Court File and Parties

BARRIE COURT FILE NO.: FC-20-1062-00 DATE: 20220311 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Simcoe Muskoka Child, Youth and Family Services, Applicant AND: S.H., Respondent K.C-P., Respondent L.S. and M.S., Respondents T.C., Respondent Mattawa/North Bay Algonquin First Nation, Respondent

BEFORE: The Honourable Justice Krause

COUNSEL: T. Nazerali, for the Applicant S. Kumar, for the Respondent K.C-P. L. Korhani, for the Respondents L.S. and M.S.

HEARD: January 31, 2022

Endorsement

[1] This is a Motion brought by the Respondent, K.C-P. (“the father’) to change the placement of the child, P.S.(1). The father resides with his mother, T.C. Currently, P.S. is placed in the temporary joint care of the father and L.S. and M.S. (“the S’s”) on a week about shared parenting arrangement subject to a supervision order on a without prejudice basis. The S’s are the paternal grandparents to another child of the Respondent, S.H. (“the mother”) which child is not subject of these proceedings; the S’s are not biologically related to P.S. Everyone involved is a party to this proceeding.

[2] I have reviewed and considered the following:

a. The father’s Notice of Motion. b. The father’s Affidavits sworn November 8, 2021; December 6, 2021; January 21, 2022; and January 30, 2022. c. The Society’s Affidavit sworn November 26, 2021. d. Affidavits of L.S. sworn November 24, 2021; and January 27, 2021. e. Affidavit of T.C. sworn November 8, 2021 (for unknown reason attached as an Exhibit to the father’s Affidavit sworn November 8, 2021).

Background

[3] Given the issues in this Motion, what has occurred in these proceedings is important.

[4] The Society commenced this Application on December 2, 2020 as a result of protection concerns relating to the mother at the time of P.S.’s birth. The mother had identified the S’s as a placement for P.S. as the mother’s other child who is the S’s grandson (through their son) is placed with them. At the time the Application was commenced, the Society was not aware of any male person qualifying as a parent to P.S.

[5] On December 4, 2020, a temporary without prejudice order was made placing P.S. in the care of the S’s subject to a supervision order. The mother was not present on this date. Also on this date, the Society advised the court that P.S.’s biological father had not yet been identified.

[6] On January 4, 2021 the Application was adjourned as the Society was still attempting to identify P.S.’s biological father.

[7] On March 1, 2021, an Order was made permitting the Society to obtain a sample from P.S. for the purpose of DNA testing. This Order was required as the mother had not attended on the 5 occasions when testing had been arranged by the worker. The mother was not present in court.

[8] On April 23, 2021, on consent, K.C-P. was added as a Respondent having been identified through DNA testing as P.S.’s father. The First Nation was also added as a Respondent. The father’s access was able to commence at the discretion of the Society.

[9] On June 21, 2021, the matter was adjourned to permit the parties to engage in child protection mediation. It was also adjourned to permit the Society to investigate allegations by the mother toward the father in regard to drug use and past domestic violence.

[10] On September 24, 2021, the S’s and T.C. (paternal grandmother) were added as Respondents. A temporary without prejudice order was made, on consent, placing P.S. in the joint care of the S’s and the father, on a week about arrangement, subject to a supervision order. The mother was permitted additional time to file her Answer and Plan of Care. This Motion was scheduled for December 10, 2021.

[11] On December 10, 2021, the Motion was adjourned at the request of the mother so that she could file material. The adjournment was peremptory on her and she was to file her Answer and Plan of Care and Affidavit by January 24, 2022.

[12] The mother did not file an Answer and Plan of Care nor any Affidavit material for the motion.

Positions and Evidence of the Parties

[13] The father’s evidence is that the mother and the S’s have always known he is P.S.’s father. He says the mother called him to inform him of P.S.’s birth. He also says the S’s queried the necessity of a DNA test as they “knew” he was the father. The father’s evidence is that in January or February 2020 he, the mother and the S’s met at Vaughan Mills Mall. At that time the mother advised she was pregnant and he was the father. The S’s’ evidence is that they were not a party to such a conversation and were not aware of paternity.

