Court File and Parties

Court File No.: C37/12 Date: April 19, 2012

Ontario Court of Justice

Between

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY, REGION OF HALTON – Applicant

and

T.A.Z. - Respondent mother D.Z. - Respondent father B.R.P. - Respondent stepfather

Counsel

Megan Pallett - Children's Aid Society, Region of Halton Jeffrey Hart - for T.A.Z. (mother) D.Z. - self-represented (father) Cynthia Lauer - for B.R.P. (stepfather)

Before

Justice R. Zisman

Heard

April 4, 2012

Endorsement

Introduction

[1] The children's aid society issued a Protection Application for a finding that L.J.Z. born […], 2005 is in need of protection on the basis that he was likely to suffer a risk of physical harm while in the care of his mother, T.A.Z.. The society is seeking a 7 month supervision order with the child to continue to reside with the mother but subject to terms and conditions.

[2] B.R.P. is the child's stepfather. He and the mother reside together and are expecting a child due to be born later this month.

[3] D.Z. is the child's father. The father has not had contact with the child since 2010. The mother has an order of sole custody with supervised access to the father. Prior to the society commencing this Protection Application the mother had commenced domestic proceedings to terminate the father's access. That proceeding has now been stayed pending the outcome of this protection application.

[4] The society initiated this Protection Application on the basis that there was a report of the mother using inappropriate physical discipline on the child. L.J.Z. has been diagnosed with high functioning autism. He requires many supports and services. The society's concerns were also based on the mother and stepfather not being prepared to work voluntarily with the society, historic concerns regarding the mother's parenting skills, historic concerns about the child's exposure to domestic violence between the mother and father, recent behavioural problems exhibited by the child and the mother's alleged inability to work co-operatively with the child's school, daycare and other service providers.

[5] The first attendance of the Protection Application was on February 2, 2012. A temporary order was made on a without prejudice basis that the child remain in the care of the mother on condition that the mother sign all necessary consents and the mother and stepfather not use any physical discipline on the child.

[6] The proceeding was adjourned to March 8, 2012 for a temporary care and custody hearing. Despite the order that the mother sign consents, the mother altered the consents that were requested by the society and a further order was made that the mother be required to sign consents in the form presented by the children's aid society.

[7] The temporary care and custody hearing did not proceed on March 8, 2012 as none of the parties had served and filed their responding materials. An extension was given to all parties to file their materials by March 23, 2012. The matter was again adjourned to April 4th for the temporary care and custody hearing.

[8] The temporary care and custody hearing proceeded on April 4th. After hearing submissions my decision was reserved until today.

General Legal Principles

[9] The legal test to be applied at this temporary care and custody hearing pending the protection application being heard, is set out in s. 51(2) of the Child and Family Services Act (emphasis added) which states that:

Custody during adjournment

(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,

(i) a place of secure custody as defined in Part IV (Youth Justice), or

(ii) a place of open temporary detention as defined in that Part that has not been designated as a place of safety

[10] The society, on this motion, seeks an order under s. 51(2)(b) that is, that the child remain in the care of the mother subject to a supervisory term.

[11] Section 51(3) of the Child and Family Services Act provides that:

(3) 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).

[12] However, as in this case, the society is seeking a temporary order pursuant to section 51(2)(b), it would appear that the criteria in section 51(3) are not statutorily applicable as section 51(3) is not worded to cover a section 51(2)(b) order.[1]

[13] Section 51(3.2) applies to an order being made in accordance with section 51(2)(b). That section provides as follows:

(3.2) 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

[14] Section 51(3.2) does not provide any criteria or guidance as to when an order should be made under section 51(2)(b) but simply states that any terms and conditions that are imposed must be "reasonable".

[15] It is well established that on a temporary care and custody hearing, where the society is seeking to remove a child pursuant to section 51(a) or (b), the society must establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if the child is returned to his parents, it is more probable or not that he will suffer harm.[2]

[16] It has also been held that on a temporary care and custody hearing, where the society is seeking to remove a child, the society need only demonstrate that it has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a protection risk for the child that justifies society intervention. The burden on the society at this early stage is not on a balance of probabilities as to the actual existence of risk but is an evaluation of the reasonableness of the grounds for the society's belief.[3]

[17] But as I have determined that section 51(a) and (b) does not apply to the criteria in section 3.2, it appears that the legislature has not made it clear what test is to be applied when a society is seeking a temporary supervision order or what the criteria for such an order should be.

[18] Counsel did not address me on this point and seem to have assumed that the same test should be applied.

