W A R N I N G

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 Effect of identifying a person charged with a n offence under the Part.

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

Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-320 DATE: 2023/07/12 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County, Applicant AND: T.W., H. St. D., D.G., Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation, Wolf Lake First Nation, Respondents

BEFORE: Justice M. Fraser

COUNSEL: A. Lussier-Labelle, Counsel for Family and Children Services of Renfrew County L. Blanchet as agent for M. Godoy, Counsel for the Respondent T.W. D. G. Self-Represented D. Snider, Counsel for Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation Vasu Naik, Office of the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: June 28, 2023

Endorsement

[1] The Applicant, Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County (“FCS”) brings this motion for a temporary care and custody order.

[2] The children before the Court are L., born in April 2011; W., born in February 2013; and L.-R., born in July 2022. The children's mother is T.W., H. St.D. is the father of L. and W., and L.-R.’s father has been identified as being D.G.

[3] The children are First Nation. Both T.W. and D.G. are registered members of the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation (the “Band”).

[4] H. St.D. is a registered member of the Wolf Lake First Nation. Neither H. St.D. nor the Wolf Lake First Nation have responded to this application.

[5] The materials before me for the purpose of this motion are as follows:

For FCS

1. Notice of Motion dated March 24, 2023
2. Affidavit of Brittany Hanniman dated December 29, 2023
3. Affidavit of Kathy Colakic dated March 24, 2023
4. Affidavit of Matt Hutten dated March 24, 2023
5. Affidavit of Carey Mulligan dated May 31, 2023

For T.W.

6. Affidavit of T.W. dated May 31, 2023
7. Affidavit of T.W. dated June 21, 2023

For D.G.

8. Affidavit of D.G. dated March 30, 2023
9. Affidavit of D.G. dated April 3, 2023
10. Affidavit of D.G. dated May 30, 2023
11. Affidavit of D.G. dated May 30, 2023

For the Band

12. Affidavit of Jane Lemure dated April 24, 2023
13. Affidavit of Jane Lemure dated May 31, 2023
14. Affidavit of Jennifer Tremblay dated June 22, 2023

Background

[6] Until recently, T.W. was residing with the children in the home of her parents, R.W. and E. W. The two older children L. and W. were alternating their residence one week there, and the other week at the home of their father, H. St.D. Both homes are located on the Pikwakanagan reserve.

[7] T.W. has, throughout, had L.-R. in her care since her birth. T.W. was at all times leading up to the children being brought to a place of safety, residing with their mother T.W. at her parent’s residence.

[8] T.W. was diagnosed as bipolar in 2021.

[9] D.G. has worked and resided in Brampton. He recently submitted his retirement application. He has built a cabin on the reserve and he shares his time between Pikwakanagan and Brampton, Ontario.

[10] D. G. has one older daughter and two granddaughters who reside in Brampton. He has advised that he does not have a relationship with his daughter, and he has not seen her since 2005. D. G. has had limited experience caring for a young child.

[11] D.G. was investigated by the OPP for an alleged sexual assault of L-R and human trafficking of T.W. However, the OPP have advised that no charges will be laid.

[12] T.W. and H. St. D. were previously involved with child protection services on and off since 2018.

[13] T. W. ’s father, R. W. was, until very recently, employed with FCS. Therefore, on those occasions when child protection services were involved, the neighbouring agencies such as Family and Children's Services of Leeds, Lanark and Grenville ("FCSLLG") or the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa ("Ottawa CAS") provided coverage and assistance.

[14] On October 29, 2019, R.W. and E.W. reported concerns to FCSLLG regarding T.W. and the boys' father, H. St.D. They believed that L. and W. had witnessed multiple verbal domestic disputes, as well as T.W. becoming verbally aggressive towards them when they tried to provide assistance, such as getting the children to school. They shared that the aggression also at times became physical and that for instance, on one occasion, T.W. had punched and kicked the grandparents' truck. They also reported concerns regarding drug and alcohol use which they felt impacted T.W.’s ability to parent safely and effectively.

