m. or as otherwise agreed as to week-night and time between the Respondent mother and the society, with the society permitted to make drop-in visits during this access from time to time. (4) Should the Respondent mother fail to attend a minimum of three-quarters of her scheduled access visits in any particular month, her access shall not be expanded as scheduled for the following month, and instead she shall be obliged to continue on the same access schedule as she is on at that time until she attends a minimum of three-quarters of her scheduled access visits in a month, and only thereafter shall her access be increased as scheduled. (5) The matter was adjourned to a settlement conference on February 6, 2019. (j) Final order of Justice Thibideau dated November 28, 2018, removing B.C. as a respondent to the proceeding and adjourning the society’s motion to vary the existing temporary order regarding the mother’s access to December 5, 2018. (k) The temporary order of Justice Kerrigan-Brownridge dated December 5, 2018, varies the temporary order of Justice Kerrigan-Brown dated October 22, 2018 to provide that access to the children C and D by the mother shall be at the discretion of the Society as to location, duration, frequency and supervision and shall be pursuant to additional terms and conditions: (a) The mother shall maintain sessions with the society and shall attend all scheduled appointments with the society worker. (b) The mother shall provide the society with all of her current residential address, active telephone number, and any other mode of communication regularly used by the mother and shall forthwith or as soon as is reasonably possible thereafter notify the society of any change to such information. (c) The society shall have sole discretion as to the timing and scheduling of access, but shall make best efforts to consult with the mother in doing so. (d) The mother shall attend for access regularly and punctually, and should the mother fail to do so for three consecutive visits, the society may suspend the mother's access. (e) When the society has caused any access to be missed, including when the society has cancelled access for inclement weather or holidays, the society shall make up that access as soon as is reasonably possible; when the mother has caused any access to be missed, that access shall not be made up. (f) The mother shall not for any portion of access be in an intoxicated state, behave in a verbally or physically abusive manner towards the child or any other person, make any statement of an alarming or adult topic, including but not limited to self-harm and/or suicide, any court proceeding, or any negative statement about the society or any person. Should the society have reasonable cause to have concern with the mother's access, the society may suspend the mother’s access. (g) Should the society suspend the mother’s access for any of the above reasons, the society shall inform the mother forthwith or as soon as is reasonably possible thereafter that her access has been suspended, and the society shall then meet with the mother at the earliest possible opportunity to explain its reason for suspending access and then develop a plan with the mother so that the reason for suspension can be addressed and resolved. Should such a plan be developed to the society's satisfaction, the society shall immediately reinstate the mother’s access. For the purposes of clarity, the society shall be permitted to continue the suspension of access indefinitely pending a meeting with the mother.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
CAS
[11] The Society seeks an order placing the children in extended Society care without access to their parents. The Society argues that the father has not participated in this proceeding nor has he had access with the children. The mother is at a better point now than she has ever been since the children came into care, but even where she is now, is not sufficient to keep the children safe. The children continue to be in need of protection due to the mother’s substance use, ongoing mental health issues, inability to maintain a proper residence for the children, her poor choice in partners, her inability to follow through with court orders (drug testing) and her lack of regular attendance at access. The Society’s position is that the children cannot be safely placed in the mother’s care, that there are no viable kin options, and that the least disruptive alternative for the children is to be placed in extended Society care.
[12] The Society argues that these children have been in care for most of their lives and the only option the court has open to it is to return the children to their mother or place them in extended Society care.
[13] The Society further asserts that access by the children to their mother is not in their best interests and so advocates that there be an order for no access. The Society also argues that there should be access between the children and their three older siblings.
Mother
[14] The mother seeks an order that the children be returned to her care with a supervision order. The mother argues that the children are not in need of protection from her. She has addressed all of the Society’s concerns. She ended her relationship with the children’s father. She moved to another town to rid herself of the temptations around substance abuse. She has been involved in a stable relationship and her partner is a support to her. She is employed full-time and she has been addressing her mental health through regular appointments with a psychiatrist.
[15] The mother further advises that she has dealt with her substance abuse issues and that as a result her mental health has stabilized.
[16] The mother admits that she has not attended all of her access visits, however, that was due in part to moving outside of the jurisdiction. Now that she has secured a vehicle, she has missed fewer visits and when she does attend, the visits are positive.
Father
[17] The father did not participate in the trial and he did not testify. The father did not file any material in this proceeding.
The Office of the Children’s Lawyer
[18] At the commencement of trial, Mr. Drescher, counsel for the two children, asked for the Court’s permission to be excused from the trial. He indicated that he had very little to add to the trial given the children’s young ages. He indicated that these children refer to the mother as “other mother”. They do not remember a time when they lived with her. They consider the foster mother to be their mother as they have resided there since they were apprehended from the mother’s care in August 2016, making C approximately 19 months and D approximately 10 months of age, when they were placed in foster care.
[19] C and D have not been able to share their views and preferences given their young ages and it was Mr. Drescher’s position that he could not provide any further information to the court in that regard.
[20] Mr. Drescher was excused from the trial upon receipt of his submissions. This was on consent of the Society and the mother.