[14] The father’s evidence is that he attempted to contact the mother in the summer of 2020 to obtain an update in regard to the pregnancy. He says the mother then called the police who told him not to contact the mother further. In October 2020 the father says the mother contacted him advising P.S. had been born asking if he was coming to the hospital. His evidence is the mother became belligerent with him when he could not immediately attend the hospital. The father indicates he then contacted the mother around November 1, 2020 asking about a DNA test.

[15] The father’s evidence is that he spoke with the Society worker around November 6, 2020 who told him he could not have access or participate as paternity was not confirmed. The father expressed to the worker he wanted to see P.S. and have a DNA test. The father sets out in his Affidavit multiple calls to the Society requesting the ability to participate and have parenting time with P.S.

[16] The Society, quite correctly, was unable to facilitate any parenting time or assessment of the father as he had not been identified as P.S.’s parent either by the mother or through DNA testing.

[17] DNA testing was delayed due to the mother’s lack of cooperation and an order for testing was ultimately requested and made on March 1, 2021. K.C-P. was confirmed to be P.S.’s father on or about March 24, 2021. He was added as a party to these proceedings on April 23, 2021. The father has been having expanding access with P.S. and, in October 2021, the father began having week about parenting time pursuant to a without prejudice order made on September 24, 2021.

[18] At the time of commencement of the Application, an Order was made placing P.S. in the care of the S’s, subject to supervision and on a without prejudice basis. At that time, the S’s resided in Barrie. During the course of the proceedings they moved to Bonfield, Ontario some 3.75 hours from the father’s home which is in Brampton.

[19] Ms. S’s Affidavit indicates P.S. has been in the S’s’ care since she was born. They say they were involved during the mother’s pregnancy. She indicates the mother requested they assume P.S.’s care on a permanent basis.

[20] The S’s take the position the current order should continue. They suggest whether P.S. should be placed in the father’s full time care is an issue for trial. Their position is it is not in P.S.’s best interests to primarily reside with the father as P.S. has a relationship with them and they facilitate P.S.’s contact with her mother. They suggest the mother’s contact with P.S. will be substantially reduced, which is not in P.S.’s best interests, if she resides with her father.

[21] The S’s express concern that the father’s relationship with his mother is unstable. They are concerned P.S.’s placement will be disrupted if the relationship between the father and his mother deteriorates. They point to the fact the father has told the Society not to discuss P.S. with his mother nor assess her as a plan in the past. The father’s response is his relationship with his mother became strained as a result of suggestions being made by the mother in reference to the paternal grandmother which the father initially believed.

[22] The S’s also express concern with the father’s mental health suggesting the Society records indicate he has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The father denies such a diagnosis; he indicates he has ADHD and is medication compliant. The father has provided a letter from his physician, Dr. B dated December 2, 2021, indicating the father’s diagnosis is ADHD and he is prescribed medication. Dr. B indicates that, to his knowledge, the father has never been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. The father’s evidence is that he is taking his medication as prescribed. Dr. B’s letter suggests no reason to think otherwise.

[23] The S’s take the position the week about arrangement is appropriate. The transfer of parenting occurs in Barrie. The evidence is that P.S.’s medical practitioner continues to be in Barrie.

[24] The father is concerned about the frequency of illness experienced by P.S. which is serious enough that a physician indicates she should not travel which has impacted his parenting time. The father’s evidence is that there are no concerns with illness while P.S. is in his care. He expresses concern about his lack of inclusion by the S’s in decision making for P.S.

[25] There have been issues in the shared care arrangement in regard to decision making according to the father. The father indicates the S’s have excluded him from medical information concerning P.S. The S’s suggest otherwise. The S’s in their material discuss P.S.’s “doctor” in Barrie; the father suggests P.S. is seen and followed by a nurse practitioner. Whatever the reason, the father has been unable to reach the medical care provider and participate.