[15] On November 29, 2019, an Application was commenced after L. and W. were removed from T.W.’s care and brought to a place of safety. A six-month Supervision Order was sought placing the children in the care of H. St.D. The concerns were identified as mental health issues, conflict between the parents and issues with drug and alcohol addiction.

[16] With respect to T.W.’s drug and alcohol use, FCSLLG alleged in that proceeding that T.W. was found asleep in her vehicle while she waited for the children to arrive home from school on the school bus. Given that the vehicle was on the road, T.W. was charged and arrested. FCSLLG expressed concern that T. W. was also exhibiting erratic and inconsistent behavior. She would leave the home at night to return in the morning to prepare the boys for school. FCSLLG also verified concerns regarding the domestic conflict between T.W. and H. St.D.

[17] FCSLLG remained involved with T.W. until November 2, 2022, when their file was closed.

Recent Involvement of FCS

[18] On August 26, 2022, D.G. contacted FCSLLG to report a concern about T.W. He indicated that she had left her parents' home for five hours and that he was unsure how to prepare the formula for L.-R. During the call, D.G. shared that T.W. was an addict, and that she had gone to a crack house in the past but not since L.-R. was born D.G. also shared that T.W. was a good mom 90% of the time, but that the other 10% was a concern. He confirmed that L.-R. was safe.

[19] On September 29, 2022, FCSLLG decided to proceed with a file closure as both T.W. and H. St.D. appeared to be doing well. H. St.D. and T. W. were no longer residing together. T.W. was now residing with her parents and T.W. and H. St.D. agreed to a week-about schedule for L. and W. T.W. had the support of mental health and addiction counsellors on the reserve. H. St.D. also had a counsellor who also worked on the reserve. L. and W. did not report being frightened at either parents’ home and both reported feeling safe with both parents. W. and L. reported that there had been a decrease in disputes between their parents over the past year.

[20] On October 5, 2022, a FCSLLG worker attempted to contact T.W. Her father answered the phone and advised T.W was not at home. When asked how things were going, R.W. said not good. R.W. and E.W. shared that T.W. was drinking every day. She would get up at 8:00 am and have a joint and then a beer and would then drink all day. E.W. found a small baggie of cocaine in the house. T.W. apparently maintained it belonged to D. R.W. and E.W. advised that they were hearing rumours of continued drug use by T.W. with L.-R. allegedly in her care. They additionally expressed concerns that T.W. was also disengaging from some of the children's caregiving, such as no longer making meals for the boys or their school lunches.

Events Leading to Removal to Place of Safety

[21] On December 24, 2022, T.W. was arrested at the home of the maternal grandparents after it is alleged, she assaulted R.W. The OPP report indicated that T.W. had been drinking and that she became belligerent. She took L.-R., went into a room and shut the door. When R.W. went into the room to see what was going on, T.W. allegedly pushed R. W. to the ground by the throat and got on top of him. T.W. was found to be intoxicated and the police removed her from the home. The three children remained in the care of their maternal grandparents, R.W. and E.W. As a result of criminal charges laid against T.W., a no contact order was put in place between T.W., her parents and her siblings. L. and W. returned to their father's home on Monday, December 26, 2022, in accordance with the regular schedule.

[22] Community Mental Health supported T.W. by finding shelter for her at the Pinewood Hotel in Barry's Bay. However, later that evening, T.W. left the hotel to go and stay with a friend. The Community Mental Health worker contacted FCSRC to share her concern that T.W. should not be left in a sole caregiving role.

[23] R.W. and E.W. informed the worker that:

(1) They felt T.W. was an alcoholic who drinks the majority of the day; (2) They felt that T.W. should not be in a caregiving role at this time; (3) They hoped she would go back to the hospital to have her medication re-evaluated; and (4) They both also felt that, when T.W. is not drinking or using drugs and taking her medication, she is a good mother.

[24] When the workers attempted to engage T.W. by telephone they found T.W. to sound erratic, she claimed that the police officer said she could have her children back, she referred to her worker by the wrong name and repeated some information multiple times. Among other things, it is alleged that T.W. claimed that that R.W. had put a "hit" out on her for $40,000.