WITNESSES AND PROCEDURE
The Society’s Witnesses
[21] The Society called the following witnesses. Their evidence will be commented on below:
Islay McFadden, family service worker – CAS of Haldimand & Norfolk Brandi Bertling, children services worker – CAS of Haldimand & Norfolk Jennifer Harrop, access supervisor – CAS of Haldimand & Norfolk Terry Stratford, family finding worker – CAS of Haldimand & Norfolk Mary Ann Barker, access supervisor – CAS of Haldimand & Norfolk Jill Blair, social worker at Woodstock General Hospital Dr. Amanullah, psychiatrist at Woodstock General Hospital Foster mother
General Comments About the Credibility of the Society’s Witnesses
[22] I make the following general comments about the credibility of the witnesses called by the Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand & Norfolk and make more specific comments where relevant below.
[23] In general, I found the testimony of the workers called by the Society to be credible and believable.
[24] Overall, the workers testified in a straightforward manner, to the best of their recollection, consulting with their notes where they were unsure of their answer (except where they did not have all of their notes with them). I found the workers’ testimony to be balanced, not only in identifying concerns but also confirming that the mother could be loving and appropriate on visits and that visits could be positive.
[25] Having said that, I noted that the family visit worker, Jennifer Harrop, who supervised a number of visits, testified that the mother is very engaged with the children, she brings nutritious food for them to eat during their visits and she is prepared with crafts and activities. Ms. Harrop testified that the children are very busy and that caused some concern for her in supervised visits with the mother in the community. There were occasions where the mother had trouble keeping both children in her sight. One example Ms. Harrop gave was during a visit where one child ran away and out of sight. Ms. Harrop also indicated that some days the mother was more engaged than others. The greatest concern Ms. Harrop had was the number of missed visits and the mother’s lack of problem solving. One example of the mother’s inability to problem solve was when the mother cancelled a visit because it was raining too hard for her to drive to access.
[26] The mother has three older children with another father. Those children (E, B and M) were initially part of the application with these two children but was resolved before trial. During this trial the mother testified that her access with her three older children has never progressed from unsupervised. In her testimony she stated that she tries to see them once a week but it depends on the grandparents’ schedule so they can supervise the visit.
[27] Islay McFadden, a child protection worker for the Society, gave the most extensive evidence in the trial. She has worked with the mother from December 2016 until the trial commenced in October 2019. I found her evidence to be even-handed and balanced. Ms. McFadden acknowledged that when the mother attended access, the visits went well, but she was worried about the mother’s struggle to problem solve. One example she gave was the mother’s inability to address the bed bug issue in her home which did not allow for the expansion of access to overnights. Ms. McFadden also testified that the mother continued to miss access visits, even when she purchased a vehicle, and she has never asked for more visits with the children.
[28] Ms. McFadden acknowledged the mother’s positive steps towards addressing her mental health. One of her biggest concerns is the length of time that the children have been in care; it was 1,157 days when the matter went to trial, and the mother continues to struggle with attending visits regularly and managing herself to the point where she could care for the children full-time.
[29] Ms. Bertling is the children’s services worker who has been involved with the children from August 4, 2016, until trial. Like Ms. McFadden, she gave her evidence in a balanced manner. She was knowledgeable about both children. Ms. Bertling was able to acknowledge that the mother brings appropriate supplies for the children when she visits with them.
[30] She attended trial with her notes and indicated that the children are meeting their milestones and are on track developmentally. It was her evidence that the children are not aware of the possibility of going to live permanently with the mother. They are used to visiting with her and they have no recollection of residing with her. If they were to go live with her they would likely be confused and upset. It was also Ms. Bertling’s evidence that when visits are cancelled with the mother it is not an upsetting issue and the children usually just go on with their day.
[31] The court had no difficulty with the evidence of Ms. Jill Blair, a social worker from Woodstock General hospital. Ms. Blair testified to the events that led to the mother being admitted on November 9, 2018 to hospital, following a suicide attempt after taking too many Tylenol tablets mixed with alcohol. Although Ms. Blair did not bring her notes with her, her recollection of the mother’s time in hospital was credible. A report that she prepared was also filed in the Society’s document brief which was marked Exhibit “1”. Ms. Blair testified that, on discharge, the mother continued as a voluntary patient and had the support of Canadian Mental Health Services through the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”).
[32] V., the foster mother, testified. The court had no difficulty accepting her evidence. She genuinely appears to love the children. She has welcomed them into her family since they came into care and it was the foster mother’s evidence that she and her husband are willing to adopt the children should they become available to be adopted. The foster mother testified that they already have a child whom they have adopted and they have maintained a relationship with her biological family. Should they be able to adopt these children she agreed that she would continue to support the relationship between the mother and the children. The foster mother also testified that she would support a relationship between the children and their three siblings (E, B and M).
[33] There were two access workers who testified, Mary Ann Barker and Jennifer Harrop. Both witnesses testified that the mother’s supervised visits were positive. The children have been described as “go go go” and at some visits this proved challenging for the mother. Visits were never cut short as that would be a last resort and was not necessary.
[34] The court found the testimony of Dr. Shabbir Amanullah, the mother’s psychiatrist, the most compelling. He first saw the mother on November 11, 2018 when she was admitted to the hospital for an overdose. The mother explained to him that she had overdosed as she was overwhelmed because her children had been taken away. He testified to the mother’s mental health and her treatment goals. He indicated that he is a very busy professional and although he would prefer to see the mother monthly, he can only see her once every three months. He has established a plan with her if she should need help sooner and that would involve going to his clinic.
