WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to subsections 45(8) of the Act. This subsection and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with subsection 45(8), read as follows:

45.— (8) 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.

85.— (3) A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order of prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(c) or subsection 45(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.: 113/08

Ontario Court of Justice

Between:

The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo

Applicant,

— AND —

L.M. and B.D.1

Respondents

Before: Justice M.A. McSorley

Heard on: May 19, 21, June 15, 18, July 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, August 30, 31, September 13, 27, 28, 29, October 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, December 8, 2010, January 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, February 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, March 21, 22, 23, 25, May 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 20, 2011

Reasons for Judgment released: April 12, 2012

Counsel:

• Mr. R. Hamel for the applicant Society
• Mr. G. Schafer for the respondent mother, L.M.
• Ms. T. Harper for the maternal grandmother, B.D.1
• Ms. P. Klodner, Office of the Children's Lawyer for K.M.1, A.M.1 and M.M.

McSorley J.:

Introduction

[1] The matter before the court was an amended protection application originally concerning five children: K.M.2, born 1992, A.M.2, born 1994, K.M.1, born 2001, A.M.1 born 2003 and M.M., born 2006. When the trial commenced K.M.2 was approximately two months short of his 18th birthday. On February 9, 2010, an order was made on consent permitting the society to withdraw its application regarding K.M.2. Although it was agreed that A.M.2 would remain in the care of his mother, by the time the trial concluded A.M.2 was a few months shy of his 17th birthday. At the end of the trial, the society withdrew its protection application regarding A.M.2.

[2] Another sibling of the children, D.M.2, born 1990, was not the subject of these proceedings.

[3] The father, D.M.1 initially filed an Answer and Plan of Care in these proceedings, but eventually stopped participating. His Answer was struck and he was noted in default on June 12, 2009. The maternal grandmother, B.D.1 sought party status in July 2009. Her motion was dismissed on the basis that her plan was being considered by the society and her motion for party status was premature. When her plan was not approved by the society, she brought another motion for party status which was granted in early May, 2010.

[4] The evidence heard on 57 days spanning a one year period dealt with the finding of protection and disposition regarding the three younger boys only. The society called 9 witnesses, including Dr. McDermott, who had completed a parental capacity assessment. The mother called 3 witnesses and the maternal grandmother called 2 witnesses.

The society sought an order that the children were in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2) (b-i), (b-ii) and (g) of the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) and an order for Crown Wardship with no access to the parents or grandmother. The mother sought a return of the children to her care together with her partner M.G. or alternatively to her care alone, or alternatively to the care of M.G. alone, subject to terms of supervision. The maternal grandmother sought placement of the three children with her or alternatively any one or two of them, again subject to supervision. The grandmother also supported the children being returned to the mother subject to supervision, but requested that if they were returned to the mother that she should have specified access to them. The mother opposed all requests by the grandmother for access to the children.

Background

[5] The society became involved with L.M. in April 2007. Prior to that there had been file openings in Brant County in 2001 and Haldiman Norfolk. Haldiman Norfolk CAS notified the applicant that they believed the mother and children were residing in Kitchener at Anselma House. When the current society got involved in 2007, the mother agreed to work with the society under a voluntary service agreement. Between June 2007 and March 2008, concerns grew about the state of the home, transience, lack of supervision, care giving of the younger children by the older boys, aggression among the older boys and truancy. Over time the mother would not acknowledge the concerns and refused to continue to work with the society voluntarily. As such a protection application was commenced on March 5, 2008. At that time the three youngest boys had been staying with the maternal grandmother. The mother insisted the boys be returned to her care.

[6] Initially a plan was proposed (although the person who proposed the plan was disputed) that the maternal grandmother would move into the mother's home to assist with the care of the six boys. An interim, interim without prejudice order was made on March 18, 2008, placing the children with the mother subject to terms of supervision. The first term of supervision was that B.D.1 would reside at the home of L.M. to assist with the supervision and care of the children for a period of time until the society deemed her presence in the home to be no longer necessary. Some of the other terms included that the mother would ensure the children's medical, developmental and dental needs were met; that she would ensure the children were supervised at all times, that the older children would not be left in a care giving role for the three younger children; that the mother would ensure that D.M.2, K.M.2 and A.M.2 attended school regularly; that the mother would ensure the home was safe, clean, free from hazards and child safety approved; and that she ensure that the older boys attended counselling to address their violent and aggressive behaviours and anxiety. The mother was present in court on March 18, 2008 with her lawyer when the order was made.

[7] Within days of the order being made and the grandmother moving into the home, there was conflict between the mother and grandmother. The grandmother advised the society that she could no longer stay in the home and the mother agreed that she should go. This was notwithstanding the fact that the order required B.D.1 to be in the home in order for the children to remain there. As a result of the grandmother leaving the mother's home, the youngest three children were apprehended on March 25, 2008. On that date, the grandmother was asked if she would be willing to care for the children and she indicated that she was not. An interim interim without prejudice order was made on March 27, 2008 placing the three youngest children in the care of the society. By the time the trial ended in May 2011, the children had been in care for more than 3 years.

[8] During the period the children have been in care, issues of concern have included the mother's many moves from city to city, the number of relationships in which she engaged, introducing various men to her children and allowing the children to call them "dad", truancy of the older boys who remained in the mother's care, lack of supervision in the home and the community, the mother's health and its impact on the mother's ability to parent, the special needs of the three youngest children and the mother's overall ability to meet those needs.

[9] On August 18, 2008, an interim care and custody hearing was heard. Justice Frazer reviewed the history of the M. family in his written reasons for judgment at that hearing. His Honour found the following facts when determining the issues.

[10] Historical concerns had dated back to 1994 around issues of lack of resources, an unclean home environment, transience, truancy of the children and K.M.2's sexualized behaviour. On the issue of the mother's health, he found that notwithstanding the mother's precarious health following A.M.1's birth, she had another child in November 2006 but had not informed the Haldiman Norfolk CAS of this pregnancy. She further failed to advise the society that her husband had been incarcerated. In fact, he found that she misled the society by advising that her husband was away at work.

[11] When the Haldiman Norfolk society notified the applicant that they believed the mother was in Kitchener, they also expressed concerns around issues of transience, truancy, and the mother's health. The mother claimed in her evidence that she felt no need to notify the agency of her move because it was her husband who had been involved with them. However, she had regained custody of the children in February 2007 and it was she who had an obligation to advise them she was leaving the jurisdiction with the children. Although a safety plan had been developed that the father would care for the children in the event the mother had to be hospitalized, this plan was not feasible given the separation and the fact that the mother did not want him to know where she was.

[12] Of further concern was that the older boys were struggling academically as a result of their chronic truancy. They were also often left in a care giving role, a role they were ill suited for at the time.

