Court Information
Court File No.: C42398/06 and C46163/08
Ontario Court of Justice North Toronto Family Court 47 Sheppard Ave. E., 2nd floor Toronto, ON M2N 5X5
Parties
Between:
Children's Aid Society of Toronto Counsel: Karen Freed (for the Applicant)
- and -
D.J. (father) Counsel: Tiffany Lau (for the Respondent father)
J.P. (mother of N.J. and S.J.) J.H. (mother of D.J. and parent to N.J. and S.J.) Counsel: Lauren Israel (for Ms. J.H., not appearing in default)
Before
Justice H.P. Brownstone
Reasons for Decision
Introduction
[1] These are my reasons for decision in the disposition stage of a consolidated trial involving protection applications for three children: S.J., born […], 2005; N.J., born […], 2006, and D.J.[1] (also known as "D.J.[1]"), born […], 2005. The mother of S.J. and N.J., J.P., resides in Grenada and did not participate in these proceedings; she was noted in default on January 12, 2012. S.J. and N.J. are the subject of a protection application commenced May 2, 2011. D.J.[1] is the subject of an amended protection application issued April 13, 2012. The applicant Children's Aid Society ("the Society") is seeking Crown wardship without access for all of the children. Because the children have the same father, who has put forth a plan with his partner (the mother of D.J.[1]) seeking the return of all of the children, the hearing of both applications was consolidated into one trial, which proceeded before me from May 28 to June 5, 2012.
[2] On the first day of the trial, the parties filed two Statements of Agreed Facts setting out the statutory findings for each child, as well as the factual foundations supporting the following findings: S.J. and D.J.[1] are in need of protection pursuant to s.37(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act ("the Act"), and N.J. is in need of protection pursuant to s.37(2)(b) of the Act.
Decision
[3] For the reasons that follow, I have determined that the least disruptive order that will be in the children's best interests is to make them Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.
Background Facts
[4] Despite their young ages, these children have had a long and tumultuous history with child protection authorities. On September 27, 2006 N.J. and S.J. were apprehended due to neglect issues; the children were severely underweight and they had poor hygiene. They remained in foster care until January 5, 2007, when they were placed in the home of maternal relatives. This placement broke down and the children were again apprehended on May 3, 2007. The children were found to be in need of protection under s.37(2)(l) of the Act, and were returned to Mr. D.J. and Ms. J.H. on July 18, 2007 under a 12-month supervision order, which was terminated on August 26, 2008.
[5] On November 5, 2008, Ms. J.H. assaulted her 11 year old daughter, Miranda, with a belt causing abrasions and bruises on her arm, back and shoulder. This incident triggered renewed Society involvement. Miranda was placed with her maternal grandparents, with whom she continues to reside pursuant to a custody order. The other children were removed from the care of Ms. J.H. and Mr. D.J.: D.J.[1] was placed with his maternal aunt A.O.; S.J. and N.J. were apprehended and placed in foster care.
[6] Ms. J.H. was charged with the criminal offense of committing an assault with a weapon. On February 11, 2009 she pleaded guilty to the lesser included offence of simple assault, and received a conditional discharge and 18 months probation plus 30 hours of community service. As a result of disclosures made by Miranda, Mr. D.J. was also charged as a party to the assault, but this charge was ultimately withdrawn. Nevertheless, the Society maintains that it has "verified" Mr. D.J.'s participation in the assault.
[7] On October 1, 2009, the children were found to be in need of protection under s.37(2)(l) of the Act. D.J.[1] remained with his maternal aunt under a 4 month supervision order. N.J. and S.J. remained in foster care as society wards for 4 months.
[8] All 3 children were returned to the father's care on an extended access visit in March 2010. On May 17, 2010 this placement was formalized by way of a supervision order. The supervision order was terminated on March 29, 2011, and the Society closed its file on April 18, 2011. The mother was permitted to move back into the home in August 2010, so for most of the duration of the supervision order, the children were in the care of both parents for all intents and purposes.
[9] On April 26, 2011, less than one month following the termination of the supervision order and only one week after the Society closed its file, the father assaulted S.J. and D.J.[1], both 5 years old. S.J. was struck with a belt on the left side of her neck and in the area of her left eye. He then struck D.J.[1] on the right neck area with the same belt. S.J. said that the mother was in the home but there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the assault. The mother denied knowing anything about the assault until after the children were apprehended.
[10] The father was arrested and charged with 3 counts of committing the offence of assault with a weapon. He remained in custody until June 23, 2011, when he pleaded guilty to two counts and received a sentence of 59 days time served plus a suspended sentence and 24 months probation.