[35] Dr. Amanullah testified that he had recently written a note to allow her to take a leave from work because the mother had disclosed that she was overwhelmed with court and anxious.
[36] Dr. Amanullah testified that he would want the mother to continue to access support through a community agency. He also testified that he would be concerned if the mother were to begin using any form of cannabis without talking to him first. He went on to testify that so little is known about the impact of marijuana on mental illness or its reaction to other medication.
[37] Dr. Amanullah indicated that it would be important for the mother to share her complete history with him in order for him to treat her. If anything is withheld he testified that it puts him in an awkward position.
[38] When the Society’s counsel cross-examined Dr. Amanullah, he testified that he would be concerned if the mother stopped counselling. He recommended that the mother continue attending counselling especially since he cannot see her monthly.
The Mother’s Witnesses
[39] As set out below, the mother testified. She also called her partner, J.D., and Trish Freeman, her CMHA counsellor.
General Comments About the Mother and Her Witnesses
[40] Mr. D. testified. He and the mother have been in a relationship for approximately two years. He is 24 years old and he has a criminal record for two assaults and a drinking and driving charge. He is currently on probation until July 2020, for an assault that occurred in the presence of a child. At the time of the assault, he did not know that there was a child present.
[41] He testified that he and the mother do not fight. In November 2018, the mother was upset and mentioned about harming herself. Mr. D. called his mother for help and he took the mother to the hospital to have her admitted. He testified that they were both drinking at the time and he was not aware that she had had that much to drink.
[42] Mr. D. testified that he was aware that the mother had cut herself in April 2018. He grabbed a towel and wrapped it around her arm. He could not get her to go to the hospital in April 2018 and that is why he said in November 2018 he forced her to go to the hospital.
[43] Mr. D. testified that he loves the mother and he is in the relationship for the long haul. He testified that he has attended a few visits with her children, but he does not know a lot about parenting. He also testified that it would be a big change for him, and he would have to take a parenting course to learn how to be a parent.
[44] Overall, I found Mr. D.’s evidence to be honest and forthcoming and I accept his testimony in that regard. He appears to genuinely care for the mother, and he is her biggest support. He testified that he has no parenting experience and he has had very little involvement with the children to date. If the children were to be returned to the mother’s care he testified that he would take a course to learn how to be a parent.
[45] Trish Freeman testified. Ms. Freeman has obtained a Bachelor in Social Work and she has been employed with the Canadian Mental Health Association for approximately 13 years. She has 14-15 years of experience working in the mental health field. Ms. Freeman came to know the mother when she referred herself to their services. Her role was to work with her on her substance use. The mother reported that everything was going well and that she was stable. Given their large waitlists, Ms. Freeman testified that it was not appropriate to keep the mother’s file open, so her file was closed.
[46] When Ms. Freeman was asked about the mother’s cannabis use, she described it as mild use and testified that it was not a concern for what she sees. She testified that her role is to be supportive, not to police the mother. She also creates her care plan from what the client tells her.
[47] When the Society lawyer cross-examined Ms. Freeman, Ms. Freeman indicated that she assists clients based on their self-reporting and they are not there to judge but to offer support. They have heavy workloads and once a client is stable they must close their file.
[48] As noted, the mother testified. In many respects I found her to be an articulate and thoughtful witness and a mother who cares about her children. She testified in direct examination about her struggle with substances, her poor relationship choices and her mental health issues.
[49] In hearing the mother’s testimony, I understand that she has had a difficult life. She completed Grade 11 and then moved out on her own. She had her first child at the age of 17. She went on to have two more children before she turned 22. Her three oldest children (E, B and M) are currently in the custody of their father and she exercises supervised access with them approximately once a week.
[50] Her two youngest children (C and D) were apprehended from her care in August 2016. She testified that at that time she was struggling with mental health issues, substance use and was in an abusive relationship with the children’s father.
[51] In April 2017, the mother testified that she was severely into drugs. She moved to Woodstock to try and rid her life of the drug culture that existed in Delhi. In June 2017, she reached out to CMHA to work on her mental health and she ended her relationship with the children’s father. The move to Woodstock impacted her access at first, but then the Society provided a cab from her home to their office.
[52] The mother testified that she has missed access when she had to work, on one occasion when her car would not start and another time when it was raining too hard.
[53] The mother testified candidly about being involved with the Society. She testified that it is traumatic dealing with them and there were two occasions (April 2018 and November 2018) where she became overwhelmed and tried to commit suicide. In November 2018, she was admitted to Woodstock General hospital for a suicide attempt. She admitted that this was due to self-medicating. While in her evidence she indicated that she will no longer self-medicate, she also testified that she takes CBD oil (which contains THC, a derivative of marijuana) for headaches.
[54] The mother testified that she gets a shot every month for her mental health and she is also prescribed three other drugs to take as needed.
[55] The mother testified that she has not had regular visits with the children. For seven months in 2017, following her move to Woodstock, she never saw the children at all. Once visits were reinstated, she began to see them once a week. As she began to address her mental health and addiction issues, access was to be expanded to include unsupervised access in her home with overnights. Unfortunately, the expansion of access never occurred because the mother’s home had bed bugs. The mother was unable to provide the Society with proof that the bed bugs had been addressed.