[13] In May 2007 the mother entered into a voluntary service agreement with the society that mainly focused on safety planning for the children in the event she needed to be hospitalized. From May 2007 to January 2008, there was much chaos in the lives of the mother and children. M.M. was often left in the care of the maternal grandmother, B.D.1. A.M.1 who suffered anoxic brain damage at birth functioned at half of his chronological age. He was very impulsive and required close supervision.

[14] The chaos in the home steadily increased. There was police involvement with K.M.2 and A.M.2 as a result of them being in public with a large knife. In January 2008, there were concerns about K.M.2 and/or A.M.2 being involved with gangs in the area. At the same time the mother was reporting that the boys were out of control and that K.M.2 was exhibiting defiant and aggressive behaviour.

[15] During a scheduled home visit in January 2008, K.M.1 and A.M.1 were observed running around the main floor and jumping on furniture. K.M.1 had no shirt on and pieces of food were stuck to his chest. The mother was not at home and the older boys were not seen. When they were called, D.M.2 and K.M.2 attempted to settle the younger boys down. D.M.2 did not know when his mother was returning to the home. The home was observed to be in a bad state; the floors and walls were dirty; there was food on the floor, there were holes in the walls and the furniture was damaged.

[16] Another incident occurred in January 2008 involving A.M.1 when he wandered a couple of blocks away from home. A community member found A.M.1 and called the police. It was an hour later that the mother called police, who brought A.M.1 home. Apparently the mother had left A.M.1 in the care of D.M.2., who delegated the task to K.M.2. Neither of the boys did what was necessary to get A.M.1 to his cab and while the mother slept, he wandered away.

[17] During that same month, Waterloo Regional Housing inspected the property and observed its poor condition. They noted the holes in the walls, broken doors, a cupboard was ripped off the wall, there was a strong smell of urine, and there was food on the floor on which the children were eating. A.M.1's bed consisted of a ripped mattress with no sheets or blankets. The holes in the wall exposed electrical wiring. The holes had been caused by K.M.2 punching them. There were cords trailing down the stairs, there were no child safety gates and the floors were dirty.

[18] Truancy issues of the older boys remained outstanding. By February 2008, K.M.1, A.M.1 and M.M. were staying with B.D.1 to assist the mother in dealing with the issues of the home and the older boys, but the problems continued.

[19] At the conclusion of the risk hearing Justice Frazer found that there were reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the children were at risk of both physical and emotional harm. He made an interim order leaving K.M.2 and A.M.2 with their mother subject to supervision and maintained the younger three children in care.

Issues

[20] At the end of the trial, during submissions, the mother conceded that the children were in need of protection. She did not indicate any agreement to the factual basis that would support the protection finding, but agreed that the children were in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2) (b-i) (b-ii) and (g) of the CFSA. The remaining issue was disposition. Having regard to the length of time these children have been in care, the only options include placement with the children with their mother, placement with the mother and Mr. M.G. together, placement with Mr. M.G. alone or placement with B.D.1, all subject to supervision or Crown wardship with or without access.

Position of the Parties

[21] The society's position was that past history is the best indicator of future behaviour and that the children should not be returned to their mother's care either alone or with Mr. M.G. because they would likely suffer the same neglect and issues that the older children suffered. Further as all three children have high needs, the mother's plan alone or with Mr. M.G. was unrealistic and would not meet their needs. The society sought an order for Crown wardship without access so that permanency planning could be done for the children.

[22] The mother's position was that she had changed from the time of the apprehension and that she alone or with Mr. M.G. could successfully parent and meet the needs of the children. She believed she had addressed and overcome all of the issues of concern and that history would not repeat itself with the younger children. Alternatively, if the court did not consider her to be a viable alternative, Mr. M.G. put forward a plan to parent the boys on his own. The mother was adamant that the children should not be placed with the grandmother, leaving the court to infer that if they could not be returned to her and Mr. M.G. or either of them alone, she would prefer that they be adopted rather than be placed with their grandmother. She went so far as to say if the children were placed with her she did not agree with the grandmother even having access to them.

[23] Ms. B.D.1's position was that she wished to parent all three or any one or two of the children. If that was not possible, she supported the children going home to their mother, but asked that she have access to them.

[24] At the start of trial, Ms. Klodner OCL for the children indicated that she supported a disposition of Crown wardship. She also indicated that her position might change as a result of the evidence. However, at the end of the trial, she supported the position of the society for Crown wardship without access to the parents or grandmother, but specifically asked that there be a consideration for access between the siblings.

The Evidence

[25] As earlier indicated, 14 witnesses were called to give evidence. The length of the trial, the time over which it was heard and the time it has taken to complete the judgment requires a thorough review of the evidence.

CAS Evidence

Amy Morphet

[26] Amy Morphet, the family service worker testified over an eleven day period from May 19 to July 20, 2010. I intend to deal with Ms. Morphet's evidence during three periods: 1) from initial contact with the mother in May 2007 until B.D.1 moved into the home; 2) the period during which all of the children were in the home along with B.D.1; and 3) after the apprehension.

[27] May 31, 2007 – March 2008: Ms. Morphet indicated that she first became involved with the mother at a transfer meeting on May 31, 2007 held at Anselma House. Her understanding was that the mother was staying at Anselma House with her six children, having fled the Haldiman Norfolk area to get away from her abusive husband who was being released from jail. The intake worker Tanya Feeney was present at the transfer meeting. Ms. Feeney advised that there had been two referrals regarding the M. family: the first being from a worker from Haldiman Norfolk CAS who had been working with the family and who had not been advised the mother had left the region; and the second from Anselma House staff regarding the mother's lack of supervision of the children.

[28] Ms. Morphet and the mother talked about her health issues and safety planning to deal with those issues. Ms. Morphet testified that the mother was outgoing and outspoken during this conversation. She was knowledgeable about her children, especially A.M.1 and his special needs. The worker and mother spoke about the teen boys in only a general sense at that meeting. The mother discussed her pancreatitis and acknowledged that her health problems had an impact on her parenting. They explored community services and programming for the family. Several visits were planned over the summer months. Between May 31 and September 13th, the mother missed, cancelled or rescheduled meetings with the worker on June 18, July 24, August 13, August 31 and September 10, 2007. The mother was available to meet the worker on July 3, August 9 and September 13, 2007.

[29] Before the second visit occurred, the father of the children contacted the worker. He was aware that the mother was in a shelter in the Kitchener area; advised Ms. Morphet that he had been in jail from February 17 to April 11, 2007 and indicated his worry for the children and asked whether there was a safety plan in place. He did not offer to be part of a safety plan for the mother.