[11] This incident once again triggered the involvement of the Society. All three children were apprehended on April 27, 2011 and placed in foster care, where they have remained to this day. Tragically, this marked the fourth apprehension for N.J. and S.J., and the second for D.J.[1]. N.J. and S.J. have been in the cumulative care of the Society for 37 months, well beyond the time limitations required by s.70(1) of the Act. D.J.[1] has been in the care of the Society for 13 months, and he was previously in the care of a relative for 16 months. These children are urgently in need of permanent homes.
The Father
[12] Mr. D.J. is 45 years old and receives ODSP due to chronic pain caused by an arthritic condition. He has 10 biological children ranging in age from 27 to 5 years old. None of his children resided with him after he separated from their mothers, although his 14-year-old son Quinton resided with him for 5 months last year. None of his adult children attended the trial or testified as to his parenting skills, although he testified that he is on good terms with all of his adult children. Other than Quinton, none of his other children have attended access visits.
[13] Mr. D.J. has a criminal record which discloses a longstanding anger management problem. He was convicted of assault in 1992, assault causing bodily harm in 1993, as well as the two counts of assault with a weapon in respect of S.J. and D.J.[1] in 2011. He also has a history of domestic violence. He admitted that his conviction for assault causing bodily harm was in relation to a former partner. He also signed an Agreed Statement of Facts on July 18, 2007 wherein he admitted that his relationship with J.P. (the mother of S.J. and N.J.) was fraught with "domestic altercations on an ongoing basis". However, there is no evidence of any domestic violence in his current relationship with Ms. J.H.
[14] Mr. D.J. has many positive attributes. He regularly expresses love, kindness and affection towards his children. He attends access visits on time and comes prepared with food and activities for the children. He has demonstrated a commitment to parenting his children. For example:
- he completed the "Being a Dad" Program before regaining custody of his children in 2007;
- he completed the Therapeutic Access Program and the Society's "Dad's Connection Program" before the children were returned to him in March 2010;
- he participated in the Toronto Public Health's "Nobody's Perfect" parenting course (attended 6 of 8 sessions), ending March 6, 2012;
- he attended the Toronto Public Health's "Incredible Years Basic Parent Program" for parents of children ages 2 to 6;
- he completed the "Change is a Choice Connections Program" on December 7, 2011 as required by his probation officer; this is a lifestyles program that promotes positive change and anti-criminal thinking;
- on July 27, 2011 the parents cancelled an access visit because they knew the children were sick and wanted them to rest and get better; this was an excellent demonstration of child-focussed decision making.
[15] Despite the above positive points in Mr. D.J.'s favour, he unfortunately has serious unresolved problems exercising good judgment and managing his anger. These problems manifest themselves in several important ways, as set out below.
Failure to Acknowledge Abusing the Children
[16] Notwithstanding his guilty plea, the father has steadfastly insisted to the Society workers that he did not assault any of his children with a belt. He repeatedly claimed that he pleaded guilty only to be released from jail, and that he had done nothing more than spank his children on the bottom. These assertions were noted by society worker Ms. Dent in conversations she had with the father on June 29, 2011, July 6, 2011, July 11, 2011, April 10, 2012, and April 30, 2012. They were also noted by society worker Ms. Singh in conversations she had with the father on July 6, 2011 and April 30, 2012.
[17] The father testified that he never denied to the Society workers that he assaulted his children with a belt. However, even his probation officer Ms. Merglesky (who was the father's own witness) testified that Mr. D.J. has from the outset denied any wrongdoing, and has never wavered from this denial. In fact, Mr. D.J. gave the same reason to his probation officer that he gave to the Society workers for pleading guilty: he did so to get out of jail. On the evidence before me I have no hesitation whatsoever accepting the evidence of Ms. Dent, Ms. Singh and Ms. Merglesky, that the father has consistently asserted his innocence despite his guilty plea. His insincere assertions at trial that he has always admitted his abusive conduct were nothing more than a strategic and self-serving effort to advance his position in this case.
[18] The reality is that the father sees himself as a victim. He expressed this sentiment most clearly to Ms. Dent and Ms. Singh on April 30, 2012 when he stated that he was "blackmailed" by J.P. (the mother of N.J. and S.J.), that he had been "framed" by the Society, that he had been "set up" by the school, and that he had been "mistreated" in criminal court. This skewed perception of being persecuted and failing to take responsibility for his own actions has permeated virtually all of the father's motivations and conduct in dealing with the Society. It has also undermined his opportunities to effect real and sustained change in his parenting skills.
[19] Because the father refused to acknowledge responsibility for his abusive actions, he was ineligible to attend the "Helping Us Grow" (HUG) Program operated by the Hincks Dellcrest Center, which is likely more geared to Mr. D.J.'s issues than any of the programs that he attended. In fact, up until the commencement of the trial, the father did not participate in any program focusing specifically on preventing physical discipline of children. Then, on the third day of the trial, he commenced the 5-week "Change is a Choice" anger management program referred to him by his probation officer. Mr. D.J. committed the assaults on S.J. and D.J.[1] 13 months ago, and has been on probation almost a year. He has had ample time to complete an anger management program and to engage in meaningful intensive individual therapy to address this longstanding problem. The delay in commencing this all-important aspect of his rehabilitation is indeed unfortunate. Although I accept the probation officer's testimony that Mr. D.J. is not at fault for the delay, the overriding concern here is of course the best interests of the children. They cannot afford to wait and see whether their father's parenting skills will improve after he has completed this program.