[26] Ms. S notes in her reply Affidavit that P.S. has “complex medical needs”. No details about those needs are provided.

[27] The Society supports P.S.’s placement with the father and his mother. The Society’s evidence is it has continued to assess the father and his mother as required by the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (“CYFSA”). The Society suggests joint placement with the father and his mother pursuant to terms of supervision. This will allow the Society to continue to assess the placement. The Society has no concerns with the care P.S. receives while in the care of the S’s or the father and his mother.

[28] The Society indicates had it been aware of P.S.’s father at the time the Application was commenced, assessment of a paternal plan would have occurred much sooner and it is likely P.S. would have been placed with either the father or his mother as opposed to the S’s.

[29] The mother has not engaged with the Society. The Society therefore has no current assessment about whether the mother has addressed the protection concerns. Currently, the Society is satisfied with the S’s supervising the mother’s contact with P.S. Based on the S’s’ evidence, P.S. has regular contact with the mother.

[30] As noted, the mother did not file any material for the Motion. Her position was the existing order for shared parenting should continue.

[31] P.S. is an Indigenous child and has her heritage through her father and his family. The father and P.S.’s community is Mattawa/North Bay Algonquin First Nation. The father and his mother belong to and participate in their First Nation community.

[32] While it is not clearly set out in the evidence I infer the mother is not Indigenous. The S’s are not Indigenous; they submit they will engage with community resources in order to ensure P.S. engages with her heritage. They indicate they have reached out to the North Bay Indigenous Hub and Friendship Centre. They say they have participated in several virtual activities and will continue to explore what services are offered to enhance P.S.’s heritage. Their evidence is that their home is within P.S.’s First Nation’s area.

[33] The father submits priority must be given to a placement with him given P.S.’s heritage.

[34] The First Nation did not participate at the hearing of the Motion.

Analysis

[35] As no finding in need of protection has been made, I am dealing with an order for P.S.’s placement pursuant to s. 94 of the CYFSA. The Orders to date have been on a without prejudice basis, particularly the order made for the shared parenting between the S’s and the father. Given what has occurred in the proceeding in regard to identifying the father, I find it is appropriate that I consider the placement orders that have been made to date to be on a without prejudice basis. I find the father need not meet the requirement of a change in circumstances for a change in placement to occur.

[36] If I am wrong, and this should be considered a Motion to vary the placement pursuant to s. 94(9), I find there has been a change in circumstances given the Society’s ongoing assessment, the expansion of the father’s parenting time and P.S.’s heritage.

[37] Pursuant to the CYFSA there is a positive obligation on the Society to return children to the care of a parent, if possible. Section 101(1) identifies priority of placements on a final basis noting in paragraph 1 that the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent. If the Society cannot return a child to the person who at charge prior to intervention, the Society is to consider if it is possible to place the child with a relative, neighbour of other member of the child’s community or extended family (s. 101(4)). If a child is a First Nations child, the court shall place the child with a member of the child’s extended family with another First Nations family unless there is a substantial reason for placing the child elsewhere (s. 101(5)).

[38] Placements with family or community members often occur while a Society assesses whether a child may be placed in the care of a parent. Such a placement has occurred in this case.

[39] Everyone involved has known from the outset of proceedings, that P.S.’s father needed to be identified and any plan being presented by him assessed.

[40] Section 94 provides for a temporary order during a Protection Application. It provides that a child is to be returned to the person who had charge prior to intervention unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk the child is likely to suffer harm which cannot be addressed through a supervision order. If a child cannot be returned to the person who had charge, the court must determine whether it is in the child’s best interests to consider a placement with a relative or member of the child’s extended family or community. The court only considers best interests when considering a placement pursuant to s. 94 if a child cannot be returned to the person who had charge prior to intervention, in this case the mother.