[30] On July 3, 2007 the mother advised Ms. Morphet that she was fine with Mr. D.M.2 seeing the children but that she did not want to have direct contact with him. Ms. L.M. indicated that although he was abusive to her, the abuse had not been in the presence of the children. She advised that on occasion she had sought his assistance in caring for the children when she was in hospital. However she did not want him notified if she became ill. Although she believed that it was reasonable to seek his assistance when she was ill, she was also indicating that he had been abusive to her, but not the children. Later, Ms. Morphet learned from K.M.2's interview that in fact Mr. D.M.2 had been physically abusive to the children when caring for them. The mother told the worker that her friend A.R. would help her with the children if she became ill. Ms. Morphet understood that Mr. A.R. was one of the reasons Ms. L.M. had come to Kitchener.

[31] Within a month, Ms. L.M. advised the worker she had obtained a job at a call centre working 4 p.m. to midnight. In cross examination, Ms. Morphet did indicate that she had some concerns about how the mother could work while managing 6 children and having precarious health. The mother had also changed her mind about Mr. D.M.2 being part of the plan to care for the children indicating that she was agreeable to his assisting with child care while she worked in addition to Mr. A.R. and a neighbour. By mid September 2007, the mother left her employment due to difficulties with her child care arrangements and due to the overwhelming task of parenting on her own. By November 2007, Mr. A.R. was no longer part of the mother's household either as a friend, caregiver, or boyfriend. Ms. L.M. claimed that he had stolen an Xbox belonging to the boys. Later, Mr. D.M.2 was also accused of stealing the mother's car and so he too was no longer available as an emergency contact or caregiver.

[32] The mother signed a voluntary service agreement on August 9, 2007. In the agreement, the mother's strengths were noted as resourceful in seeking out and accessing resources in the community, she had friends on whom she could rely to help with her children, and she was committed to her children. There was no reference to the truancy of the children except that a term required that the mother ensure their attendance at school. There was no reference to transience, except that a term required her to advise in advance of any move. There was no reference to lack of supervision, although the worker did express to the mother her concern that the older boys were taking care of the little ones too much and that this was not the same as adult supervision. In cross examination, Ms. Morphet indicated that she felt the boys were left to fend for themselves a lot. During the period of time from May 31, 2007 until the maternal grandmother moved into the home in early March 2008, there were several areas of concern noted by Ms. Morphet set out below.

[33] Residence of M.M.: According to Ms. Morphet, between May 31, 2007 and January 2008, she saw M.M. only once. She had made a referral to Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, for M.M.. This program was cancelled in January 2008 because M.M. had never been present during the times that the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children worker wanted to meet and work with the mother. In August 2007, the mother told Ms. Morphet that M.M. was being cared for by an aunt in Stoney Creek. In September, she told Ms. Morphet he was with his father. In October, she told Ms. Morphet that he was still with her aunt. In fact, M.M. was with his maternal grandmother for most of that period. During cross examination, the mother attempted to explain this misleading information by saying that M.M. was never alone with her mother and that she would not have allowed M.M. to be alone with her mother and only agreed because her mother was visiting her sister (the aunt). The aunt was not called to verify this information and the grandmother denied that the aunt was caring for M.M. and testified instead that M.M. spent much of his first year with her.

[34] In February 2008, the mother agreed that the grandmother could take K.M.1, A.M.1 and M.M. for a few weeks in order to deal with some of the issues in her home. The children remained with the grandmother until the beginning of March when the grandmother moved into the mother's home, bringing the younger children with her.

[35] Supervision and child care: Based on Ms. Morphet's evidence it seemed clear that the mother's home from May 2007 until the grandmother moved in was chaotic at best. The older children were used regularly to care for the younger children. The older children confirmed this fact and indicated that they were tired of taking care of the younger boys. In addition, the older boys were ill equipped to care for their siblings, using aggression and inappropriate time outs. The worker witnessed one of the older boys dragging another up the stairs to a bedroom. The younger boys would be put on time outs for 15 – 20 minutes with the older boys standing outside the bedroom blocking the exit. Notwithstanding the fact that the mother said she had two neighbours and A.R. babysitting when she worked, she admitted that she often came home from work after midnight and all of the children were awake and still up.

[36] In Exhibit #1, at Tab 10, an email from a person named Frank Loschmann to Don Harmer described an incident when Frank was in the M. home to change the thermostat. According to the letter, K.M.2 was babysitting A.M.1. K.M.2 was heard encouraging A.M.1 to step on the cat's head. Additionally, while playing video games with A.M.1, K.M.2 was heard to tell A.M.1 that he was a good little murderer. The email sets out that the mother was present in the home and had asked K.M.2 several times to watch "this kid" because it was his job, not hers. Ms. Morphet was concerned that there was a lack of supervision for the younger children and inappropriate supervision of the teens.

[37] The mother struggled with A.M.1's behaviours. In January 2008, a referral was received that A.M.1 was found wandering in the community by himself. The mother explained that she had been feeling unwell and asked D.M.2 to ensure that A.M.1 got to school and D.M.2 had delegated the task to K.M.2. Neither of the boys took care of A.M.1 and he simply wandered away on his own. After the incident, the worker visited the home. K.M.1 answered the door and indicated he had to wake his mother.

[38] In discussing the incident, the mother placed the blame on D.M.2 An earlier incident had involved D.M.2 handling A.M.1 roughly at the day care centre and telling him he was a bad boy because he had wet himself. The mother reported that she struggled with making the older boys understand A.M.1's special needs. The worker spoke to D.M.2 about how he dealt with A.M.1 and he did not see a problem with the manner in which he had handled A.M.1.

[39] The older boys were aggressive with each other and K.M.2 in particular was having difficulty handling his anger often punching holes in the walls. The mother could not get K.M.2 or A.M.2 to attend school and was worried that they might be involved in gang activities and that A.M.2 might be doing drugs.

[40] The worker attended at the home on January 16, 2008. K.M.1 answered the door. He had no shirt on and had two pieces of bologna stuck to his chest. He said he did not have a mom and that they had to look after themselves. K.M.1 and A.M.1 were running around screaming and yelling and jumping on furniture. The worker asked K.M.1 to get his brothers. K.M.2 and D.M.2 came into the room and tried to control the children with little success. The mother was not home and the older boys had no idea when she would be home.

[41] State of the home: The state of the home deteriorated over the first 10 months that the worker was involved. There were holes in the walls, mostly created by K.M.2 in his anger, wires exposed, door frames and locks broken, cupboards broken, screens missing on upstairs windows, and no safety gates for a baby. According to Ms. Pryse, the HB/HC worker, she had discussed the necessity of outlet plugs and baby gates with the mother in November 2007. There was food on the walls and floor. The furniture was broken and the home smelled of urine. The children were observed eating food off the dirty floor. In January 2008, during a walkthrough of the home, pictures were taken showing the condition. Those pictures were entered into evidence at Tab 2 of Exhibit 1.