[20] The father testified that he wanted to attend the HUG Program but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he made any request at any time to attend that Program.
Inappropriate Behaviour in Dealing with Society Staff
[21] The father presented in court as a gentle, soft-spoken, courteous and likeable person. However, the Society presented credible evidence of numerous instances over a prolonged period of time in which he acted in a way that was intended to intimidate, bully and threaten Society workers. Below are some examples:
On August 9, 2011, at an access visit, upon learning that D.J.[1] was having regular visits with his maternal grandparents, the father became upset and told Ms. Dent that he was not a person "to mess with". He then told her to look at him, shook his finger at her, and told her that she would be sorry and that she needed to watch herself. To his credit, in an attempt to mitigate his behaviour, he later called Ms. Dent and explained that she must have misinterpreted his comments, and that he meant to say that D.J.[1] would be sorry.
On October 11, 2011, following an access visit, the father told Ms. Dent that he had gone to "head office" and found out that she and Society worker Ms. Duncan were not "certified", and that he would be looking into it.
On April 10, 2012, at an access visit, the father stated that he would do anything for his children and that he would go to jail for life and that he didn't "give a shit" who knew it.
On April 23, 2012, during a telephone conversation between the mother and Ms. Dent, the father was yelling in the background, "Does she think I am a push over? Let her laugh, let her fucking laugh. I'll fucking take care of this myself. She's having a baby and taking my children. I can be fucking nasty as hell. She took me to jail three times, for what? Does she take this fucking lightly? My whole life got fucked because she put me in jail three times. Spit in my face. Trust me, she doesn't want that to happen." The father then claimed he did not realize that Ms. Dent was still on the phone when he made the above comments.
On April 30, 2012, at a meeting with Ms. Singh and Ms. Dent, the father pointed his finger at Ms. Dent and very sternly stated that she was "going to pay" if his children were taken away from him.
[22] Quite apart from the father's inappropriate treatment of Society staff, he and Ms. J.H. have at times been less than cooperative. For example, when asked to provide a list of service providers so that the Society could obtain information about the parents, the father gave the name of a doctor he had not seen in 2 years (Dr. Montgomery) rather than the doctor he has been seeing for his arthritis (Dr. Tow). In addition, the parents failed to return a telephone message left for them by Society staff on March 7, 2012. They failed to respond to an email sent by Ms. Dent following the January 12, 2012 court appearance, in which she was asking the parents to come to a meeting which had been recommended by the case management judge to discuss access concerns. On January 30, 2012 the father left a series of voice messages for Ms. Dent indicating that the parents were not going to come to a meeting to discuss concerns, because, inter alia, "everything that happens gets into court". He left a similar message for Ms. Singh on March 12, 2012, claiming that the case management judge had agreed that there was no need for a meeting. Ms. Dent again tried to set up a meeting by sending an email to the parents on March 19, 2012. The parents did not respond to this email. Another meeting to discuss access concerns was scheduled for April 10, 2012 and the parents did not attend this meeting despite having attended for an access visit on that date (the meeting was scheduled for ½ hour before the access visit). The same thing occurred on May 14, 2012.
[23] To his credit, the father has on occasion apologized to the workers for getting upset and making inappropriate comments. He also apologized during his testimony. Although this is admirable, the concern in terms of the children's safety and wellbeing is that he may once again lose his temper and become violent with them. It does the children little good at the moment when they are being physically abused, to know that their abuser will be remorseful at some point in the future.
Inappropriate Behaviour at Access Visits
[24] If the father's anger were expressed solely to Society workers in the absence of the children, this would not necessarily preclude him from regaining custody of his children. However, the father's anger is frequently directed at his children, and manifests itself in harsh and sometimes cruel statements, particularly to D.J.[1]. Mr. D.J. has repeatedly made it abundantly clear that he is adamantly opposed to D.J.[1] going to visit his maternal grandparents, because he believes they are a bad influence on D.J.[1]. He seems unable to stop himself from repeatedly making inappropriate comments to D.J.[1], which have the effect of stigmatizing and punishing the child for maintaining a relationship with relatives whom Mr. D.J. does not like. This is selfish, immature and incredibly damaging to D.J.[1], who already has been physically abused by his father, and who is an emotionally fragile 6-year-old child. The following are some examples of the father's objectionable behaviour at access visits:
On August 9, 2011, D.J.[1] began to tell a story about when he was at his grandparents' house. The father stopped him and became upset when he was told by Ms. Dent that D.J.[1] went to visit his grandparents on Saturdays. The father said the children were not supposed to go there, and he became visibly distraught, mumbling under his breath, sitting on the couch and sighing, nodding his head and saying "unbelievable". As the children were present throughout this incident, Ms. Dent told the father that this could be discussed later, at which point the father replied that he was "not a person to mess with and that he loved his children."