Developments Since the Children Were Brought to a Place of Safety

[25] T.W. began lightly supervised access with the children in January 2023 and her access to the children has been expanded since that time.

[26] According to the FCS worker, Ms. Colakic, T.W. has become increasingly more balanced with respect to her emotional, mental, physical, and spiritual well being since the time the children were brought to a Place of Safety. Ms. Colakic has not observed any indicators of T.W. being under the influence of alcohol or illicit substances during their meetings and T.W. has presented in a positive and healthy manner and is committed to her recovery. Save and except a relapse in February 2023, it appears that T.W. has remained sober since that time.

[27] Once T.W. secured safe temporary housing at a safe shelter, T.W. has had the children in her care for extended visits. More recently, L.-R. has remained in T.W.’s care while L. and W. have stayed with T.W. on weekends. FCS would have permitted L. and W. to have stayed with T.W. on a more extended basis. However, the limitation to weekends has had more to do with L. and W.’s not wishing to stay for extended periods in the shelter.

[28] L. and W. consider T.W.’s stay at the shelter to be temporary. They miss and wish to spend more time with T.W. They hope that she will secure a more natural home environment for them so that they can resume their week about arrangement that has been in place with their father and mother.

[29] The shelter is not prepared to host T.W. past next Tuesday, July 4, 2023. She must secure new accommodations. This has not yet been accomplished. FCS advises it is prepared to have faith in T.W.’s ability to secure a “home” within the near future. FCS is prepared to agree to all three children returning to T.W.’s care on terms.

[30] The Band is also prepared to see the children placed in T.W.’s care. That said, the Band is concerned that T.W. is not ready to assume the care of her children in a non-supportive location. D.G. has concern’s that T.W. has simply not established sufficient stability to be left to care for the children without sufficient safeguards in place.

[31] D.G. had supervised visits with L-R on January 18 and 27, February 20, and March 6 and 23, 2023. There have been barriers with respect to D.G. having visits including his habitual place of residence, his schedule, the availability of workers, the availability of access space, and the length of visits being two hours at a time in order to be child-focussed.

[32] The location of D.G.'s visits has varied. The first visit occurred at Anishinabek Gamik Pikwakanagan Child & Family Services in the board room. The second visit occurred at D.G.'s cabin. It was subsequently determined that the cabin was not a suitable location as there were a number of safety concerns that would pose a risk to a child L.-R.'s age, such as lack of running water, no way to prepare L.-R .'s bottles, and heat that cannot be regulated. It was also determined that D.G. would initially benefit from being supervised by a Family Visitation Support Worker who could assist in building D.G.'s parenting skills, as opposed to simply observing the visit.

[33] The access worker has identified the following strengths during D.G.’s visits with L.-R:

(a) D.G. is driving from the GTA to spend time with L.-R.; (b) D.G. expresses joy when seeing L.-R.; (c) D.G. gets down to L.-R.'s level; (d) D.G. maintains calmness and patience with L.-R., even when he is not able to soothe her; (e) D.G. continues to be committed to seeing his daughter; (f) D.G. is aware of L.-R.'s developmental stage; (g) D.G. is cautious of L.-R.'s safety the majority of the time.

[34] Some worries were also identified by the access worker during D.G.'s time with L.-R., namely that D.G. is not open to feedback or learning direction as he affirms that he is aware of the things pointed out to him and that he does not follow direction when the worker provides instruction. It was felt that D.G. became defensive when the worker provided redirection, stating that he already knew that and makes excuses why he did not take those steps.

[35] Additionally, D.G. is often making negative statements to L.-R about T.W. such as "your mom is crazy", "your mom's a crackhead”. It is felt he regularly hyper focuses on T.W. in his visits.