[41] Section 94 does not specifically address Indigenous children as does s. 101(5). However, the Preamble to the CYFSA is clear stating,

Further, the Government of Ontario believes the following:

First Nations, Inuit and Métis children should be happy, healthy, resilient, grounded in their cultures and languages and thriving as individuals and as members of their families, communities and nations.

Honouring the connection between First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and their distinct political and cultural communities is essential to helping them thrive and fostering their well-being.

For these reasons, the Government of Ontario is committed, in the spirit of reconciliation, to working with First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples to help ensure that wherever possible, they care for their children in accordance with their distinct cultures, heritages and traditions.

[42] The Society has a positive obligation to assess whether an Indigenous child may be placed within their community if a parent is not available.

[43] An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24 (“FNIM”) is federal legislation specifically proclaimed to address the provision of services to Indigenous children and their families involved in the child welfare system. As federal legislation it has paramountcy over the CYFSA if the CYFSA is inconsistent with the FNIM. FNIM also applies if it addresses issues not covered in the CYFSA or is more robust. The CYFSA is not inconsistent with FNIM. However, the FNIM has provisions that augment and are more robust than the provisions of the CYFSA. One such area is placement of children. Section 16 of the FNIM provides a priority of placement for Indigenous children as follows:

16 (1) The placement of an Indigenous child in the context of providing child and family services in relation to the child, to the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of the child, is to occur in the following order of priority:

(a) with one of the child’s parents;

(b) with another adult member of the child’s family;

(c) with an adult who belongs to the same Indigenous group, community or people as the child;

(d) with an adult who belongs to an Indigenous group, community or people other than the one to which the child belongs; or

(e) with any other adult.

(2) When the order of priority set out in subsection (1) is being applied, the possibility of placing the child with or near children who have the same parent as the child, or who are otherwise members of the child’s family, must be considered in the determination of whether a placement would be consistent with the best interests of the child.

(2.1) The placement of a child under subsection (1) must take into account the customs and traditions of Indigenous peoples such as with regards to customary adoption.

(3) In the context of providing child and family services in relation to an Indigenous child, there must be a reassessment, conducted on a ongoing basis, of whether it would be appropriate to place the child with

(a) a person referred to in paragraph (1)(a), if the child does not reside with such a person; or

(b) a person referred to in paragraph (1)(b), if the child does not reside with such a person and unless the child resides with a person referred to in paragraph (1)(a).

[44] In my view, I must consider and apply s. 16 FNIM when considering P.S.’s placement on a temporary basis under the CYFSA.

[45] I can take judicial notice of the over representation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system in Canada. It is always in an Indigenous child’s best interests to be placed within their community where possible if that child cannot be returned to the parent who had charge prior to child welfare intervention.

[46] The mother has not filed an Answer/Plan of Care nor any evidence for this Motion. I note this Motion was originally scheduled for December 10, 2021 and was adjourned at the mother’s request. Terms of the adjournment required the mother to file her Answer/Plan of Care and Affidavit material for the Motion by January 24, 2022. She did not do so. The adjournment was peremptory on her.

[47] The mother’s plan despite potentially being aware that K.C-P. was P.S.’s father was to place P.S. permanently in the care of the S’s. Her decision to use the S’s’ surname for P.S. on the Statement of Live Birth and to not cooperate in the DNA testing suggests to me an intention to exclude the father from participation in P.S.’s life and the opportunity to care for her. The Vital Statistics Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. V.4, s. 10(3) sets out how a child’s surname is determined for the purposes of registering a birth in Ontario. It states:

(3) A child’s surname shall be determined as follows:

1. If both parents certify the child’s birth, they may agree to give the child a surname chosen by them.

2. If both parents certify the child’s birth but do not agree on the child’s surname, the child shall be given,

i. the parents’ surname, if they have the same surname, or

ii. a surname consisting of both parents’ surnames hyphenated or combined in alphabetical order, if they have different surnames.

3. If one parent certifies the child’s birth and the other parent is incapable by reason of illness or death, the parent who certifies the birth may give the child a surname chosen by that parent.