[42] The pictures showed the cracks and holes in the wall, exposed wiring, mattresses on the floor with no sheets or bedding, extreme clutter in a closet and in the basement, and a mattress on the floor of the basement with sheets and pillows beside a desk with a computer. The mother denied sleeping in the basement contrary to the grandmother's evidence that the mother did sleep there and used the computer in the basement.

[43] According to Ms. Morphet, the mother both disagreed that there was any reason for concern and minimized the concern regarding the state of the home and focused only on cleaning it. She further advised Ms. Morphet that she had been in homes in much worse shape than hers. By the end of February 2008, the old damage continued to exist in the home and further damage had been done. In fact, on February 27, 2008, the mother received notice that she had to have the home repaired. She was given until March 20, 2008 to repair the damage herself or hire a contractor to do so. Clearly Regional Housing believed the home was in a bad state of repair.

[44] School Issues: During this period A.M.2, who was 13, was regularly truant from school and K.M.2 did not attend school at all. When the records were reviewed, it became evident that school attendance had been a long standing issue. In grade 7, D.M.2 had missed 33.5 days and in grade 8 had missed 41 days of school. In February 2008 the mother said she was unaware of his absences. While some of his absences had occurred when she was hospitalized, his report cards each year would have noted the absences and if she is to be believed that she was unaware of them, then she was completely out of touch with what was going on his school career even when she was not in hospital. By grade 8, he had attended 16 different schools. This must have been obvious to the mother.

[45] In the 2006-2007 school year, K.M.2 missed 44.5 school days and in 2007-2008 school year, his report card said he never attended school. It was during this time that the mother claimed to be home schooling K.M.2. However, no evidence was ever led by the mother as to what courses K.M.2 took, what courses he passed or what grade he obtained. Tabs 23 – 26, dated in the late fall of 2007 all relate to K.M.2's absence from school. There appeared to be no follow up by the mother to the many letters she received from the school. K.M.2 was very interested in working on the computer and it appears that this is all he did.

[46] In June 2005 A.M.2 had missed 24 days. By December 2006 he had missed 23 days and in March 2007 he had missed 32.5 days. By grade 6, he had had 11 school moves. Tab 31 raised a similar concerns about A.M.2's absences from school in the spring of 2006.

[47] In senior kindergarten K.M.1 missed the majority of the year and had both social and academic delays.

[48] Grandmother's Concerns: In addition to the concerns observed by Ms. Morphet, B.D.1 also raised concerns about the boys. She was worried about their behaviour, their fighting and rough housing; and that D.M.2 had too much responsibility for the younger children. She was also concerned about the mother's health and that M.M. was not being cared for. Finally she was worried that the mother would be angry that she was speaking with the worker.

[49] By February 2008, the worker was becoming very concerned that the issues were not being addressed and that the mother was unable to manage her home and her children. She was also concerned that the mother was minimizing concerns about school issues, discipline, structure, and routine for the boys and was deflecting blame for the issues onto Mr. D.M.2 and the older children who intervened with her care of the younger children. Ms. B.D.1 wanted to take A.M.1 and K.M.1 to her home in Oshawa and the mother agreed to this assistance. Ms. B.D.1 picked up the children on February 5, 2008 and returned with them to her home. The mother first agreed that the three youngest boys could remain with the grandmother for a few weeks and then later agreed to leave them there until the beginning of March. However, she made it clear she wanted A.M.1 home for his birthday on March 2, 2008.

[50] On February 26, 2008 the mother indicated she wanted the children brought back home. Ms. B.D.1 was willing to take them to their mother for a weekend but did not want to leave them there. The society advised that they wanted Ms. B.D.1 to keep the children until the mother's home was safe for them to live in. They arranged for a home safety check of Ms. B.D.1's home and advised that they would be starting a court application.

[51] While the children were with Ms. B.D.1, K.M.1 missed more than a month of school. When asked about this, Ms. Morphet advised that at the time, his safety was more important than his attendance at school and that once it had been determined where he would be living, the school situation would be sorted out. Ms. B.D.1 reported that the children were difficult to manage, especially A.M.1 who was hard to supervise. She was worried about the help she needed to care for the three children. Ms. Morphet's impression was that Ms. B.D.1 could not handle the three younger children. On February 26, 2008, Ms. B.D.1 left a voice mail message indicating that she felt overwhelmed by the care of the children.

[52] The worker met with the mother at the end of February. During her visit the older boys were yelling and swearing and throwing food around. The mother's attempts to stop their behaviour was ineffective. Notwithstanding the fact that the house remained in a state of disrepair and posed hazards for M.M., the mother still wanted the children to be returned to her. Additionally, the worker was concerned that none of the issues regarding the older boys had been addressed. She spoke to the mother about an extension of the service agreement with new goals and tasks, but the mother would not agree, particularly with the term that the three younger children would remain with Ms. B.D.1 during the period of the agreement.

[53] On February 27, 2008, the grandmother spoke with the worker and indicated that the mother was very angry with her for talking to the worker and blamed the grandmother for the society's position. The worker assured the grandmother that the society had concerns other than those that the grandmother had raised. On that same date, the mother said she was going to pick up the younger children. Again she minimized the protection concerns focusing on cleaning the home. The worker told her she did not agree with the younger children coming home.

[54] On February 28, 2008, Ms. B.D.1 advised Ms. Morphet that she had spoken to Ms. L.M. and had offered to go to her home and help care for the children. According to Ms. Morphet, this was the first time the suggestion had been made. Although the mother recognized a need for help, she was concerned that her mother was trying to obtain custody of the children. Ms. Morphet advised Ms. B.D.1 that if both parties agreed to this plan the society would support it but also indicated that the society would need to obtain a supervision order placing the children with the mother subject to terms, with Ms. B.D.1 in the home to assist. Later that day, Ms B.D.1 reported speaking to the mother who was angry about the plan and did not want anyone telling her how to raise her children.

[55] As a result of this conversation, Ms. B.D.1 reported a reluctance to go to the mother's home to help with the children. During this conversation, Ms. B.D.1 advised the worker that no one in her home had a record or had had involvement with the CAS. However, the next day, Ms. Morphet was advised by a Durham CAS worker undertaking a safety check on Ms. B.D.1 that Mr. B.D.2 had been convicted of criminal negligence as a result of two foster children in his care being scalded and Ms. B.D.1 had suffered a mental breakdown such that her children had to be cared for by their grandparents. This information surprised Ms. Morphet and caused her to question how forthright Ms. B.D.1 had been.

[56] On February 29, 2008, the worker spoke with the mother who again focused only on the issues with the home and minimized all of the issues regarding the boys' behaviour and needs. When told about the court application and the various orders available, Ms. L.M. agreed that her mother could come to her home to assist her with the six boys. Ms. Morphet advised that the society would be satisfied with such a situation under a supervision order. Ms. Morphet also discussed with the mother services for the boys including the outreach program, mentoring program and counselling, especially for K.M.2 to deal with his anger, anxiety and destructive behaviour in the home.