On November 16, 2011, after being given a Halls candy, D.J.[1] complained that it was spicy. The father said, "D.J.[1], you need to stop saying things are spicy for every little thing, because it is becoming a habit."
On December 6, 2011, the father was explaining to D.J.[1] the importance of not misbehaving at school. He said, "Try to be nice. Don't be a bully, try to be nice. I know that going to Mike's [the maternal grandfather] is how you develop this attitude. No excuse, you have to be nice." Later he said, "No bad habits right? I don't want you to go to Mike's and pick up bad habits. You know what I mean." Then, in response to a question, D.J.[1] replied "Yep". The father said to him, "I'm not Mike. You can't talk to me like Mike. You say yes to me because I am your Dad. Mike is not your Dad."
On December 19, 2011, the father told the access supervisor Ms. Wheeldon that all of D.J.[1]'s behavioural problems stemmed from going to the maternal grandparents' home. He stated this in front of D.J.[1] and told D.J.[1] that his behaviour had to change. At this same visit, the parents served the children a meal. D.J.[1] asked what the food was. The father said it was roti and gave him a lecture about not asking about food. He said, "You know what? I need to point this out to you. You are the only one who asks, what is that? Stop that. Daddy makes good food." When D.J.[1] looked as though he was going to cry, the father told him his face was "not good", and said, "You need to eat the food and not carry on and make a fuss." The access supervisor stated in her affidavit that D.J.[1] was not making a fuss. What is particularly interesting about this incident is that a few minutes later, N.J. looked at the fritters that the father brought and asked, "what's that?" The father calmly explained to N.J. what fritters were, and did not reprimand N.J. for asking the same question that D.J.[1] had asked. This only serves to highlight what became increasingly obvious as the visits progressed: the father repeatedly and cruelly singled out D.J.[1] and bullied him to the point of being emotionally abusive.
On December 28, 2011, the father asked D.J.[1] what he was eating at his grandfather's house. He then proceeded to lecture the child about how he did not need to do everything that his cousin does, and that he should not be punching or bullying anyone. D.J.[1] began to cry, saying that he did not know what he was doing wrong. The father stated, "You wanna cry, cry it out. You wanna be ashamed, be ashamed."
On January 23, 2012, at the end of the visit, D.J.[1] told his father that he thought he might have one of the Society's toys in his backpack. The father yelled at D.J.[1] for "not listening or knowing better." As they walked down the hallway, the father continued to yell at D.J.[1] that it was not his role to "control the family", and that he must listen to his parents. He yelled, "I know why you are doing this, it's because you are at the CAS, you've done it before." D.J.[1] started to cry. The father then tried to hug D.J.[1] but he did not want to be hugged. The father then leaned down, held D.J.[1]'s chin and told him not to cry.
On February 6, 2012, D.J.[1] asked what type of food the parents had brought and whether it was spicy. The father became angry and told D.J.[1] to stop and never to say that again. He then lectured D.J.[1] in an angry and harsh tone, saying that D.J.[1] is different, asking why he would not eat, and asking if it was because he was in the foster home. D.J.[1] started to cry. The father continued to lecture him, telling him not to walk all over his mom and dad, and that he won't get any pity, and that his parents are trying to do their best for him. D.J.[1] continued to cry. The father talked about D.J.[1] having a fear of spice and the Islands, telling him that whoever is talking to him steady about West Indian food and spicy food is not right. The father was yelling. D.J.[1] continued crying. The father then told D.J.[1] that his behaviour was "abusive". He told D.J.[1] that he loved him, but that he needed to listen and be a part of the family, and that he was not the "oddball child". Then he said the food wasn't spicy anyway. He said it hurt him that he had to discipline D.J.[1] but someone had to do it. He then asked D.J.[1] if the chicken was spicy and D.J.[1] replied, "no". Even this compliant response was insufficient to stop the onslaught of abuse inflicted by the father. He asked D.J.[1] where his attitude about spicy food came from. D.J.[1] looked upset and said he did not want to eat. The father then yelled, "Whatever I bring, you're eating it. If you don't like it you can stay hungry. You can't have any treats or candy. You can't walk all over us." Later, the father asked D.J.[1] how old he was. D.J.[1] said he was 6. The father then started to yell and said "Well you better remember that. Start acting your age. You can't man handle me and your mom. I'm not your little buddy out there. I respect you, you need to grow up and use your manners. Understand?" He then told D.J.[1] he loved him.