4. If the mother certifies the child’s birth and the father is unknown to or unacknowledged by her, she may give the child a surname she chooses.

5. If a person who is not the child’s parent certifies the child’s birth, the child shall be given,

i. the parents’ surname, if they have the same surname,

ii. a surname consisting of both parents’ surnames hyphenated or combined in alphabetical order, if they have surnames, or

iii. if only one parent is known, that parent’s surname.

[48] Based on the evidence available to me, it is likely the mother knew K.C-P. was or could have been P.S.’s father. She decided to exclude him (or any other potential father) from the birth certificate so that she could use “S” as P.S.’s surname. As K.C-P. is P.S.’s father, he should have consented to the use of this surname. Ms. S’s evidence is that she filled out the birth registration paperwork with the mother at the hospital. Her evidence is also that the mother told her of another male person who was the father. The mother and Ms. S chose not to identify any male person as the father on the Statement of Live Birth. By doing so, the mother was able to use a surname of her choice for P.S., being S. I have no evidence who certified the child’s birth. If it was Ms. S, the mother’s surname should have been given to P.S.

[49] According to the Society’s evidence, the mother’s contact with P.S., as facilitated by the S’s, was virtual. I note, in December, 2021, according to Ms. S’s Affidavit, she began offering in person contact between the mother and P.S. and her other child. The Society has had no opportunity to assess parent-child interaction between the mother and P.S.

[50] The S’s’ position is if P.S. is placed with her father and their contact with P.S. is reduced, it will adversely impact the mother’s contact with P.S. I am uncertain why this would be so as the S’s could continue to arrange contact between the mother and P.S. during any period P.S. might be in their care.

[51] I do not find the organization of the mother’s access with P.S. to be a compelling reason not to place P.S. in the father’s care. The mother has not engaged with the Society. There is no information if she has addressed the protection concerns. It is not appropriate to conclude that P.S. should remain with the S’s in order to facilitate her contact with the mother. If the parents are not able to communicate, as alleged by the S’s, communication can occur through the paternal grandmother and the Society. The mother has chosen not to engage with the Society; she may need to do so to organize access with P.S. if the S’s are no longer willing to facilitate her access.

[52] The father has been having parenting time, currently on a week about basis. There are no concerns with the father’s (or his mother’s) care of P.S. A supervision order is requested by the Society to monitor the placement. The father has the support of his mother. They agree that P.S. may be placed jointly with them and agree to terms of supervision suggested by the Society.

[53] The evidence available to me indicates the father’s diagnosis to be ADHD. I find Dr. B’s letter to be credible and trustworthy in the circumstances and I consider it pursuant to s. 94(10). There is no reliable evidence that the father has any other mental health diagnosis for which he is not receiving treatment. In any event, the issue would be if the father is following treatment recommendations, not whether he has any diagnosis.

[54] I accept the Society would have assessed the father’s plan and likely placed P.S. in either his or his mother’s care if P.S. could not be returned to the mother. It is now the Society’s position that P.S. be placed with her father and paternal grandmother.

[55] There has been tension in the communication between the father and the S’s primarily over P.S.’s medical needs. The father is concerned decisions are being made without his involvement. The S’s resist when the father wants to take P.S. to his medical treatment provider. Based on the evidence available to me, I note also there was prior resistance by the S’s to expanding the father’s parenting time prior to ADR or the September 2021 court date occurring.

[56] The father and the S’s live approximately 3.75 hours apart. While they meet in Barrie for the transfer of parenting, it does not reduce the time of the commute for P.S.

[57] In her Affidavit sworn January 27, 2022, Ms. S refers to P.S.’s “complex medical needs”. I have no evidence that P.S. has “complex medical needs” that require specialized care. I have no evidence that P.S. is being following by a pediatrician or other specialized medical professional. This appears to be an exaggeration of P.S.’s health status. If, indeed, P.S. were to have complex medical needs, a week about parenting arrangement, with the associated travel, could be contraindicated. The S’s indicate the travel involved in the current parenting arrangement with the father is not a barrier to that arrangement continuing.