[56] At the same time, it was clear from her testimony that it has taken her a long time to address the Society’s concerns. She is still not in a place where she is able to have unsupervised access with her three older children or the two children who are subjects of this application.
[57] The mother attended court for every day of the trial. She testified that she is on a leave from work as court is stressful. She has ended her counselling and she does not believe that she needs it any longer. Her only support is her current partner and he is on probation for assault. While he did ensure she went to the hospital when she had a suicide attempt in November 2018, this was the mother’s second suicide attempt in the home with Mr. D. present. He has no experience parenting children and although they have been together for almost two years he has rarely attended access with the mother.
[58] The mother had no explanation for why she did not follow the court Order of Justice Edward to provide the Society with drug tests. Her only response was that she forgot.
[59] While the mother’s counsel argued in closing submissions that the mother’s life has drastically improved, I accept that she has begun to make changes for the better in her life. Unfortunately, her changes are too late for these young children. I do not accept the submission that the children can be returned to the mother and any risk to them can be managed by a supervision order. The evidence is that the mother cannot consistently attend access, even after purchasing her own vehicle she was unable to attend every visit. The mother was offered an expansion of her access visits (including overnights) but she never progressed from supervised access. Although counsel for the mother argued that the children are adaptable and flexible, they should not have to adapt to visits being missed by their mother.
Affidavit and Other Documentary Material
[60] The court received, and marked as Exhibits, five detailed affidavits sworn by Children’s Aid Society witnesses. The author of each affidavit testified and was made available for cross-examination.
[61] In addition, the court admitted documentary evidence including statements of agreed facts dated November 16, 2016, November 28, 2016, and May 10, 2017. The reasons for Justice Edward’s ruling dated March 12, 2018, where the motion for summary judgment was dismissed, was filed as evidence. Medical records regarding the mother’s admission to hospital for her suicide attempt in November 2018, and consult notes with Dr. Choudhary regarding her mental health were also filed into evidence. Contact logs of access visits with Jennifer Harrop were also filed into evidence.
[62] In the mother’s document brief, the court admitted progress notes from her attendance in counselling with the Canadian Mental Health Association from June 2017, to June 2019, Woodstock General Hospital Records, a certificate for Triple P Standard Positive Parenting Program for the mother, two drug screens completed by the mother dated August 12, 2019, and October 1, 2019, and a Certificate of Attendance for completion of Anger and Substance Awareness Program for the mother’s partner, Mr. D.
DISPOSITION
Legal Considerations
[63] Sections 101 and 102 of the CYFSA enumerate the orders available to the court where a finding in need of protection has been made and where the court is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future. Section 101(1) sets out the following options:
Supervision order
- That the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the society, for a specified period of at least three months and not more than 12 months.
Interim society care
- That the child be placed in interim society care and custody for a specified period not exceeding 12 months.
Extended society care
- That the child be placed in extended society care until the order is terminated under section 116 or expires under section 123.
Consecutive orders of interim society care and supervision
- That the child be placed in interim society care and custody under paragraph 2 for a specified period and then be returned to a parent or another person under paragraph 1, for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 12 months.
Custody Order
- That one or more persons be granted custody of the child, with the consent of the person or persons.
[64] Under sections 101(2), 101(3), and 101(4), the court must consider other factors, including whether there are any less disruptive alternatives or possibilities for extended family placement. The court must also enquire with respect to the efforts of the Society to assist the child or children before intervention. Those sections read as follows:
101(2) Court to inquire
In determining which order to make under subsection (1) of section 102, the court shall ask the parties what efforts the society or another person or entity has made to assist the child before intervention under this Part.
102(3) Less disruptive alternatives preferred
The court shall not make an order removing the child from the care of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part unless the court is satisfied that alternatives that are less disruptive to the child, including non-residential care and the assistance referred to in subsection (2), would be inadequate to protect the child.
101(4) Community Placement to be considered
Where the court decides that it is necessary to remove the child from the care of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this part, the court shall, before making an order under paragraph 2 or 3 of subsection (1), consider whether it is possible to place the child with a relative, neighbor, or other member of the child’s community or extended family under paragraph 1 of subsection (1) with the consent of the relative or other person.
101(5) First Nations, Inuk, or Metis Child
Where the child referred to in subsection (4) is a First Nations, Inuk, or Metis child, unless there is a substantial reason for placing the child elsewhere, the court shall place the child with a member of the child’s extended family if it is possible, or if it is not possible,
(a) In the case of a First Nations child, another First Nations family. (b) In the case of an Inuk child, another Inuit family. (c) In the case of a Metis child, another Metis family.
[65] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.(T.), 2010 ONSC 1376, at para. 25, the court set out the statutory pathway to be followed when determining disposition. In light of the new legislation, that test should be reformulated as follows:
(a) Determine whether it is in the child's best interest to return to a party, with or without supervision. If so, order the return and determine what, if any, terms of supervision are in the child's best interests and include them in the order. If not, determine whether the disposition that is in the child's best interests is interim society care or extended society care. (b) If an interim society care would be in the child's best interests, but the maximum time under section 122 of the Act has expired, determine whether an extension under section 122(5) is available and in the child's best interests. If so, extend the time and make an order for interim society care. If not, make an order for extended society care. (c) If an extended society care order is to be made and a party has sought an access order, determine whether access is in the best interest of the child in view of the factors set out in section 74(3) and a consideration of whether the relationship between the child and the person who would have access is both meaningful and beneficial to the child. If the court deems appropriate, it may consider whether access would impair adoption. If access would not be in the best interest of the child, dismiss the claim for access. (d) If access would be in the best interest of the child, make the access order containing appropriate terms and conditions.