On February 23, 2012, D.J.[1] complained about the food being served, and was yelled at once again by the father and told to respect his parents and stop complaining. D.J.[1] asked if he had to eat all of his food, and the mother answered "yes". D.J.[1] pointed out that S.J. and N.J. had not eaten all of their food, and the mother yelled back, saying that they did eat all of their food. D.J.[1] started to cry, and the mother then took a spoonful of food and tried to shove it in D.J.[1]'s mouth while D.J.[1] continued to cry. The access supervisor Ms. Wheeldon noted that in fact S.J. and N.J. had not eaten all of their food. This is a rare example of the mother's harsh conduct towards D.J.[1]; in virtually every other instance, she remained silent while the father was mistreating the child. Later in the visit, the father served the children candy, but told D.J.[1] that he was not good enough to get any treats. He said N.J. could have extra treats, and then told D.J.[1] he was not playing favourites with N.J.; rather, D.J.[1] should behave better. He then said it was not right to show favouritism, and gave D.J.[1] some candy, pointing out that N.J. had received more than D.J.[1]. The father then started teasing D.J.[1] about his jeans being too tight. D.J.[1] became defensive and protested that the pants were not tight, and both parents laughed at him.
On March 12, 2012, for apparently no reason whatsoever (D.J.[1] simply said he didn't want another piece of cake), the father began yelling "I'm going to have to break you out of these bad habits. You never used to act this way." He then told Ms. Singh to ask the maternal grandfather to "be a father figure" when D.J.[1] goes to visit him on weekends. The father then gave D.J.[1] a piece of cake (after the child had said he didn't want it) and said "take this". D.J.[1] began to cry. The father yelled, "Stop crying. It's not your fault. I know why this is happening. I can't wait to meet Mike [the maternal grandfather]. Four years from now, he's going to get a nice surprise up his ass." At another point during the visit, the father said to D.J.[1] for no apparent reason, "You have brains in your head, use it. I know you're not stupid. You know I love you but there's a time to be silly." At another point in the visit he raised his voice and said, "We are your family and don't let anyone take you in a different direction. You guys don't understand. That's OK. I'll take all the pain right now. Daddy's here to take all you guys' pain, OK."
On March 19, 2012, when D.J.[1] complained that the food was too hot, the father questioned D.J.[1] as to why he was "doing this every single visit" and why he caused problems. D.J.[1] began to cry and the father questioned why he was crying and again, why he was acting this way. He asked D.J.[1] whether he was "getting counselling" when he went to the grandfather's and the child said "no". The father then said, "I promise you I'm going to get to the bottom of this." The father continued to make inappropriate comments in this vein despite being asked by Ms. Dent to stop.
On April 2, 2012, when D.J.[1] tried on his father's sunglasses, the father told D.J.[1] that he didn't have to be jealous of him as he had seen it in D.J.[1]'s eye. He then said, "I can't believe you're jealous. You don't have to be. I'm your father." Mr. D.J. apparently has no understanding of the difference between jealousy and the simple, natural inclination of a 6-year-old boy to emulate his father, whom he sees as a role model. Later in the visit, D.J.[1] asked for a snack and then asked if this was all they were going to get. The father became very stern and stated, "We're not strangers. We're your parents. And you're acting too entitled. We don't have to bring those treats. You don't need those." He then gave D.J.[1] a hug. This is indicative of a repeated pattern of mixed messaging and emotional manipulation in the father's conduct towards D.J.[1]: harshness followed by an expression of affection.
On April 10, 2012, the father asked D.J.[1] where he got his haircut as he felt it did not look good. In response to Ms. Dent's suggestion that he write his concerns in the communication book rather than address them with the children, he responded that this was the type of relationship he and D.J.[1] had, and that at home, this was how they spoke to each other and that he did not want his son to grow up "soft".
On April 30, 2012, in a rare instance of harsh treatment towards one of his other children, the father made N.J. cry when he ridiculed him for wearing nail polish.
On May 7, 2012, the father lectured D.J.[1] about the importance of family, stating "We stay together. This is your family. Don't act like a stranger when you come here. Don't get yourself confused. Don't let noboby confuse you. Blood is thicker than water. Very important to some people, maybe not to others." He then told D.J.[1] to sit on his leg, and when the child hesitated, he said, "When daddy tells you to sit down on his leg you do it. You gotta learn to listen."