[19] The scheme of the legislature is that the court should, pending a hearing, make the least intrusive order possible consistent with the protection of the child from a risk of likely harm. Any order made in a child protection proceeding is intrusive and despite the lack of clear legislative language I see no reason for the onus of proof or criteria to be any different when the society is requesting an order pursuant to section 51(b) than when a society is requesting a more intrusive order pursuant to section 51(c) and (d).

[20] Therefore the issue to be determine is whether or not the society has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a probable risk that the child will suffer harm if reasonable terms and conditions of a supervision order are not imposed.

[21] In making this determination I have considered the following evidence:

• Affidavit of Lisa Potts sworn January 24, 2012
• Affidavit of Yolanda Zioteck sworn March 5, 2012
• Affidavits of Karina Cal sworn March 5 and 30, 2012
• Affidavits of the mother sworn February 27, March 19 and 20, 2012
• Affidavits of the stepfather sworn February 27 and March 21, 2012
• Exhibits attached to all of the above noted affidavits

Position of the Parties

[22] It is the society's position that L.J.Z. is a special needs child who not only is autistic but has behavioural problems. He has had a traumatic childhood having been exposed to domestic violence, a transient lifestyle and a lack of parenting skills by both his mother and father. It is the society's position that the least restrictive measure is for the child to remain in the care and custody of the mother subject to similar conditions as in the temporary without prejudice order but with the further term that the mother executes specific consents sought by the society. Although the current Protection Application is seeking a finding that the child is at risk of physical harm, the society may amend its pleadings to seek a finding pursuant to section 37(2)(f) and (g) that is, a finding that the child has suffered or there is a risk he will suffer emotional harm.

[23] The father supports the position of the society but he has not filed an Answer or Plan of Care. He is presently serving a custodial sentence and is in the process of seeking counsel.

[24] It is the position of the mother and stepfather that no temporary order is necessary. In the alternative, if conditions are imposed, that they not be as stringent as requested by the society.

[25] It is submitted that the initial allegation of physical harm inflicted by the mother is trifling and an isolated incident, that the allegations of the mother not co-operating with the society workers is only based on her problem with one worker and that a court order is not necessary to require ongoing co-operation.

[26] It is also submitted that the allegations of the mother not getting along with school authorities, daycare providers and other service providers is based on double and triple hearsay and therefore not credible or trustworthy. In any event, it is simply evidence of a mother who strongly advocates for the services her child needs and indicates that the mother is attempting to ensure the best interests of her child are being met and that he is protected from harm.

[27] It is further submitted that while the mother acknowledges that the child was exposed to domestic violence as a result of the mother's relationship with the father and that she waited too long to end that relationship, she is now in a long term, happy and stable relationship with the stepfather.

[28] It is also submitted that the concerns raised by the society are similar to previous concerns that were investigated and deemed not to require court intervention.

Background and Events Leading Up to Protection Proceedings

[29] The mother has a history of involvement with the Toronto Children's Aid Society both as a child and a parent. The mother has been investigated by the Peel Children's Aid Society, Brant Children's Aid Society and the Ministry of Child and Family Development in New Westminister, British Columbia for exposing the child to domestic violence and limited parenting skills with the child.

[30] The Children's Aid Society, Region of Halton began its involvement when the child was born in […] 2005. Since that time it received 15 referrals regard concerns about the child being exposed to domestic violence, possible drug use by the father and mother, investigation of the mother while she was residing in a shelter due to concerns about her ability to parent the child and other investigation of the mother's limited parenting skills such as, use of physical discipline, emotionally abusive comments to the child and her lack of understanding of the child's diagnosis of autism.

[31] The records of the Toronto Children's Aid Society indicated that the society commenced a Protection Application in 2008. The society subsequently withdrew its application in April 2009 as the mother had dealt with the protection concerns and she agreed to work with the society on a voluntary basis. The summary closing report regarding the mother states that "as a strong advocate for herself and her son she can come to blows with individuals when she feels challenged or threatened. T.A.Z. is open to support but it needs to be on her terms and presented in a non-authoritative manner."

[32] Ms Yolanda Zioteck is a social worker with the Halton Children's Aid Society. She became involved with the mother in March 2010 when the file was transferred from the Toronto Children's Aid Society. Ms Zioteck was able to maintain regular contact with the mother, meet with L.J.Z., and was able to work co-operatively on a voluntary basis. However, the mother would become verbally aggressive with her especially around the mother's demand that the society intervene to support her attempts to terminate the father's access. On these occasions, the mother demanded to speak to her supervisors which she did and threatened to sue the society.