[66] The governing factor when considering the placement of a child is the child’s best interests. Best interests are to be determined with reference to the following factors:
74(3) Best interests of the child
Where a person is directed in this part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,
(a) Consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child's age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained; (b) In the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Metis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Metis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and (c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including, (i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs, (ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development, (iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, (iv) the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage, (v) the importance for the child's development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family, (vi) the child's relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child's extended family or member of the child's community, (vii) the importance of continuity of the child's care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity, (viii) the merits have a plan for the child's care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent, (ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case, (x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, return to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent, and (xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
[67] In determining which disposition is in the best interests of the children, the court must consider the stipulations in the CYFSA regarding the maximum total amount of time a child may be in the care of the Society. Section 122 of the CYFSA establishes that the court shall not make an order which would result in a child being in the interim care of the Society for a period exceeding 12 months if the child is younger than age 6 on the day the court makes the order, or 24 months if the child is 6 or older on the day the court makes the order. Those timelines may be extended by up to 6 months if the court finds that it is in the best interest of the child to do so. Given the length of time these children have been in care, the court does not have the option of extending the timelines.
[68] The only options open to the court in this case are an order for extended Society care, a supervision order returning the children to the mother, or returning the children to the mother with no order at all.
[69] Counsel for the mother argued that the children can be returned to her care pursuant to a supervision order. When the children came into care it was a dark period in her life but she has made changes to get her life on track. Counsel for the mother argued that although she has not been honest with the Society this should not prevent her children from returning to her care. The mother also admitted that there were problems with her attendance at access, but because the children are flexible and adaptable, they should be returned to her.
[70] An order for extended Society care is perhaps the most profound order that a court can make. The power to make this order must be exercised with great caution, on the basis only of compelling evidence, and after a thorough consideration of alternative remedies: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. M.(M.A.) (2003), 16 O.F.L.R. 235 (S.C.), at para. 12; Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.H., 2018 ONCJ 854, 20 R.F.L. (8th) 232, (“R.H.”).
[71] The court should give consideration as to whether the Society has given the parent an opportunity to parent: Children & Family Services for York Region v. W. (A.), [2003] O.J. No. 996 (S.C.); R.H., at para. 7.
[72] The issue for the court is whether the level of parenting being received by the children is below the minimum standard tolerated by the community, not whether the children will be “better off” with parents other than their own: Family and Children's Services of St. Thomas and Elgin v. C.(A.), 2013 ONCJ 453, at para. 158. Courts must recognize that families living in poverty may face challenges. Parents are not to be judged by a “middle class yardstick ... provided that the standard used is not contrary to the child's best interests.”: Children's Aid Society of London & Middlesex v. J.D., 2018 ONSC 6193, at para. 79; Catholic Children's Aid Society v. I. (J.), [2006] O.J. No. 2299 (S.C.).
[73] In determining best interests, the court must consider the merits and demerits of each option before the court. The court must consider the risk a child may suffer by being in a parent’s care or another person’s care. Further, the court must consider the risk of emotional harm each child may suffer being separated from their parent or other significant person: Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S.G., 2012 ONCA 783, 299 O.A.C. 24, at para. 18; R.H., at para. 7.
[74] An extended Society care order may be justified where a parent lacks insight into issues, including physical and emotional harm, even where there may be other positive aspects of a parenting plan: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. V.C. et al., 2017 ONSC 5557; R.H., at para. 7.
[75] The court must focus on the child through all stages of the protection proceeding. Child protection legislation is a child welfare statute, not a parent’s rights statute: Winnipeg Child and Family Services (Central Area) v. W. (K.L.), 2000 SCC 48, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 519, at para. 80.
Services Provided to the Family
[76] Both the CAS of Haldimand & Norfolk and the Oxford CAS repeatedly reached out to the mother to connect her with services. As set out above, once the mother moved to Woodstock she did begin to access services to address her substance issues as well as her mental health.
[77] The mother appears to be in a better place today than she has ever been but she has not been able to work with the Society to move her access from supervised to unsupervised. While in my view, the mother has made great strides, this has not been without challenges as well.
[78] The mother’s problem-solving skills have prevented her from increasing her access. The Society was prepared to expand her visits and only needed proof that the bed bug issue had been resolved in her home. This was never provided. The Society’s evidence was that it would expand the access at another location if the mother could not address the bed bug issue in her home, but no other location was proposed.
[79] The most access these children have had with their mother is four hours once a week on Saturdays. Those visits have remained supervised. It is also important to note that the mother’s access with her three older children is only once a week supervised by their grandparents.