On May 14, 2012, the father sternly lectured D.J.[1] about the meal being served. He said, "You don't know chicken? Chicken is chicken. I don't hear any complaints from S.J. or N.J.. Only you always complain. This is happening more and more. You're being trained by someone. I don't know why you would stop eating something that is so good. It's a mind game. Don't look at me like that. And you need to know that when I talk to you it's because I love you. I can say what I want because I'm your father." He then said, "We are here because we are a family. If Donna and Mike [the maternal grandparents] were your family they would be here. They're not. We're here because we are your family. And it's okay because I know you're being coached." Then, when D.J.[1] said that he did not want any more food, the father said, "You're being ridiculous. You're playing games. I'm moving over there with N.J.." D.J.[1] began to cry. When the mother went over to him, the father said, "Leave D.J.[1] alone and let him make his decision." He then told D.J.[1], "You are not going to break me". These comments are particularly difficult to understand, given that D.J.[1] is only 6 years old. The father then said to D.J.[1], "What about this food is so spicy? There is no spice in this food. You are being coached to only eat hot dogs and hamburgers." The father went on to say, "All I want to say is that's your younger brother [pointing to N.J.] and he finished before you. I need to explain this. Even if you cry I am not going to give in." By this point D.J.[1] was crying again. The father then said, "Stop that negative attitude. It's causing problems. I don't know what is wrong with you. These people you see on weekends are just visits. We are your family. I want you to be like you used to be. I love you. I'm the parent. I'm just trying to explain in the best way. I have to show and prepare you."
[25] Quite frankly the father's hurtful, insensitive, mean-spirited conduct towards his 6 year old son is unconscionable. If this is how Mr. D.J. behaves while he is being observed by Society staff, one shudders to think of how he would treat his children (especially D.J.[1]) when no one is watching. It is astonishing that the Society allowed the father's access to D.J.[1] to continue as long as it did, as in my opinion D.J.[1] was on numerous occasions being emotionally abused by his father in the presence of Society staff, and this ought not to be occurring at supervised access visits.
[26] The father's testimony in regards to his conduct at access visits was baffling. At times he appeared shocked by his own behaviour; at times he appeared not to remember some of the things he said although at no time did he deny any of his misconduct towards the children. He readily admitted that he had behaved inappropriately on each occasion that was mentioned to him, but he had no satisfactory explanation for his behaviour with one exception: he explained that he was jealous of the fact that D.J.[1] spent "a lot of time" with his maternal grandparents (in fact D.J.[1] visits them only on Saturdays), and that is why he berated his son in that regard.
[27] The father expressed sadness, shame and remorse during his testimony. He wishes he would have acted more kindly, gently and sensitively towards his children at access visits. He stated that he was "craving" feedback and corrective instruction from Society staff during access visits, but there were numerous incidents referred to in the evidence where the father disregarded the workers' instructions. Notwithstanding all of the parenting education programs he has taken (and keeping in mind that he had a role in parenting his 7 other children before these 3 children were born), Mr. D.J. has unfortunately proven himself to be an impulsive, quick-tempered person who acts first and thinks later. He admitted in cross-examination that he still hasn't done enough to change his ways, but he was extremely vague and inarticulate in specifying what additional steps he would have to take to do so. One thing is certain: Mr. D.J.'s parenting deficits cannot be rectified by taking group-based courses, as he is unable or unwilling to consistently absorb and apply the principles being taught. It would appear that Mr. D.J. would benefit more from individual counselling. However, there is no evidence to suggest that he has undertaken the intensive individual therapeutic work that would be necessary to overcome this serious personality deficit. The children cannot wait any longer for their father to acquire the necessary impulse control and anger management skills.
The Father's Behaviour Towards the Mother
[28] Although Mr. D.J. has a history of domestic violence with other partners, there is no evidence of domestic violence in his relationship with Ms. J.H.. However, the evidence overwhelmingly leads to the conclusion that he is domineering and controlling with her, and that she is subservient to him. The following examples from the Society's evidence (in addition to Ms. J.H.'s own testimony) form the basis for this finding:
On June 28, 2011, at an access visit, Ms. Singh asked the mother for permission to cut D.J.[1]'s hair. She replied that she would have to ask the father. It should be remembered that Ms. J.H. is the biological mother of D.J.[1]. She is the step-mother of S.J. and N.J.. Had she been asked for permission to cut S.J. or N.J.'s hair, it might have been understandable that she would want to consult the father, as they are not her biological children. But it is somewhat disturbing that a biological mother would not perceive herself as having the authority to consent to something as innocuous as a haircut without first having to consult the father.
On July 12, 2011, at an access visit, the father told Ms. Dent that the children looked like they had lost weight. Ms. Dent replied that they had not. The mother said that they had gotten taller, and Ms. Dent agreed. The father told the mother to just let him talk to the worker, and the mother apologized to him.
On March 12, 2012, in a conversation with Ms. Singh about whether the parents would be attending an access visit on March 16, 2012, the father stated that he had a doctor's appointment. When Ms. Singh suggested that the visit take place anyway so that the mother could attend, the father said, "I guess I could send her". The implication here is that in the father's mind, the main purpose of access visits is for the children to be with him, not the mother.