[33] Ms Zioteck deposed that the mother faced many challenges regarding the level of care and services that were being provided to L.J.Z.. The mother had difficulty maintaining community supports especially daycare services. For example, the mother reported that the daycare was threatening to stop providing daycare for the child as they were having trouble managing the child's behaviour. The mother had previously arranged a behavioural consultant to work with the child at the daycare. The mother then became upset with the consultant and refused to allow her to work with L.J.Z.. It was a result of the lack of added supports that the daycare provider was refusing to provide services for the child. However, another consultant was arranged and the daycare then agreed to continue to provide care for the child. But the society then received a report from the daycare provider who stated that the mother was verbally abusive, aggressive and belligerent with the staff and as a result of the mother's behaviour she was ultimately served with a no trespass order and was prevented from attending at the daycare.

[34] Once L.J.Z. began school in September 2010, the society received similar reports from his school about concerns regarding the mother's behaviour. For example, she refused to allow the school to implement a behavioural plan for the child that he be removed from the classroom if he became disruptive which in turn made it difficult for the school to make any progress with the child. The school personnel refused to participate in a service co-ordination meeting because they did not want to be subjected to the mother's behaviour.

[35] Reports about the mother's behaviour were also received from the YMCA summer day camp that staff felt threatened by the mother and that there was a risk as a result that they would no longer be willing to allow the child to attend their program. A Halton region daycare subsidy worker also contacted the society due to her concerns about how belligerent the mother was and expressed concerns about the child's safety based on how the mother spoke about the child and her behaviour.

[36] The society investigated a report in January 2011 when L.J.Z. reported being hit on the head by his mother and the school reported observing a red mark on his ear. By the time the society worker investigated the incident there was no visible mark and during that investigation the mother also refused to allow the worker into her home.

[37] Despite these ongoing concerns about the mother's behaviour, the society closed its file in February 2011 as there was no evidence that the mother's behaviour was negatively impacting the child. Even after the file was closed the society received at least 6 referrals from the community expressing concerns about the mother's mental health and parenting skills, level of aggression and threatening behaviours.

[38] On December 7, 2011 the society received a call from the child's school reporting that the child complained about a sore ear and reported that his mother hit him on the ear that morning. The school principal reported that he observed the child's ear to be very red and that there was a mark behind his right ear. Upon being interviewed by the society worker and the police, the child reported that his mother became frustrated with him that morning because he was taking too long to get ready for school.

[39] The mother and stepfather were interviewed. The mother admitted that she was frustrated that morning as the child was not getting ready for school and hit him on the hand but denied hitting him on the head. The stepfather reported that he did not see the mother hit the child on the hand but did see him holding up his hand and crying. The mother was cautioned about using physical discipline and other methods of discipline were recommended. No criminal charges were laid.

[40] After the interview the mother went to the classroom to pick up the child, upon seeing her he urinated in his pants. The mother said, "this is L.J.Z., he pisses himself all the time." The mother then asked L.J.Z. why he said that she hit him and he replied, "because you hate me."

[41] The mother refused to participate in any follow up meetings with Ms Lisa Potts, the social worker assigned to investigate the case, refused to allow a home visit as part of the investigation and hung up on the worker when she tried to speak to her on the phone. When the worker attended at the school for a follow up interview with L.J.Z., he told her that he was not allowed to talk to her because last time he spoke to her he was grounded.

[42] The society therefore commenced the present Protection Application as it was unable to complete its investigation and without a court order the mother was refusing to co-operate.

Events Subsequent to Initiation of Protection Proceedings

[43] Since the commencement of these proceedings the society deposes that the following concerning incidents have occurred:

• Despite a court order on February 3, 2012 that the mother sign consent she altered the consent to only permit the society to obtain information from the child's school regarding his progress and safety.

• The mother has refused to sign consents to permit the society to contact her own family doctor despite there being numerous community reports regarding concerns about the mother's mental health; in the plans of service there are references to the mother being directed to obtain counselling, without the mother's consent the society cannot verify if she ever did so; the mother is being accommodated in her university program due to a disability but without the necessary consent the society cannot confirm the nature of the problem which the mother alleges is only related to a back problem for which she takes pain medication.