[57] In her evidence the mother indicated that the worker had told her in mid January there was a court order requiring the grandmother to live with the mother. Obviously, no court order could be obtained without an application being issued and served on the mother. The protection application was issued on March 5, 2008. Ms. L.M. testified that the only reason she allowed her mother to live with her was that Ms. Morphet told her there was a court order requiring her to do so. There is no possibility that Ms. Morphet advised the mother in mid January that there was a court order in place requiring the grandmother to live with her. The mother's evidence on this issue was not credible.

[58] On March 3, 2008, Ms. B.D.1 advised the worker that the mother was flip flopping about Ms. B.D.1 being in the home. The mother was angry that the grandmother had agreed to a criminal records check and angry about the grandmother disciplining the older boys about their yelling during the previous weekend visit.

[59] On March 4, 2008 Ms. Morphet spoke to the mother on the telephone and advised her of the court application that was about to be issued and indicated that the society was seeking a supervision order placing the children in her care based on the grandmother being in the home to assist. Ms. L.M. asked if the assisting person had to be her mother. When Ms. Morphet advised her that this was the plan she agreed to, Ms. L.M. indicated that she was concerned about her mother being in the home because she could be very controlling, passive/aggressive and would undermine her authority with the children. She indicated that she was thinking of sending all the boys to their father. This information surprised Ms. Morphet because she had only ever heard negative things about the father from the mother. Ms. Morphet offered to meet with both women to clarify each of their roles under the arrangement. Ms. Morphet also advised the mother that the repairs had to be made to the home before the younger children could return and that she needed to obtain child safety locks and gates for the stairway, something she had been told 4 months earlier.

[60] On March 13, 2008, Ms. Morphet attempted to make arrangements to visit with the mother to determine if the repairs had been made in order for the younger children to come home. The mother would not commit to a time for Ms. Morphet to attend the home.

[61] At some point between March 13 and March 18, 2008, Ms. B.D.1 moved to the mother's home, bringing the younger children with her.

[62] Prior to the court application being started, the applicant society attempted to provide services to the mother and children. M.M. was registered with Healthy Babies/Healthy Children, but that service was ended when the HB/HC worker could not arrange any visits with M.M. because of his absence from the home. A.M.1 was registered at Peek-A-Boo day care and had services set up at KidsAbility. There were volunteers assigned to work with K.M.2 and A.M.2 and provide them with positive community activities. Carrie Bryce was assigned to assist K.M.2 in participating in an alternative school program. This did not occur. Many of these programs had just begun. The programs were continued for the younger boys after apprehension, but discontinued for the older boys because the mother left Kitchener within months of the apprehension. The mother did not engage in suggested counselling for herself or the older boys either.

[63] March 13 – March 25, 2008: On March 18, 2008 the worker spoke with the mother at court. Ms. L.M. was already reporting that there were issues with her mother in the home. She said that things were not working well; that she and her mother had different parenting styles; and that she did not feel it was necessary for anyone to stay in her home unless she wanted them there. The interim interim supervision order was made on March 18, 2008 unopposed by the mother. The mother was present when the order was made and was represented by counsel. This was the first order made. The mother was aware of it and its terms. Her statement that Ms. Morphet advised her that an order was in place in mid January is not credible.

[64] On March 19, 2008, Ms. Morphet attended the home. She noted some improvements had been made with respect to child safety devices and locked cupboards. Some of the holes in the walls had been repaired. The floors and walls were still quite dirty. Ms. Morphet advised both the mother and grandmother of the next court date. The mother asked what would happen if the grandmother left. The grandmother advised that she would not be leaving and Ms. Morphet told the mother that the grandmother being in the home was a term of the supervision. The mother advised that she disagreed with term H, regarding the older boys not being left in a care giving role to the younger boys. The mother also disagreed with her mother's views that there needed to be some rules in the home around eating habits and throwing food around. The mother discussed giving all of the boys to their father when he was released from jail. The worker reminded her that the order provided him with supervised access only and that he would have to meet and talk with the worker before any changes in custody and/or access were made. It was agreed that the mother would contact the worker on March 25 th , the day of Mr. D.M.2's release.

[65] On March 23 rd and 24 th , Ms. B.D.1 left voice mails for the worker. She advised that things were not going well in the home, that the mother was doing nothing and that she, Ms. B.D.1 had been doing all the cleaning, chores and laundry. She advised that there had been an incident where L.M. and D.M.2 were fighting during which he called her a whore. She indicated that L.M. did not want Ms. B.D.1 in the home. She stated that K.M.1 and A.M.1 were allowed to run around the house, the environment was quite chaotic and the mother spent all of her time on line with a number of men. She told Ms. Morphet that Ms. L.M. was threatening to say that Mr. B.D.2 had sexually abused the children.

[66] Ms. Morphet heard the various voice mails on March 25, 2008. She attended at the home unannounced to Ms. L.M.. Ms. L.M. had been at court for D.M.1.'s hearing, but came home for the lunch break. She told Ms. Morphet that she was only home for a short time and needed to leave again. She agreed that things were not working out with her mother in the home and reminded Ms. Morphet that she had not wanted her mother there and had not agreed to it. Ms. Morphet explained that the plan had been suggested by Ms. B.D.1 and agreed to by Ms. L.M.. The mother reported that Ms. B.D.1 was abusive to the children while she was in the home and that she would have to leave. Ms. L.M. also told the worker that her mother had pushed her down the basement steps during an altercation. This allegation was denied by Ms. B.D.1. Ms. Morphet reminded the mother that Ms. B.D.1 being in the home was a term of the order and that her leaving would result in further intervention. Ms. L.M.'s response was that she preferred her children to be in foster care rather than have her mother in the home. She then left the home and returned to court.

[67] Upon consultation with her supervisor, it was agreed that as a result of the mother insisting her mother leave the home and Ms. B.D.1 indicating she could no longer stay in the home, and due to the fact that the home's condition was still not safe for the younger children and services had not yet been put in place to deal with the older boys' aggression, the three younger children would be apprehended. Ms. Morphet was also concerned that the mother showed a lack of understanding or acknowledgement of the concerns, focusing only on the house repairs and not on the other issues concerning the lack of care for the children. Ms. B.D.1 was asked if she was prepared to care for the younger children in her home. Although Ms. B.D.1 struggled with the decision, she refused to take the children because of her worry about her relationship with L.M. and her fear of the allegations L.M. her would make against her. On cross examination Ms. Morphet advised that Ms. B.D.1's presence made the apprehension easier and that she put the needs of the children first.