On April 2, 2012, at an access visit, when D.J.[1] said that he had to go to the bathroom, the father "directed" the mother to take him. Later, when D.J.[1] said that his tooth hurt, the father told the mother to write down that D.J.[1] needed to go to the dentist. There are numerous examples in the evidence of the father telling the mother what to do and treating her more like a servant and a note-taker than a co-parent.
On April 23, 2012, the mother was speaking on the telephone with Ms. Dent, and the father took the phone from her and took over the conversation. Even after he passed the phone back to the mother, he continued to yell in the background.
On April 30, 2012, at a meeting with Ms. Dent and Ms. Singh, the father complained that the mother had not put any money into the home for 7 years and that "she breaks more things than the kids".
On May 14, 2012, at an access visit, after another incident at which the father made D.J.[1] cry, he told the mother to talk to D.J.[1]. The mother did so, only to be told by the father to "leave D.J.[1] alone and let him make his decision". Later in the visit, when the father was again badgering D.J.[1], he said to the mother, "When I'm trying to talk to D.J.[1], you should be nodding along to show your support. It's important, these things." The mother nodded and told D.J.[1] to finish his meal (the child had been reluctant to eat). Later in the visit, the father told the mother to "write down all these behaviours and why I said and did what I did. And get all the papers to back this up". The mother replied, "yes".
[29] The father stated in testimony that he "takes the role in disciplining" the children. This is certainly borne out by the evidence. Interestingly, even his friend R.K. testified that she sees the father as "parenting alone" and that "he takes all the responsibility on himself" even though Ms. J.H. has been his partner for 7 years. The reason for this is obvious: In the dynamic of their relationship, Mr. D.J. has never given Ms. J.H. an opportunity to be an equal co-parent. And perhaps even more sadly, as can be seen in the following section of these reasons, Ms. J.H. appears to be unwilling or unable to insist upon exercising equal parenting responsibilities.
The Mother
[30] Ms. J.H. is 36 years old. She presented as an extremely soft-spoken, gentle-mannered individual, and was frequently tearful during her testimony. She clearly has had a difficult emotional evolution. She testified that in 2007, during the time leading up to her assault of her daughter Miranda, she did not feel capable of parenting 4 children, and described herself as being on a "downward spiral". She doesn't remember assaulting Miranda with a belt; she "just remembers being angry". However, I found her to be genuinely and sincerely remorseful for her conduct, and acutely aware of the pain and anguish she has caused her daughter. She testified that she has never struck a child since she assaulted Miranda, and I believe her.
[31] Ms. J.H. has many positive attributes. In addition to her remorse for assaulting Miranda, she has demonstrated love and affection towards the children at access visits, and she has come to all visits prepared with food and activities for the children. She has taken a number of parenting education programs, including:
- The Elizabeth Fry Society anger management workshop, in accordance with her probation order;
- A parenting program offered by Family Services of Toronto in February 2010;
- The "Nobody's Perfect" Program, completed March 6, 2012;
- The "Incredible Years" Program. She has also re-enrolled to take the Program again in September 2012 because she missed some sessions on days that she had to be in court.
[32] The mother has not availed herself of all of the opportunities she was offered to overcome her emotional and parenting issues. She chose not to attend the Stress Management group she was referred to by Ms. Dent in October 2009. She did not follow through with individual counselling with Karen Pereira at the Etobicoke Health Centre. Between June and October 2010 she attended only 2 sessions. Ms. Pereira closed the mother's file in April 2011 because the mother was failing to attend her sessions. However, in April 2012 the mother began individual counselling with a social work student, Ms. Abraham, at the Black Creek Community Health Centre. She has had 2 sessions so far, and Ms. Abraham is impressed with the mother's positive attitude and high degree of motivation to address her issues. It is unfortunate that she waited until January 2012 to place herself on the waiting list to receive this much-needed counselling. Time ought to have been of the essence for Ms. J.H., given what was at stake in this court case. Ms. Abraham quite rightly testified that it would likely take "quite some time" for the mother to adequately address her issues. Sadly, the children have waited substantially longer than they ought to have been made to wait for their parents to equip themselves with the inner resources necessary to raise them in a healthy way.
[33] Unfortunately, the mother was deemed unsuitable to attend the HUG Program at Hincks Dellcrest as well as the Therapeutic Access Program. She cannot be faulted for this, as I am certain that she would have fully participated in both Programs had she been given the opportunity.