• During private interviews with L.J.Z. he reported that he was spanked by the mother and stepfather above his clothes with an open hand; he reported that his stepfather spanks him "really hard"; L.J.Z. on several occasions expressed concerns about being spanked or grounded if his stepfather found out about something he did; during one of the interviews the mother also insisted on the child being interviewed in an open area of the home and then interrupted the interview so that the worker then had to insist that a private interview be conducted at the society's office.

• The school principle advised that the mother removed L.J.Z. from school for a week because of a dispute regarding an educational assistant; the mother has threatened to again remove him from school; upon his return to school L.J.Z. was very aggressive, he bit two educational assistants twice and punched another student, called the teachers "fucking stupid teacher"; the school staff are afraid of the mother and her behaviour, the mother entered the child's classroom unannounced and confronted the teachers; the staff are afraid to write about L.J.Z.' behaviour in the communication book as they are afraid of the mother's reaction; the mother is tape recording the conversations with the principle and has filed a complaint against him; the mother was recently asked to leave the school property because of her behaviour.

• The mother has admitted to tape recording the child and based on comments attributed to Ms Cal in the mother's affidavit the worker believes she was also taped.

• The mother reported that she is on the waitlist for services for L.J.Z. but is not prepared to sign consents for the society to confirm and advocate for these services; the mother has refused to sign consents for previous service providers or for previous counseling she received for domestic violence.

• Although the mother has complained about the child's incontinence she did not report this to the child's doctor and he was unaware that there was an issue of current chronic incontinence; he had made a referral a year ago and had suggested bladder training but was unsure about any follow up by the mother.

• In January 2012, the mother left a voice mail for Amy Bramwell, a society supervisor and then sent an email stating that the society workers should not contact her or her child until the matter was resolved in court since both the current worker, Katrina Cal and Ms Potts had lied in the information they presented to the court.

• At the court attendance on February 3, 2012 when Ms Bramwell attempted to introduce Ms Cal to the mother as her new worker the mother raised her hand to the supervisor's face and told her she did not want to speak to her and to leave her presence. When Ms Cal attempted to intervene, the mother told her that she wanted all communication to be by email which she told her was not possible. During this exchange the maternal grandmother was yelling and screaming at Ms Cal.

• The mother and stepfather stated that since the court order they had not used any physical discipline and agreed to no longer threaten L.J.Z. with physical discipline which they acknowledge they do.

[44] The mother denies that she prohibited the society workers meeting privately with L.J.Z. and that she only prohibited the society workers from meeting privately with L.J.Z. in relation to his interview about an allegation that he was assaulted by one of his educational assistants. In fact when L.J.Z. was interviewed about this incident the stepfather's lawyer was present. The mother also denied any threatening behaviour towards Ms Bramwell or yelling at her.

[45] The mother denies that she has acted inappropriately with any service provider. The stepfather supports the mother and her actions. The mother alleges that all of her complains have been made out of legitimate concern about how her son was being treated. She deposes that many of the complaints made against her are in retaliation as a result of her complaining about the service providers. She blames the service providers whether the daycare staff, educational assistants, or summer camp staff for being incompetent or lacking in understanding L.J.Z.' needs. For example, both she and the stepfather blame L.J.Z.' aggressive behaviour when he returned to school because he was picked on and treated unfairly by the educational assistant. They both deny that the school has expressed any concerns about the mother's conduct or safety concerns for the staff and other children.

[46] The mother and stepfather also blame L.J.Z.' behaviour on the fact that he was exposed to the cruel and violent behaviour by the father towards the mother.

[47] The mother deposes that she has made great strides since the past and that she is now in a stable and secure relationship. However, as the society points out although the mother and stepfather have known each other for three years, they only started to live together for the last six months.

[48] The mother's only response to her refusal to sign the consents requested by the society was that she would only sign consents when ordered by the court to do so. But then she did not explain when ordered to sign the consents why she still altered them and attempted to curtail the information the society could obtain except to allege that Ms Cal did not raise an objection. That statement is not consistent with the society requesting the court to order the mother is sign the consents in the form requested by the society.

[49] The mother also deposed that based on her previous ability to work co-operatively with various workers in the society specifically Ms Ziotek there was no need for a court order. However, both the mother and stepfather have told Ms Cal that they see no need for the society's intervention and that the mother can access services and resources on her own.

Analysis

[50] Based on the evidence presented, I find that various child protection agencies have been involved with the mother since the child was born in 2005. The longest period of time that there was no involvement was from August to November 2011. During this time period the society received 2 community referrals with concerns about the mother's mental health which were noted but not investigated.