[58] The S’s have indicated their intent to maintain P.S.’s connection to her Indigenous culture. This position while well intentioned only serves to perpetuate the concerns that reconciliation and FNIM seek to redress. It is not an adequate substitute or alternative where a child is able to live with their Indigenous parent or within their Indigenous community if there are no protection concerns or any concerns may be addressed through terms of supervision.

[59] The S’s’ concerns about the father and his relationship with his mother are best assessed by the Society. It is the Society’s mandate to assess protection concerns, not the other parties to the proceeding. The mother has previously raised concerns about the father’s drug use and history of domestic violence. The Society’s evidence does not verify these concerns.

[60] It is clear the S’s love and have cared for P.S. well. There are no protection concerns with their care. However, they are not in a position to provide the connection to which P.S. is entitled with her community and heritage. The father and his family are best positioned to do this.

[61] A community placement such as the S’s is to provide a placement outside of foster care while parents, within a reasonable period of time, address the protection concerns so a child may be returned to their care.

[62] The S’s are adamant in their position they did not know that K.C-P. was P.S.'s father. However, it is less clear to me that the mother did not know. The mother’s delay in the DNA testing suggests at the very least a reluctance by her for any other parent to be identified and able to plan for P.S. The mother and the S’s made a plan for P.S. to reside permanently with the S’s. The completion of the statement of live birth using the S’s surname is unusual at best. I am reasonably able to infer at that point the mother and S’s both did not intend to support a plan by the father, if he was identified.

[63] Since then, through their consent to shared parenting in September 2021, the S’s have demonstrated a willingness to accept the father’s role in P.S.’s life.

[64] The mother had charge of P.S. prior to intervention of the Society. P.S. cannot be returned to the care of her mother. The mother has demonstrated insight and agrees that is the case.

[65] Pursuant to s. 16 FNIM I must determine if P.S. may be placed with a parent. Based on the assessment of the Society, she may be placed with her father and the paternal grandmother. This placement will provide the connection to P.S.’s heritage to which she is entitled and is supported by both the CYFSA and FNIM.

[66] Both legislation refer to best interests; s. 74(3) CYFSA and s. 10 FNIM.

[67] Section 10 FNIM provides,

10 (1) The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in the making of decisions or the taking of actions in the context of the provision of child and family services in relation to an Indigenous child and, in the case of decisions or actions related to child apprehension, the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration.

(2) When the factors referred to in subsection (3) are being considered, primary consideration must be given to the child’s physical, emotional and psychological safety, security and well-being, as well as to the importance, for that child, of having an ongoing relationship with his or her family and with the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs and of preserving the child’s connections to his or her culture.

(3) To determine the best interests of an Indigenous child, all factors related to the circumstances of the child must be considered, including

(a) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious and spiritual upbringing and heritage;

(b) the child’s needs, given the child’s age and stage of development, such as the child’s need for stability;

(c) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with his or her parent, the care provider and any member of his or her family who plays an important role in his or her life;

(d) the importance to the child of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connections to the language and territory of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs;

(e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained;

(f) any plans for the child’s care, including care in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs;

(g) any family violence and its impact on the child, including whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violence as well as the physical, emotional and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child; and

(h) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security and well-being of the child.

[68] CYFSA and FNIM both stress continuing assessment. Such continuing assessment can occur if P.S. is placed in the care of her father.

[69] I have considered the factors relevant to P.S.’s best interests pursuant to the CYFSA and FNIM.

[70] It is not in P.S.’s best interests to be maintained in a week about arrangement pending trial, which may be months away, when there is a parent available to care for her. The shared parenting arrangement currently in place cannot be a long term solution given the distance between the two residences. When P.S. begins full time daycare or school, a week about arrangement would not be viable.