[36] Most recently, Jennifer Tremblay, a representative of the First Nation for the purpose of proceedings commenced under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (“CYFSA”) supervised a number of visits between D.G. and L.-R. in June 2023. She has described the visits as positive and that she observed D.G. to be appropriate and nurturing with L.-R. She advises that based upon her observations of D.G. with L.-R, she has no concerns regarding his ability to care and meet L.-R.’s needs.

[37] H. St.D., the father of L. and W., has declined involvement with this matter as he feels that it does not relate to him, and the custody arrangements have remained the same in so far as he is concerned. The protection concerns do not arise due to any action or inaction on his part.

[38] It has been observed that H. St.D. has been positive regarding T.W. for the most part. He acknowledges that everyone has difficulties in life and asserts that notwithstanding this, T.W. is a good mother to her children. He has been very supportive with L. and W. seeing their mom.

Legal Considerations on Temporary Care and Custody Motion

[39] The legal test for me to apply on this motion is set out in subsections 94 (2), (4) and (5) of the CYFSA that reads as follows:

94 (2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child,

(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part;

(b) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate;

(c) be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; or

(d) remain or be placed in the care and custody of the society, but not be placed in a place of temporary detention, of open or of secure custody.

Criteria

(4) The court shall not make an order under clause (2) (c) or (d) unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause (2) (a) or (b).

Placement with relative, etc.

(5) Before making a temporary order for care and custody under clause (2) (d), the court shall consider whether it is in the child’s best interests to make an order under clause (2) (c) to place the child in the care and custody of a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child’s extended family or community.

(6) A temporary order for care and custody of a child under clause (2) (b) or (c) may impose,

(a) reasonable terms and conditions relating to the child’s care and supervision;

(b) reasonable terms and conditions on the child’s parent, the person who will have care and custody of the child under the order, the child and any other person, other than a foster parent, who is putting forward a plan or who would participate in a plan for care and custody of or access to the child; and

(c) reasonable terms and conditions on the society that will supervise the placement but shall not require the society to provide financial assistance or to purchase any goods or services.

(8) An order made under clause (2) (c) or (d) may contain provisions regarding any person’s right of access to the child on such terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate.

(9) The court may at any time vary or terminate an order made under subsection (2).

(10) For the purpose of this section, the court may admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances.

[40] The court must also take into consideration the child’s views and wishes and give them due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity pursuant to subsection 94 (11) of the CYFSA.

[41] At a temporary care and custody hearing, the onus is on the Society to establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if a child is returned to the respondents, it is more probable than not that he or she will suffer harm. Further, the onus is on the Society to establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order. Simply stated, this is a two-part test that the society must meet.

[42] A court must choose the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child (subsection 1 (2) of the Act).

[43] The degree of intrusiveness of the Society's intervention and the interim protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk.

[44] Subsection 94 (10) of the Act permits the court to admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstance. In determining what evidence is credible and trustworthy, the evidence in its entirety must be viewed together. Evidence that may not be credible and trustworthy when viewed in isolation might reach that threshold when examined in the context of other evidence.

[45] Section 104 of the CYFSA identifies that an Order for access (parenting time) may be made if it is in the child's best interests, and that terms and conditions can be imposed as deemed appropriate by the Court:

(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.

[46] Subsection 94 (8) of the Act provides that where an order is made under clause (c) or (d) of subsection 94 (2), the court may order access on any terms that it considers appropriate. In determining what order is appropriate, the court should consider the paramount purpose of the CYFSA, being the best interests, protection and well-being of children and the secondary purposes of maintaining the integrity of the family unit, assisting families in caring for their children and recognizing the least disruptive action consistent with the best interests of the children (subsections 1 (1) and (2) of the Act). In assessing best interests, the court should consider the relevant factors set out in subsection 74 (3) of the Act.

[47] The party seeking to impose restrictions on a parent’s contact or access to a child must demonstrate that it is necessary, and the limit is proportionate to the risk. Any such terms should be child and harm specific and be supported on the evidence.

[48] The Act gives priority to the person who had charge of the children prior to society intervention under Part III of the Act (subsection 51 (2) of the Act). There can be more than one person in charge of the children.