[51] I have considered the submission made on behalf of the mother and stepfather namely, that despite numerous allegations and concerns alleged by the society, the only protection application that was commenced was withdrawn in 2009 and that the complaints since then and the recent concerns are no different than previous concerns that have been raised. However, just because in the past the society has attempted to deal with concerns outside of the court process, as is appropriate, does not necessarily mean that a court reviewing the allegations and concerns from a historical perspective should not come to the conclusion that more intrusive measures may now be necessary to alleviate the risk of harm to this child.

[52] I have also considered the submission that many of the allegations from the service providers are double and triple hearsay and therefore little weight should be accorded to them. However, the court is entitled to consider hearsay evidence at this stage of the proceedings and I have no reason to believe that all of the third parties are simply retaliating and making up or exaggerating their concerns about the mother because she has made complaints about them. The number of complaints and the similarity in the nature of the complaints from so many service providers that have had dealings with the mother lends credibility to them.

Are there reasonable grounds to believe the child is at risk?

[53] At this stage of the proceedings I am satisfied that there are probable grounds to believe that there is a protection risk to L.J.Z. of both physical and emotional harm.

[54] The following evidence in my view provides reasonable grounds for the society's intervention:

• The allegation that the child was physically disciplined and had a mark on his ear was verified by the school principal; there have been at least two previous allegations of physical discipline that were not verified; the child was grounded after he made the allegation and accused of lying; although the mother and stepfather have abided by the temporary without prejudice order not to physical discipline the child, they both acknowledged that they have threatened the child with physical discipline and the mother deposed that "smacking my child on the hand is well within my rights as a parent and does not put my child at immediate risk." It is clear that the mother does not appreciate that physical discipline or threats of physical discipline are not the appropriate methods of disciplining this child.

• The mother's refusal to execute consents regarding the child is very concerning in this case. It is important for the society to have the ability to obtain and provide information to the various service providers to ensure that the child is not at risk of harm. Although the mother had provided some proof that she has put the child on several wait lists for services, as she will not provide consents, the society cannot verify this information and more importantly the society cannot verify that the service providers have been given all of the relevant information. The mother is not a reliably source of information. For example, she did not provide the child's doctor with information regarding the child's incontinence. The mother has also misled the court when asked if she was in possession of the society's case notes, that were disclosed as part of the domestic proceedings and which were court ordered not to be used in any other proceeding, the mother stated she did not have them but yet portions of the notes were then appended to a subsequent affidavit.

• The mother's refusal to execute consents regarding her own mental health is also concerning. In view of the number of community referrals regarding concerns about the mother's mental health and previous recommendations that she receive a psychological assessment and attend counseling, the society should as part of their investigation be able to speak to any counselors that mother is or has been involved with and the mother's family doctor.

• The mother has made several comments about the child that raise concerns about her understanding of his special needs. For example, it is reported that she has made statements such as, "this is L.J.Z. he pisses himself all the time"; when speaking to a daycare subsidy worker she stated, "you try to get some babysitter to come and watch L.J.Z. when he shits himself"; when picking L.J.Z. up from a day camp she yelled at him loudly and when he yelled back she yelled louder and more aggressively and was heard saying, "if you bite me I will bite you back". The mother has claimed that L.J.Z. does not have any behavioural problems when there is credible evidence that he does.

• L.J.Z. has been exposed to domestic violence in the past and his concerning behaviour may in part be due to such exposure.

• The mother has intimidated many service providers by her aggressive behaviour and with threats to sue them and report them, which she has done, to their managers or supervisors. This has resulted in services being withdrawn by a day camp, a daycare provider and a private babysitter. A no trespass order was made against her at L.J.Z.'s daycare and now there are issues with her interaction with personnel at his current school. The mother removed L.J.Z. from school because she was not satisfied with how her complaint about an educational assistant was being investigated and has threatened to remove him again. Some of the mother's confrontations with various service providers have occurred in the presence of the child.

• The mother has acknowledged that she has taped L.J.Z., the principle, and has stated she wishes to tape the society workers. The mother's lack of trust, verbally abusive and confrontational style impedes the ability for the child to obtain the services he requires.

• The mother despite the temporary without prejudice order has interfered with the way the society wishes to conduct its investigation by insisting a lawyer be present when L.J.Z. was interviewed about an allegation of a physical assault by a educational assistant and by interfering with the society's attempt to interview L.J.Z. privately as part of this proceeding.

• The mother lacks insight on how her presentation and demeanour impact on the child despite the fact that it has deterred service providers from working with L.J.Z. and required service providers to put safety measures in place when working with her.