[71] The father’s ability to present a plan for P.S. has been delayed through no fault of his own. The evidence is clear he has been attempting since P.S.’s birth to be a meaningful parent to her. He and his mother both agree to the terms of supervision proposed by the Society.

[72] P.S.’s best interests, particular those articulated by FNIM, support her placement with the father. I have no evidence of any family violence or that P.S. is directly or indirectly exposed to family violence. The father has a previous charge of assault which, according to the evidence, was withdrawn. While I am cognizant of the differing burden of proof in criminal proceedings, I have no evidence that charge arose out of family violence.

[73] P.S.’s best interests also support ongoing contact with the S’s and the mother and P.S. and her siblings. That contact can be supported and P.S.’s best interests met through placement with her father.

[74] P.S. will require a transitional period to move to her father’s full time care. Her transition is well started given the week about arrangement currently in place. I am also cognizant of the distance between the father’s and S’s’ residences and the potential impact the length of journey may have on P.S. An appropriate transition, in my view, is for P.S. to have contact with the S’s one week per month for 3 months. After 3 months, her time with the S’s will occur one weekend per month.

[75] There has been tension between the father and S’s in regard to medical decision making. There is also tension as a result of inquiries made by Toronto CAS in regard to another sibling and lack of inclusion of the father in that contact. This is not a case for joint decision making between the father and the S’s. There is no information to suggest the father cannot make appropriate decisions for P.S., in her best interests. In any event, it does not make sense for P.S.’s medical care to be addressed by a service provided in Barrie when she does not live there.

Order

[76] For these reasons there shall be a temporary Order as follows:

a. P.S. shall be placed in the temporary care of K.C-P. and T.C., subject to the supervision of the Society.

b. The terms of supervision shall be as follows:

i. K.C-P. and T.C. shall continue to work collaboratively with the Society in ensuring that the child’s needs are met and reporting all concerns to the Society.

ii. K.C-P. and T.C. shall continue to allow the Society workers to conduct announced as well as unannounced home visits.

iii. K.C-P. shall continue to reside with T.C. Should the father leave the home, the child P.S. will remain in the care of T.C. unless otherwise authorized by the Society in writing.

iv. K.C-P. and T.C. shall continue to ensure that the child’s physical, emotional and medical needs are being met.

v. K.C-P. shall continue to follow his mother’s direction regarding the requirement of supervision of P.S., in consultation with the Society.

vi. K.C-P. shall continue to sign consents for the exchange of relevant information between the Society and service providers with whom P.S. and K.C-P. are involved.

vii. K.C-P. shall access mental health support to address impulsivity and demonstrate an ability to respond calmly to situations in P.S.’s presence.

viii. K.C-P. shall complete a parenting program such as Triple P and/or participate with Healthy Babies/Healthy Children or another parenting program as approved by the Society.

c. K.C-P. shall have sole decision making responsibility for P.S.

d. For the months of April, May and June 2022, P.S. shall be in the care of L.S. and M.S. for one week per month, Sunday to Sunday, as arranged between the father/paternal grandmother and the S’s. If the parties cannot agree which week, it shall occur the third week of the month. If the parties cannot agree in regard to time of transition, it shall occur at 3:00 p.m. on Sundays. Transition shall continue to occur in Barrie.

e. Starting July, 2022, P.S. shall have contact with L.S. and M.S. one weekend per month from Friday at 6:30 p.m. to Sunday at 6:30 p.m., with transition to occur in Barrie. If the parties cannot agree on the weekend, it will be the third weekend of the month.

f. The mother, S.H., shall have supervised access with P.S. either as arranged with the S’s or the Society.

g. All parties who have parenting time with P.S. shall refrain from speaking negatively about the other party/parties in front of or within earshot of the child and support the child in having a positive relationship with the other party/parties. P.S. shall not be exposed to any adult conflict.

[77] The S’s have requested costs of this Motion. No other party has requested costs. The S’s have not been successful on this Motion and therefor are not entitled to costs. There shall be no order as to costs.

The Honourable Justice Krause Date: March 11, 2022