[80] The mother’s counsel submitted that the mother’s lack of honesty should not impact the Society’s relationship with the mother. The mother testified as to how difficult it was to maintain a job, and then travel to Townsend to see the children. While the Society did try to increase the mother’s access with her children, the mother did not take steps to assist herself. Although she moved to Woodstock to get away from the drug scene in Delhi, she continued to engage in the use of substances when she first relocated. A drug test dated October 1, 2019, indicates that the mother continues to use substances containing cannabinoids. The only evidence that the mother does not continue to misuse substances is by her own admission. The mother was ordered to provide regular drug tests to the Society. She provided two tests dated August 2019, and October 2019. The Society in its evidence argued that the mother has not provided proof of her sobriety. The mother had told the worker that she would only provide drug tests if they were clean. Although ordered by Justice Edward on March 12, 2018 to provide drug tests, the mother has not done so. In the mother’s evidence she indicated that without consulting with her doctor she decided to begin taking CBD oil to help with headaches. Throughout her evidence she testified that many of her struggles were as a result of self-medicating. Two suicide attempts occurred when she was drinking alcohol.
[81] The court agrees with the Society in its submission that when things get tough, the mother turns to substances or engages in other risky behavior. History is a good predictor of the future and there is concern for the children’s safety if they were to be returned to her care.
[82] In the mother’s own evidence, she indicated that she self-medicates with cannabis oil. Dr. Amanullah testified that he would have concerns if the mother were to begin using any cannabis. It was evident from his testimony that the mother has not discussed taking cannabis products with him and she has taken it upon herself to once again self-medicate.
[83] Taking substances when the mother is already on medication to maintain her mental health without regard to the impact this can have is dangerous behavior.
PLANS OF CARE
The Society’s Proposed Plan of Care
[84] The Society’s plan of care, dated April 10, 2017, requests an order that the children be placed in extended Society care with no access to their parents. The children are to receive the services of an extended Society care worker. The plan provides that the children will also be provided with the services of an adoption worker to locate a suitable family to provide a permanent home. The Society seeks an order for no access.
The mother’s Plan of Care
[85] The mother filed an Answer and Plan of Care, dated August 3, 2017, setting out her plan for the children. The mother seeks an order that the children be placed with her, pursuant to the Society’s supervision. Since filing the Plan of Care, the mother’s plan has changed as she is in a relationship with a new partner and has obtained full-time employment not set out in her plan of care.
[86] In the mother’s evidence she testified that her plan involves the following:
(a) The children shall be placed in her care subject to the Society’s supervision in her current home in Woodstock which is a two-bedroom apartment with her partner. (b) She will continue to see her psychiatrist, Dr. Amanullah. (c) She will continue to work full-time. (d) She will make arrangements for her children in the school in the neighborhood or she will take a leave of absence from work until they adapt to the change. (e) Should she experience struggles with her mental health she will contact CMHA for assistance.
[87] There are significant challenges with the mother’s plan of care:
(a) the children have no recollection of living with the mother; (b) the children have been out of her care for 3 and ½ years; (c) despite the progress the mother has made in addressing the Society’s concerns she has not been honest with them, and she continues to miss access visits; (d) the mother struggles with problem solving (example, rectifying the bed bug issue in order to increase access or obtain an alternate location for access in order for it to be increased); (e) when the mother becomes overwhelmed, the situation can become drastic as she took two attempts on her life while the children were in care; (f) the mother’s only support is her partner and he was unable to prevent her from feeling overwhelmed when there were no children in her care; (g) the mother has no counselling support currently as the file had to close when she reported she is doing fine; and (h) the mother has only ever had supervised access with the children once a week since they have been removed from her care.
The Children
[88] A number of witnesses provided evidence about the child, C, who is now 5 years old, and the child D., who is now 4 years old.
[89] Ms. Bertling, the children’s services worker, has been meeting with C and D since August 4, 2016.
[90] The evidence is that the child, C, is doing reasonably well. She enjoys her school. In September 2019 she began the Early Learning Kindergarten Program. She is on track developmentally and there are no major concerns with her physical care, well-being or development.
[91] C is expected to see an Ear, Nose and Throat physician regarding her enlarged tonsils. She also is expected to require surgery for her upper lip tie. When she came into care, she was behind on her immunizations, however she is currently up to date and on track.
[92] C started to attend daycare for a few days a week in June 2017 and has grown in the areas of social development, expressive language and problem solving.
[93] In January 2018, D started to attend daycare for two days a week with her sister. D enjoys daycare and is thriving there. She also began attending school in September 2019 in the Early Learning Kindergarten Program. There are no concerns with D’s development.
[94] Both children have always been placed together (with the exception of six days when they first came into the Society’s care). They have been thriving in foster care and there are no concerns. The children were too young when they were placed in care to remember a time when they resided with the mother.
[95] Visiting with the mother is part of their routine. When Ms. Bertling asked the children what they liked most about their access visits with the mother they said they play and eat food. Ms. Bertling’s evidence was that the girls are not impacted if a visit is missed.
[96] Ms. Bertling’s evidence was that she could not discuss with the children whether or not they would want to live with the mother as they are too young to understand.
[97] The evidence is that the children’s visits with their mother are part of their routine each week and when the mother does not attend visits they continue with their day without any observation of emotional upset.
The Mother’s Argument that the Children Should be Returned to Her
[98] In closing submissions, the mother’s counsel argued that the evidence shows that the mother has addressed the protection concerns and she is in the best place that she has ever been. Any risk that exists for the children while placed in her care can be addressed through a supervision order.