[68] Ms. Morphet testified that only the three youngest children were apprehended because the risk of potential harm to them due to the state of the home, the lack of supervision, the inappropriate caregivers, and aggression between the older boys was greater.

[69] March 25, 2008 to Trial: Following the apprehension Ms. Morphet arranged for access visits by the mother with the children. A child service worker was assigned to the three youngest boys.

[70] On March 26, 2008 Ms. B.D.1 called the worker and asked if she could change her decision regarding having the children placed with her and asked for access to the children. The worker testified that she did not follow up with this request because such a placement would now require a full kin assessment to investigate the concerns that had been reported about Ms. B.D.1 and her past history.

[71] On March 31, 2008, the mother provided a new emergency contact number to the worker, that being her aunt and uncle, who she said would provide a letter indicating that her mother was delusional and had had psychiatric care. Such a letter was never provided. However, the aunt did advise Ms. Morphet that she could not care for the children.

[72] On April 1, 2008 the worker met with the father for the first time. He had been served with the court documents and was shocked that the children had been returned to their mother's care. He proposed having all of the children placed with him. However, he had just recently been released from jail and needed to obtain housing, employment and child care. His plan was never evaluated because he stopped having any contact with the worker and stopped attending access.

[73] Ms. Morphet testified that the two hour weekly visits with the children had to be changed in April 2008 because of the chaos that was being seen in the visits. The mother and her older sons could not handle the chaos and during visits one or more of the children was running off and climbing and jumping on furniture. During one visit, A.M.1 was running around throwing French fries and then took his pants off and was waving his penis around. K.M.2 was attempting to assist in controlling the children but he handled A.M.1 roughly. As a result of the chaos being seen in the visits, two workers were needed to assist with the visits. The arrival time of each of the three younger children was staggered in order to allow the mother to focus on each child individually.

[74] At the end of April 2008 the father was approved to attend at the mother's home to assist with repairs, but not for overnight stays or care giving to the older boys. At some point in April it was learned that K.M.2 and A.M.2 had been apprehended by Hamilton CAS. The boys had been in a car with Mr. D.M.2's girlfriend who was stopped and arrested for impaired driving. The police contacted the Hamilton CAS who then contacted the Kitchener CAS. Neither the mother nor the father could be reached by telephone and as a result it was necessary to place K.M.2 and A.M.2 in a foster home for the night. The boys were returned to the father the next morning.

[75] In May 2008 the worker met with the mother to discuss what had happened to K.M.2 and A.M.2. The mother was upset by the fact that the father's girlfriend had taken her car. When asked why she had gone to the United States without telling the worker, she became defensive indicating that she did not need to tell the worker where she was going and that she had gone to visit a fiancée. The worker also advised the mother that D.M.1 had not been approved to care for the boys in her absence. Although the boys confirmed that their father was caring for them, Ms. L.M. denied this and indicated a neighbour was to be caring for them. The mother blamed the incident on her husband and took no responsibility for the events that occurred in her absence.

[76] In May, the worker also had a discussion with D.I., the aunt of the mother. Ms. D.I. expressed her surprise that Ms. B.D.1 had been so involved with the children, indicating that she was not safe or stable and that she had had trouble caring for her own children.

[77] In the spring of 2008 K.M.2 was connected with a program called Chances Are in order to get him back to school. At a meeting with the program personnel, Ms. Morphet was advised that the school was concerned about K.M.2's aggressive behaviour, overt sexual comments about girls and his mother, and his odd and shocking comments. In June Ms. Morphet was advised that K.M.2 was destroying his work book by stabbing it with a pen or pencil in a violent fashion and that he could not tell time on a clock. She was also advised that A.M.2 came to the program with him one day because A.M.2 had been suspended from school. Ms. Morphet testified that she felt K.M.2 needed treatment for anger management, and emotional issues.

[78] In June 2008, the mother advised Ms. Morphet that her marriage to the person in the states was on hold. At that time Ms. Morphet was still not aware of the person's name. The mother and worker also spoke about counselling for K.M.2.

[79] During the summer of 2008, the state of the home's cleanliness had improved. Repairs had been made but the mother indicated she was having trouble with K.M.2 destroying things in the home and causing further damage. The lack of repairs resulted in the mother being served with an eviction notice. The mother was unable to handle K.M.2's behaviour and on one occasion police had to be called. K.M.2 was admitted to Grand River Hospital for 3- 4 days. The worker was unaware of whether a follow up was done at the hospital, although the mother did connect with Lutherwood to seek out services for K.M.2.

[80] In August 2008 the mother notified the children's worker, Deb Jack that she was moving to London. She reported that the housing was more affordable there. It was learned that the mother was dating a man named C.W. who she described as her fiancée. As a result of the move, the supervision of the file had to be transferred to London CAS. Ms. Morphet did not believe the move was a good idea because transiency was one of the concerns of the society, the move would disrupt services for K.M.2 and affect the mother's access to the children who were in care in Kitchener. Ms. Morphet believed that the mother should have made more effort to find affordable housing in Kitchener.

[81] On October 14, 2008 a transfer meeting was held with London CAS. Ms. Morphet set out the areas of concern and planning, including the need to ensure the older boys attended school and that A.M.2 and K.M.2 obtain counselling. Ms. L.M. reported that the boys were in school, that K.M.2 had started anger management counselling and that he had been referred to a psychiatrist.

[82] Ms. Morphet also indicated that she needed more information about C.W. who was being put forward as an emergency contact. The mother advised that she had met Mr. C.W. over the internet and that they had dated for a year. She indicated that they were engaged but that they had no immediate plans to marry because she was still married to D.M.2. Later a London worker connected with Mr. C.W. who was described as hostile and who did not want the society looking into his past. Mr. C.W. refused to co-operate with the society.

[83] Following that meeting, Ms. Morphet advised the mother that the maternal grandmother had been contacting her and was asking to have access to the children. The mother became very angry and said that she would sue the agency if they allowed her mother access to the children. She claimed that her mother was abusive to her and had abused the boys when she was in the home. At that time, the society was still considering a possible return of the children to the mother and therefore decided to respect her wishes regarding access.

[84] In December 2008, Ms. Morphet spoke to the mother before court, who told her that she was getting married and asked her to change the emergency contact person. Ms. Morphet assumed the mother was marrying C.W. but in fact discovered that the mother was planning to marry a man named J.B.. The mother indicated she had known Mr. J.B for two years and had dated for a few months and that he planned to move in with her. In February 2009 the mother and the older boys moved into Mr. J.B's home. This move was to be a temporary one only, because Mr. J.B was selling the home. Ms. Morphet testified that her biggest expectation in early 2009 was home stability and that this expectation was not being met with the various moves and different men. Although the mother argued that she was moving from man to man for a child focused reason, Ms. Morphet felt that Ms. L.M. should have spent time getting to know these men before she moved into their home or they moved into hers.