[49] In C.A.S. v. C.F., Justice Heather McGee discussed supervised access in the child protection context at paragraphs 32 to 34 as follows:

Access is the right of a child. As stated by Justice Blishen in V.S.J. v. L.J.G., “there is a presumption that regular access by a non-custodial parent is in the best interests of children. The right of a child to visit with a non-custodial parent, to know and maintain or form an attachment to a non-custodial parent is a fundamental right and should only be forfeited in the most extreme and unusual circumstances.”

[50] A child’s right to access with a parent invites a further layer of complexity in a child protection proceeding. Court must engage in a careful balancing of the benefit of a parent’s care, the specific risk of harm to the child while in that parent’s care, and the measures in place for risk reduction.

[51] Supervised access is a critical tool in that engagement. Supervision provides a safer bridging period during which parental deficits can be assessed and whenever possible: repaired. Supervised access is clearly indicated when parenting judgement is impaired, there is a history of violence and other harmful behaviour directed toward the primary caregiver and/or evidence of abuse or neglect of the child.

[52] However, supervised access is not intended to be a long-term arrangement for a child. It is beneficial for children who require gradual reintroduction to a parent, or whose safety requires it until such time as the parent is sufficiently rehabilitated and a child is no longer in danger of physical or emotional harm.

Special Considerations Given Children's First Nations Heritage

[53] The principles outlined in An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis Children, Youth and Families S.C. 2019, c.24 (the “Act”) must also be given due consideration given that the children are First Nations children.

[54] Section 10 specifically speaks to the best interests of an Indigenous Child, and section 10(2) indicates that primary consideration must be given to the importance for that child to have an ongoing relationship with his or her family and with the Indigenous group, community or people to which they belong, and of preserving the child's connections to his culture.

[55] Section 10 (3) delineates the specific factors to be considered in order to determine the best interests of an Indigenous child. Section 10’s definition of the best interests is similar to the definition set out in the CYFSA, but not identical. The interplay between the Act and the CYFSA creates an augmented best interests test for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis children.

[56] One must also be mindful of Section 16 which identifies which placement options are to be prioritized for an Indigenous child. To the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of the child, placement with one of the child’s parents (whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous) should be prioritized.

Analysis

[57] I am satisfied that FCS has established, on the credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that, if the children were returned to T.W., it is more probable than not that they will suffer harm. The FCS workers have provided evidence of T.W.’s past history of involvement with protection agencies due to her addiction / substance abuse issues and of her difficulty coping and managing her emotions in some instances. Clearly T.W. has struggled with issues of substance use, involvement with the criminal justice system (three separate proceedings), mental health issues and imposed homelessness.

[58] Both T.W. and H. St.D. have confirmed incidents of partner violence that have occurred in front of the children.

[59] Similarly, there are criminal conditions that prevent T.W. from having contact with D.G. There is a safety plan in place which restricts D.G. from having contact with T.W.

[60] The evidence, as more particularly outlined above, has been gathered from sources who are both credible and trustworthy, whether that has been through the worker’s own observations, the reports provided by T.W.’s parents who have clearly attempted to support her, and from the police reports.

[61] Having made this conclusion, I must next consider the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child. The FCS, the Band and the OCL support the children being returned to T.W’s care which is in line with the direction provided by the CYFSA’s preamble and the Act. This is opposed by G.D. as it pertains to L.-R.

[62] Where the position of FCS and the Band differ is in regard to the terms and conditions of supervision that should be imposed. The major points of contention are that the Band is requesting that T.W. remain in supportive housing. It is also concerned that she has not secured appropriate housing to provide a home for the children.

[63] Notwithstanding D.G.’s views on this issue, I am satisfied that the children should be returned to T.W.’s care at this time. I make this conclusion based upon the evidence which I find demonstrates that T.W. has shown commitment to her sobriety and a good level of success in reaching out to the necessary supports to succeed in addressing any addiction issues. She has supports presently in place which are assisting her to address her coping skills. Historically, FCS has been able to monitor and identify times when T.W. has struggled with her alcohol/drug issues or mental health so that protective measures can be then taken if or when needed. In this respect, I also conclude that it is not necessary at this point in time to require that T.W. remain in supportive housing.