[99] The court acknowledges that the mother has improved her life since the children have come into care. She has obtained a job and she is currently in a stable relationship. She has not provided drug test evidence to support that she remains sober. She testified that she takes CBD oil for headaches and she provided a positive drug test in October 2019 for cannabinoids. The mother also testified that she regularly sees her physician to maintain her mental health.
[100] The concerns of missing access still exist, the mother did not follow through with drug testing as was court ordered. The Society indicated that it was willing to move visits to overnights if an appropriate location could be identified. This is a case where actions speak louder than words. If the mother truly wanted the children back in her care she could have moved homes or presented third party supervisors. She did not do either of those things despite numerous reminders from Ms. McFadden.
[101] It has taken three years for the mother to get her life on track and she should be commended for that. The concern though is her lack of follow through with access. The court is concerned that parenting is around the clock and cannot be paused for a snow storm or sickness. Parents must be able to problem-solve the most difficult of situations in order to keep the children in their care safe. The court is not convinced that that would be the case if these children were to be returned to her care.
[102] The mother’s three oldest children are in their father’s care and only have supervised contact with the mother. The ages of the older children create less concern for their safety, however, access by the mother to them continues to be supervised.
Reasons for Disposition with Summary of Findings
[103] In determining the appropriate disposition in this case, having regard to the children’s best interests, I make the following findings:
(a) The Society’s plan of care, which provides for the children being placed in extended Society care, will best meet these children’s physical, mental, and emotional needs. There is no other order which will adequately protect the children and be in their best interests. (b) The Society made reasonable efforts to extend services to the mother in an effort to help her address the serious child protection concerns in this case. She did not consistently work with the Society to address the concerns. (c) There are no less disruptive alternatives that would adequately protect the children. As set out above, the evidence is that while the temporary order dated March 12, 2018, was in place, the mother did not cooperate with the Society to address the concerns. (d) At this time, the children have been in care for more than 1,200 days and although some progress has been made in addressing the protection concerns, it is not enough to ensure their safety. It is not in the children's best interests to make a further interim care order nor is that an option given their age and the length of time they have been in care. (e) No viable family or community placements are available in this case. (f) The plan proposed by the Society recognizes the importance of permanence and stability for the children. The Society's plan will better allow for the continuity of care for the children, and the long term, stable plan. (g) The Society's plan better addresses the many risks that justified the finding that the children remain in need of protection.
Conclusion Regarding Disposition
[104] Having considered the paramount purposes of the CYFSA, the plans of care before the court, and the best interest considerations under section 74(3) of the Act, this court finds that it is in the best interest of the children to be placed in extended Society care.
[105] I confirm that in considering the children’s best interest I have done so having regard to section 74(3)(c) of the Act.
ACCESS
Legal Considerations
[106] Section 104(1) of the CYFSA sets out the test respecting access orders, and provides as follows:
(1) the court may, in the child’s best interests,
(a) when making an order under this part; or (b) upon an application under subsection (2),
make, vary or terminate an order respecting a person’s access to the child or the child’s access to a person, and may impose such terms and conditions on the order as the court considers appropriate.
[107] Section 105(4) provides that where a court makes an order that a child be placed in extended Society care, any order for access is terminated. Under section 105(5), a court shall not make or vary an access order under section 104 with respect to a child in extended Society care unless the court is satisfied that the order or variation would be in the child's best interest.
[108] Section 105(6) sets out additional considerations for the best interest test (set out in section 74(3), above) in respect of access as follows:
(6) The court shall consider, as part of its determination of whether an order or variation would be in the child’s best interests under subsection (5),
(a) whether the relationship between the person and the child is beneficial and meaningful to the child. (b) if the court considers it relevant, whether the access ordered will impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption.
[109] In Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, 432 D.L.R. (4th) 497, the Ontario Court of Appeal recently held that with the changes to the child protection legislation, the onus no longer falls on the person requesting access to demonstrate that the relationship is meaningful and beneficial to the child and will in no way impair adoption opportunities. Rather, the court stated at paragraph 49:
… [t]he court is to undertake a best interest analysis, assess whether the relationship is beneficial and meaningful to the child, and consider impairment to future adoption opportunities only as part of that assessment and only where relevant. This means that it is no longer the case that a parent who puts forward no evidence will not gain access. Similarly, while any evidence of possible impairment to adoption opportunities would have thwarted previous requests for access, under the new Act, access is to be ordered for a child with otherwise excellent adoption prospects if it is in her overall best interests. And, as shown in section 74(3) of the CYFSA, the best interest analysis is comprehensive.
[110] In Children's Aid Society of Niagara Region v. B.P. and B.W., 2018 ONSC 4371, at para. 87, Justice Pazaratz summarized how courts have interpreted the concept of “beneficial and meaningful to the child”:
(a) “beneficial” means “advantageous;” (b) “meaningful” means “significant;” (c) the person seeking access should be able to show that their relationship with the child brings significant positive advantage to the child, from the child's perspective; (d) more than love or a display of love is required; (e) more than biological connection is required; (f) “some” positive aspects between parent and child will not suffice; there must be “significant” advantage to the child; (g) that some visits are positive will not suffice, particularly where the child has also had countervailing negative experiences; (h) it is the existing relationship that is considered, not a future, possible, relationship; (i) even if the relationship is beneficial and meaningful, the court must still weigh the benefits to the child of access versus no access; and (j) even if visits are generally enjoyable, the court must consider whether the beneficial aspects of visits outweigh the child's need for continuity and care and a secure place as a member of a stable family.