[85] When the worker contacted the home in March 2009, she learned that the mother was in hospital again due to her pancreatitis and that Mr. J.B was caring for the older boys. The mother was released on a day pass in April and was involved in a car accident that put her back in hospital until the end of April.

[86] In early 2009 the society sought to have a Parental Capacity Assessment done in order to answer the questions why the mother had not been able to provide a stable home for her children, provide adequate supervision or meet their needs. J.B. was supposed to participate in the assessment but because the relationship was not flourishing it was determined that he would not be involved. The commencement of the PCA was delayed due to the mother being in hospital in March and April 2009.

[87] One of the concerns of the worker during this period were the types of comments and conversations being held with the younger boys. Although Ms. Morphet did not feel that the mother was telling the boys they were coming home right then, she was concerned that the mother was talking to the younger boys about what would occur when they came home. This made the younger boys anxious and resulted in their acting out in foster care.

[88] On May 6, 2009 the worker talked to the mother about her access visits. The mother advised that she did not have a car and was not comfortable driving. She then indicated that a good friend, M.G. would drive to and from access visits and would be her new emergency contact. She also asked if Mr. M.G. could attend the visits with her. During that conversation the mother said nothing about J.B.. However, on May 15, 2009 the mother admitted that she was still living in J.B.'s home but that they were having difficulties with their relationship. She was concerned about what had gone on in the home during her hospital stay. She reported that Mr. J.B had threatened not to take the boys to access visits, made derogatory remarks about them, had shut of the utilities and removed food from the home. K.M.2 had disliked being in the home with Mr. J.B so much that he had spent most of his nights sleeping in his mother's hospital room. As a result the mother indicated she would be moving again.

[89] In June 2009, the worker once again spoke with the mother regarding her relationship with J.B.. The mother said they had broken up and that she was thinking about moving back to Kitchener. When asked where she was living she would not give a clear answer. She then discussed M.G. and his attendance at visits. The worker learned that the younger boys had called M.G. dad on the first visit and were continuing to do so.

[90] On June 8, 2009 during a telephone conversation about a variety of issues, the mother indicated that she was looking for a place in Kitchener but that for the time being she and the older boys were staying with M.G. in Stratford. This meant that the older boys would have to be withdrawn from school. Ms. Morphet was also concerned about services that had been put in place for K.M.2 being suspended or even ended. She asked the mother how well she knew Mr. M.G. and expressed concerns about how quickly the mother had introduced new partners to all the children. Ms. Morphet discussed the mother's relationships with men and the fact that this was the third man she had lived with since the younger boys had gone into care a year earlier. The mother advised that she had ended the earlier relationships because C.W. would not co-operate with the society and J.B. had not treated her children well. The mother indicated that the move was temporary and that she would likely not be in Stratford past September. On June 12, 2009 the mother's counsel advised the society that the mother might be moving to Listowel.

[91] While there may have been good reasons to end the previous relationships, it was concerning how fast the mother moved from relationship to relationship, making each man part of her life and her children's' lives well before she really got to know them.

[92] The results of the parental capacity assessment were received in August 2009. By that time the mother had moved with the boys and M.G. to Monkton. After reviewing the PCA the society amended its application to Crown wardship with no access, for the purposes of adoption. Ms. Morphet testified that the amendment was sought due to the mother's pattern of instability, evidenced by three moves, three different "serious" relationships, the length of time the younger children had been in care, the significant needs of the children and the belief that the mother's decision making did not appear to put the needs of her children first.

[93] Ms. Morphet's understanding of Dr. McDermott's assessment and concerns was as follows:

a) The mother had a histrionic way of coping and that this could not and would not be changed without years of therapy;

b) The children had had an extremely unstable life, were likely to have an insecure attachment to their mother and that the mother was unable to learn from her life experiences;

c) That the mother continued in a pattern of instability after the boys were apprehended evidenced by her many moves and involvement in many relationships. Her moves upset any stability and put programming for the children in jeopardy;

d) The mother's health problems and the fact that her plans for the care of the children when she was ill were unreliable.

[94] In the fall of 2009, the London CAS case notes were sent to Ms. Morphet. In those notes, she learned that A.M.2 and K.M.2 had been attending school in London. K.M.2 had been seeing a psychiatrist in London, but the notes indicated that K.M.2 had missed appointments and that none had occurred since April 2009. The concerns noted from his attendance on the psychiatrist included K.M.2 having delusional thoughts, hearing three different voices, including voices telling him to kill people and the fact that the doctor who saw K.M.2 wanted to refer him to another psychiatrist for a second opinion. That referral was not made.

[95] Also in the fall of 2009 the grandmother proposed a plan to have the three youngest children placed with her. Ms. Morphet requested that a kinship home study be completed by the Durham CAS. Although the matter was on the trial list for October 2009, the matter was removed in order to complete the kin assessment on B.D.1 and because CAS counsel assigned to the file was involved in another CAS trial. The kin assessment on B.D.1 began in November 2009 and was completed in February 2010. The kin assessment took longer than usual because there was a switch in workers mid-way through the assessment. Amy Morphet received the results of the kin assessment in March 2010. Evidence of that assessment was presented by Durham CAS worker Mary Ann Rice and will be detailed later. However, the result of the kin assessment was that the grandmother's plan for placement of the children with her was not approved.

[96] K.M.2 left his mother's home sometime in the late summer or fall of 2009. He refused to answer specific question as to where he was living. He was not attending school. K.M.2 was 17 at the time and the CAS brought a motion to withdraw its application regarding him. Although he had not had sufficient counselling or psychiatric care the CAS believed it would be impossible to ensure his well being or monitor a supervision order. He made it clear that he did not want any communication or contact with the society.

[97] At the end of December 2009, the mother was again admitted to hospital for approximately 4 weeks.

[98] In her evidence Ms. Morphet testified that her understanding of the number of moves made by the mother and the children from the spring of 2007 to August 2009 included:

a) From Delhi to Anselma House in Kitchener;

b) From Anselma House to a townhouse on T[...] Ave., in Kitchener;

c) From Kitchener to D[...] Street in London;

d) From D[...] Street to V[...] Street in London, J.B.'s home;

e) From London to Stratford with M.G.; and

f) From Stratford to Monkton with M.G..

[99] In terms of partners, the evidence showed that the mother was involved in a relationship of some kind with the following people:

a) D.M.2, to whom she was married;

b) A.R. who lived with her in an intimate relationship;

c) A fiancée in the United States;

d) An Internet relationship with Dave Backer who lived in Las Vegas;

e) C.W. with whom she lived and identified as a fiancée;

f) J.B. with whom she lived and identified as a fiancée; and

g) M.G. to whom she was engaged and with whom she was still living.