[64] T.W. has demonstrated a good level of stability during the past four months while she has been residing at the shelter. There have been no reported concerns during that time and the shelter staff have shared many positives regarding T.W.’s progress.

[65] While I am aware that the shelter has likely provided T.W. with a level of support that has contributed to her stability, it is also clear that T.W. has been engaged with a variety of service providers to address her past substance use, mental health, and trauma. These supports will remain in place. T.W. has shown a preparedness to access these services and she has been in support of having them connecting with the FCS and the Band to share information. It would be my expectation that as T.W. finds and transitions to alternative independent housing, that FCS and the Band make announced and unannounced visits which would involve a high level of frequency initially.

[66] Finally, with respect to access between L.-R. and D.G., FCS and the Band both take the position that D.G. should be permitted unsupervised access with L.-R. They propose that an Order permit him a minimum of two visits per week to a maximum of three visits per week with L.-R. subject to such further visits agreed upon by the parties. The visits are to be between two to six hours in length. The FCS agrees to assist with the transportation and that the arrangements for the visits be made by the Band.

[67] Based upon D.G.’s engagement with L.-R. as most recently reported by Ms. Tremblay, I agree that the proposed unsupervised access by D.G. with L.-R. is appropriate and consistent with L.-R.’s best interests.

[68] Based on the foregoing, and having concluded that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if the children is returned to T.W. that it is more probable than not that he or she will suffer harm, I find that the following Order to be the least intrusive alternative available and in accordance with the best interests of the children:

[69] An Order shall issue as follows:

1. Pursuant to Section 90(2) of the CYFSA, the children before the court are: (a) L. (born April 2011), W. (born February 2013), and L.-R. (born July 2022); (b) The children have First Nations heritage. L. and W. belong to the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation and the Wolf Lake First Nation, while L.-R. belongs to the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation; (c) The children were brought to a place of safety on December 28, 2022 and removed from the care of their mother in Pikwakanagan, Ontario.

2. Pursuant to Section 94(2)(c) of the CYFSA, L. and W. shall be placed in the temporary joint care and custody of their parents (H. St.D. and T.W.), and L.-R. shall be placed be placed in the temporary care and custody of T.W. subject to supervision of the FCS under the following conditions: (a) T.W. will abide by any safety plan created in collaboration with FCS and the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan First Nation; (b) T.W., H. St.D., and D.G. shall inform the Society immediately of any change in contact information including phone number, address, email, etc.; (c) T.W. and H. St.D. shall ensure the children's medical and other needs are looked after; (d) T.W shall continue to access addiction support and work with collaterals, including but not limited to her Registered Nurse Practitioner and her Drug and Alcohol Counselor; (e) T.W shall maintain her involvement with mental health services and follow through with any and all recommendations from medical professionals regarding her mental health; (f) T.W. shall not be under the influence of drugs or alcohol while having access or caring for the children; (g) T.W. shall abide by all criminal conditions; (h) T.W., H. St.D. and D.G. shall sign consents allowing FCS to communicate with any and all professionals involved with the family, as requested by their worker. They may obtain independent legal advice prior to signing said consents; (i) T.W., H. St.D., D.G. shall allow FCS and/or the Band to make announced and unannounced visits and to meet with the children privately at a minimum once every thirty (30) days. (j) If FCSRC determines that T.W. would benefit from respite services from time to time, it is to assist T.W. with getting such services in place.

3. L-R shall have unsupervised access with D.G. no less than two times per week for two hours to six hours in duration. FCS shall assist with the transportation and the arrangements for the visits shall be made by the Band.

4. T.W. and H. St.D. shall work together through their FCS worker to agree on a timesharing arrangement for L. and W., taking into consideration the boys’ expressed wishes, so that the boys will spend equal time with each parent.

Justice M. Fraser Date: July 12, 2023