• There is a risk that the mother's aggressive and confrontational behaviour is impacting on L.J.Z. who has exhibited aggressive behaviours at school and who has been present when the mother has acted aggressively with service providers. The mother's behaviour is impacting on L.J.Z.' ability to access services and as the mother will not agree to voluntarily permit the society to assist a court order is necessary.

What is the appropriate order?

[55] As I have found that it is reasonable for the society to intervene at this stage of the proceeding, it is necessary to determine what order should be made. The factors I have referred to above, which satisfied me the society's belief that there is a risk of harm also satisfy me that an order for temporary supervision is necessary to ensure that L.J.Z. is protected while he remains in the care of his mother.

[56] As there are no criteria in section 51(2)(b) or (3.2) as to what factors a court should consider in determining what are "reasonable terms and conditions", a court must impose those terms that the evidence suggests are necessary to protect the child pending the hearing of the protection application.

[57] In this case, a term that prohibits the use of physical discipline or the threat of the use of physical discipline is necessary, as without such terms in place, there is a risk that the mother will continue to threaten or use physical discipline on L.J.Z. as she has no appreciation of the harm this type of behaviour management may cause to this child. I would also include the same terms for the stepfather in view of the allegations against him.

[58] Although it is evident that the mother is a strong advocate for her son, it is her method of advocating that is concerning and not beneficial to meeting the needs of her son. If the mother does not change her method of interaction with the service providers, there is a very real possibility that community resources will not be provided or will be withdrawn as they have been in the past. The involvement of the society is necessary to ensure that all the relevant information is provided and shared and that the society acts as a buffer between the mother and the service providers and that the society be able to advocate for this child in a more appropriate manner than the mother.

[59] The society has an ongoing obligation to continue its investigation and assessment of risk after commencing its Protection Application. The society needs to be provided with the mechanism of further investigating the mother's mental health as the society has continued to obtain community complaints around the mother continuing to engage in repeated threats, belittling and bullying of service providers with some incidents occurring in the child's presence.

[60] Without a court order there is a real risk that this child will not obtain the services he needs and as a result there will be a risk to his physical well being and emotional health.

[61] Without a court order the mother and the stepfather, who is fully supportive that mother and does believe she has acted inappropratiely with any service provider, will not work voluntarily with the society nor do they see any need or benefit in working with the society pending a final determination of this proceeding.

Order

[62] There will be a temporary order as follows:

L.J.Z. born […], 2005 shall remain in the care and custody of the mother subject to the supervision of the society subject to the following terms and conditions:

a. The mother, father and stepfather shall sign all consents to release of information and/or exchange of information between the Society and collaterals. The mother specifically will sign consents, in the form presented by the society, for her family doctor, ROCK, Kerry's Place, Erin Oaks, Halton Support Services and any other community service provider to enable the society to obtain information about the mother and the child and to share information with these service providers about the mother and the child.

b. The mother, father and stepfather shall notify the Society of any changes to their address and/or telephone number prior to the changes taking place.

c. The mother, father and stepfather shall maintain contact with the Society and/or attend scheduled appointments with the Society Worker.

d. The mother, father and stepfather shall allow both scheduled and unscheduled visits with the Society Worker in their homes. The mother and stepfather will allow the Society Worker to meet privately with the child.

e. The mother and stepfather shall refrain from the use of physical discipline on the child or the threat of using physical discipline on the child.

f. The father and mother shall abide by the Family Court Order with respect to the child's access visits with the father.

[63] I decline to make any orders with respect to the mother or stepfather obtaining a mental health assessment, engaging in counseling or a child management or parenting skills program at this time as I believe the society should obtain all available information and then bring a further motion before the court with the specific details of the type of assessment or counseling that it is requesting any of the parties engage in. In view of the very litigious nature of this proceeding and the problems that have already occurred with respect to the execution of consents and misunderstandings about the terms of the temporary without prejudice order, in my view a specific court order will be required if any such assessment or counseling is requested.

[64] I can be spoken to about any other terms that may be requested by the society.

Justice R. Zisman

Date: April 19, 2012

Footnotes

[1] For similar reasoning see Children's Aid Society of the Region of Niagara v. M.S. and J.S., [2011] O.J. No. 3888 (Ont. S.C.J. Family Div.)

[2] Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., [2000] O.J. No. 2273 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)

[3] L.D. v. Durham Children's Aid Society and R.L. and M.L., [2005] O.J. No. 5050 (Ont. Div. Ct.)