[100] At the beginning of each relationship, the mother described the men as someone she trusted, had known for some time, would act as an emergency contact and would help care for the children. Ms. Morphet testified that she was never told about any problems until each relationship was over and that none of the men maintained contact with the children after the relationship ended.

[101] Ms. Morphet testified that between November 2007 and March 2008 she had serious concerns about the state of the home, the lack of adequate adult supervision of the children, truancy from school, aggression and violence between the older boys and at times to the younger children, the mother's health and her lack of an appropriate emergency plan. Although Ms. L.M. reported that both her mother and D.M.1 were abusive to her and the children, at times she used them to care for her children and as her emergency plan.

[102] Ms. Morphet also testified that the thrust of the mother's plan was centred on M.G.. Unfortunately, Ms. Morphet found that Mr. M.G. was unable to acknowledge any of the concerns of the society, blamed the behaviour of the children on the fact that they were in care and missing their mother, believed all would be fine if the children were returned to the mother, did not believe that Ms. L.M. had done anything wrong despite the fact that the children's needs were neglected and unmet prior to apprehension and had no real knowledge of how to deal with the special needs of the children. Ms. Morphet opined that having had only 2 hours per week with the children in a supervised setting that Mr. M.G.'s view was unrealistic.

[103] With respect to Ms. B.D.1's plan, Ms. Morphet indicated that the society did not support her plan due to her age, health, volatile relationship with the mother, the fact that she had not seen the children in more than three years and that her plan for three challenging children was unrealistic.

This is a very long document. I will continue with the remaining witnesses and sections in the next part.

Due to the length of this document, I'll provide the complete MDX output in sections. Here's the first part:

---
citation: "Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. L.M. and B.D.1, 2012 ONCJ 238"
parties: "Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. L.M. and B.D.1"
party_moving: "Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo"
party_responding: "L.M. and B.D.1"
court: "Ontario Court of Justice"
court_abbreviation: "ONCJ"
jurisdiction: "Ontario"
case_type: "trial"
date_judgement: "2012-04-12"
date_heard:
  - "2010-05-19"
  - "2010-05-21"
  - "2010-06-15"
  - "2010-06-18"
  - "2010-07-05"
  - "2010-07-06"
  - "2010-07-07"
  - "2010-07-08"
  - "2010-07-09"
  - "2010-07-19"
  - "2010-07-20"
  - "2010-07-26"
  - "2010-07-27"
  - "2010-07-28"
  - "2010-07-29"
  - "2010-08-30"
  - "2010-08-31"
  - "2010-09-13"
  - "2010-09-27"
  - "2010-09-28"
  - "2010-09-29"
  - "2010-10-04"
  - "2010-10-05"
  - "2010-10-06"
  - "2010-10-07"
  - "2010-10-08"
  - "2010-10-12"
  - "2010-10-14"
  - "2010-10-18"
  - "2010-10-19"
  - "2010-10-20"
  - "2010-10-21"
  - "2010-12-08"
  - "2011-01-10"
  - "2011-01-11"
  - "2011-01-12"
  - "2011-01-13"
  - "2011-01-14"
  - "2011-02-14"
  - "2011-02-15"
  - "2011-02-16"
  - "2011-02-17"
  - "2011-02-18"
  - "2011-02-22"
  - "2011-02-23"
  - "2011-02-24"
  - "2011-03-21"
  - "2011-03-22"
  - "2011-03-23"
  - "2011-03-25"
  - "2011-05-10"
  - "2011-05-12"
  - "2011-05-13"
  - "2011-05-16"
  - "2011-05-18"
  - "2011-05-19"
  - "2011-05-20"
applicant:
  - "Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo"
applicant_counsel:
  - "R. Hamel"
respondent:
  - "L.M."
  - "B.D.1"
respondent_counsel:
  - "G. Schafer (for L.M.)"
  - "T. Harper (for B.D.1)"
judge: "M.A. McSorley"
winning_degree_applicant: 1
winning_degree_respondent: 5
judge_bias_applicant: 0
judge_bias_respondent: 0
year: 2012
decision_number: 238
file_number: "113/08"
source: "https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2012/2012oncj238/2012oncj238.html"
legislation:
  - title: "Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11"
    url: "https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/900011"
case_law: []
summary: >
  This is a child protection trial under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act concerning three children. The Children's Aid Society sought a declaration that the children were in need of protection and an order for Crown wardship with no access. The mother sought return of the children to her care, either alone or with her partner. The maternal grandmother sought placement with her or access to the children. The court heard evidence over 57 days spanning one year. The mother conceded that the children were in need of protection. The central issues were the appropriate disposition and whether the children should be returned to the mother's care, placed with the grandmother, or made Crown wards.
interesting_citations_summary: >
  This decision addresses child protection proceedings under the Child and Family Services Act, focusing on parental capacity assessment, the assessment of stability in parental care, and the consideration of alternative caregivers. The case examines the weight to be given to a parental capacity assessment in determining disposition, the significance of a parent's pattern of instability and transience, and the court's consideration of kinship care options. The judgment provides guidance on how courts evaluate parental fitness when a parent has demonstrated a pattern of unstable relationships and housing, combined with health issues affecting parenting capacity.
keywords:
  - Child protection
  - Crown wardship
  - Parental capacity assessment
  - Child and Family Services Act
  - Disposition
  - Kinship care
  - Stability
  - Parental fitness
areas_of_law:
  - Family Law
  - Child Protection
  - Child and Family Services
final_judgement: "Crown wardship order made for the three youngest children with no access to parents or grandmother."
---

# WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to subsections 45(8) of the Act. This subsection and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with subsection 45(8), read as follows:

**45.— (8)** 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.

**85.— (3)** A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order of prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(c) or subsection 45(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.:** 113/08

**Ontario Court of Justice**

**Between:**

**The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo**

Applicant,

— AND —

**L.M. and B.D.1**

Respondents

**Before:** Justice M.A. McSorley

**Heard on:** May 19, 21, June 15, 18, July 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 19, 20, 26, 27, 28, 29, August 30, 31, September 13, 27, 28, 29, October 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, December 8, 2010, January 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, February 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 22, 23, 24, March 21, 22, 23, 25, May 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 20, 2011

**Reasons for Judgment released:** April 12, 2012

**Counsel:**
- Mr. R. Hamel for the applicant Society
- Mr. G. Schafer for the respondent mother, L.M.
- Ms. T. Harper for the maternal grandmother, B.D.1
- Ms. P. Klodner, Office of the Children's Lawyer for K.M.1, A.M.1 and M.M.

---

# McSorley J.:

## Introduction

[1] The matter before the court was an amended protection application originally concerning five children: K.M.2, born 1992, A.M.2, born 1994, K.M.1, born 2001, A.M.1 born 2003 and M.M., born 2006. When