Access Analysis
[111] The Society seeks an Order that there be no access by the mother or the father to the children.
[112] The father has not been involved with the Society since March 30, 2017 when Ms. McFadden attended their home and observed the father to struggle with the simple task of putting on his coat and shoes. March 9, 2017 was the last time where Ms. McFadden had a conversation with the father. The last time the father had a visit with the children was February 27, 2017.
[113] The father admitted to Ms. McFadden on March 3, 2017 that he had used cocaine twice that week at least, and that he can use up to four times a day. The father advised that he would be going to jail for a period of time.
[114] The father proposed potential kinship care givers to the Society.
[115] Terry Stratford was assigned to this file as a family finder on about October 31, 2016. Ms. Stratford filed an affidavit in this trial sworn August 26, 2019 indicating that she reviewed seven potential kinship plans for C and D. None of the plans presented progressed beyond the assessment stage.
[116] Ms. McFadden was in contact with the father’s mother, S.C. (S.C.) to advise that the father was not doing well. Ms. McFadden received information from S.C. that the father was not doing well and was avoiding his family.
[117] The father has not seen the children since 2017. The children do not have a relationship with the father. It is not in their best interests to have access with him. For these reasons the court orders that there shall be no access between the children and the father.
[118] There is no doubt that the mother loves the children. As set out above, there is also evidence that she can be appropriate with the children, and that she demonstrates love and affection on visits. When she attends visits, she brings food and activities for the children and the children have shown happiness.
[119] However, in this case, having full regard to the principle that an access order shall not be made unless it is in the children’s best interests, this court finds that an order for access by the children to their mother is not in their best interests. This is so for the following reasons:
(a) The mother’s record of attending access visits throughout the involvement of the society has been inconsistent. While her efforts to attend have improved since she purchased her own vehicle, she has continued to miss visits. For example: (i) From March 2, 2018, to August 24, 2019, the mother attended 52 out of 89 visits. (ii) From March 2, 2019, to August 24, 2019, the mother attended 19 out of 30 visits. (iii) The mother’s evidence was that she missed visits as a result of work or the weather. (iv) The society paid for taxis to get the mother to and from her visits in order to remove transportation as a barrier to attending. (b) The evidence does not suggest that access would become more consistent in the future. It is not in the children’s best interests to anticipate access only to have it frequently not occur. This would cause repeated disappointment for the children and could prevent them from fully settling with a permanent family. (c) On numerous occasions, when the mother was unable to attend access, she did not cancel the visits in advance. The children were thus taken to the access center expecting to see their mother, and ultimately returned back to the foster home. (d) On access visits, the mother has shown that she is able to bring nutritious snacks and age appropriate toys, however she has never been able to progress to periods of unsupervised access. The evidence is that these children are “go go go” and often an access supervisor was required to intervene during visits in the community in order to keep the children safe. (e) The evidence from the Society workers includes that the access is part of the children’s routine but there was no direct evidence that it is advantageous or significant to them. (f) The mother has three older children with another father. Those children were also removed from her care at the same time that these children were removed. They are in their father’s custody and the mother’s evidence was that she has supervised access with them approximately once a week. Despite all the gains the mother has made in her life, she has not been able to attend visits regularly.
[120] Turning specifically to the additional best interest factors to be considered under section 73(4):
(a) Given the very young ages of the children their consistent views and preferences are difficult to ascertain. (b) The court finds that while the mother loves the children, she has been unable to prioritize their physical, mental, and emotional needs, demonstrated in part through her inconsistency with respect to attending access.
[121] In this case, the court considers opportunities for adoption relevant, given the children's young ages, their need to have a long-term positive relationship with a parent, and their need to have a secure place as a member of a family. Given the mother’s inconsistency regarding access, her constant struggle with substance abuse, poor choice in partners and her struggles with mental health, the court finds it more likely than not that an access order would impair C and D's opportunities for adoption. The mother has not shown that she is able to prioritize the children's needs and best interests over her own.
[122] Based on the foregoing, this court finds that an order providing access for the children with their mother or their father is not in their best interests. In reaching this conclusion, the court has considered all of the relevant subsections of section 74(3) of the CYFSA regarding best interests, whether access would be meaningful and beneficial for the children from the perspective of the children, and considers it probable that an access order in this case would impair adoption, which the court has found is relevant in this case.
[123] The evidence before the court supports an order for access between the two children in the event, they are not placed in adoption together. The evidence before the court also supports an order for access between the children and their three older siblings (E, B and M).
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
[124] For all of the reasons set out above, this court makes the following order:
(1) The children, C.I.J.S., born […], 2015 and D.C.L.M.S., born […], 2015 shall be placed in extended Society care pursuant to section 101(1)(3) until the Order is terminated under section 116 or expired under section 123. (2) There shall be no access between the children and the father. (3) There shall be no access between the children and the mother. (3) The children shall be holders of access to each other. (4) The children shall be holders of access to their three older siblings.
“J.D. Walters”
Walters J.