[34] Despite her positive attributes, the mother's attitude and conduct give rise to serious concerns regarding her ability (or willingness) to protect the children from the risks of physical and/or emotional harm posed by the father. These concerns stem from the following factors:
a) The Mother Has Minimized the Father's Behaviour
[35] At the trial the mother made it clear that she did not approve of the father's maltreatment of the children. However, in several conversations with Society workers on October 12, 2011 and April 30, 2012, she minimized the seriousness of his conduct by saying that: she could not be sure that he hit the children as she had not seen it; she did not consider the father to present a risk of harm to the children; and that "he screwed up just like I screwed up"; "he snapped just like I did". She testified that the father's only issue is that he "over-reacts". The mother has consistently conveyed to the Society that she sees the father's assault on D.J.[1] and S.J. as an isolated incident that is very much out of character for him. While she appeared to take his conduct more seriously during her testimony, it is questionable whether this newly-expressed insight is sincere, as opposed to being a strategic move to advance her position at trial.
b) The Mother Has Failed to Intervene to Protect the Children from the Father's Abusive Conduct at Access Visits
[36] When the children were initially returned to the father in March 2010, the mother was not permitted to live in the home. She was finally permitted to return in August 2010 but the children remained in the father's care. The mother took the role of the "secondary parent", and the evidence is overwhelming that she has remained in that role. She testified that she "took the back seat and let him lead", and that when the children upset her, she would go to the father "to talk about it". She agreed with the Society's description of her as a "passive parent", and described herself as taking "a more observant role". She agreed with her counsel's description of her as "subservient", and said, "I'm still in that secondary mode, letting D.J.[1] [the father] take the lead". And yet surprisingly, she disagreed with the suggestion made to her in cross-examination that the father likes to be in charge!
[37] Where one parent is being abusive, the children's only hope is to be protected by the other parent. This has not occurred in the J. family. Even in the presence of Society workers at supervised access visits, the mother has not even once intervened to try to stop the father from being excessively harsh with D.J.[1]. When asked why she did nothing to protect D.J.[1] from the father's rage during the many incidents that cried out for intervention, she said, "I didn't want to interfere", and "I didn't want the Society workers to see the father and I arguing". The noteworthy implication from this remark is that, had she tried to intervene to protect her son, there would have been sufficient resistance from the father to cause an argument. This speaks volumes not only about Mr. D.J.'s character, but also about the dynamic between these parents.
[38] In perhaps her most revelatory statement, the mother said, "For the longest time I agreed with him that D.J.[1] should not be visiting my parents." The implication from this statement is that she explicitly approved of the father's punishment of her 6-year-old son for something over which the child had absolutely no control (going to visit his grandparents). This was in my view the most painful moment of the trial.
[39] It is astonishing that one of the reasons the mother failed to intervene was because she did not want the workers to see her arguing with the father. It is indeed unfortunate and distressing that she did not consider that it would be better for the workers to see her stand up for her child, even if it caused an argument, than for the workers to see her remain motionless and mute in the face of such painful humiliation of her little boy. That being said, one can only speculate the consequences which the mother might have endured behind closed doors at the hands of the father following the visits, if she had attempted to stop him from mistreating D.J.[1].
[40] The mother testified that she and the father realized the errors of their ways while taking "The Incredible Years" Program, which gave them great insight into how to rectify their parenting deficits. They began this Program in the late winter of 2012, and yet she admitted in cross-examination that neither parent's behaviour had improved at any of the access visits that have occurred since they began attending the Program. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that the parenting deficits from which these parents are suffering cannot be satisfactorily remedied by participating in parenting education programs.
[41] The mother testified that if the children are returned, she will take the lead in disciplining them. This is simply not believable. She has never taken the lead in this relationship, and instead of placing the blame squarely on the father's shoulders for his domineering and bullying behaviour, she actually blamed herself for "not listening" to the father and not "stepping up to the plate and being a proper parent", thereby causing the father to "take all the responsibility". It was painfully apparent during Ms. J.H.'s final moments in the witness box that she has much work to do to restore not only her self-esteem, but also her perspective and appreciation of the true circumstances which account for her present situation. In my view she would require a lengthy and intense course of individual therapy and counselling to acquire the inner resources not only to achieve this degree of insight, but also to be able to stand up to the father in the way she said that she wants to. Unfortunately the children can no longer wait for this to occur. They have already waited much too long for their parents to make the necessary changes to address their deficits.
[42] The mother testified that she would be prepared to parent the children on her own if ordered to do so – although this statement was made in a whisper amidst a flood of tears. In cross-examination she confirmed that her plan remains as is: she wishes to co-parent the children with the father. She would be agreeable to raising the children on her own only if ordered by the court to do so. She proposed this as an alternate plan in her Answer and Plan of Care, and was given the opportunity by the Society in the summer and fall of 2011 to pursue this plan, but decided not to. It is noteworthy that the father was not asked whether he would support such a plan; nor did he suggest it. Given the strong attachment these parents appear to have to each other, and their lengthy history, there is no reasonable basis to expect that they could sustain living apart on a long term basis. In my view a court should be loath to impose a forced separation on parents who love each other and want to be together, especially when they have been given an opportunity to pursue such a plan and have specifically declined to do so.
The Children
[43] The children are living together in a "treatment foster home" specializing in children with behavioural and/or emotional problems. The foster mother is a trained child and youth worker. Her testimony, along with the reports and testimony of Dr. Fitzgerald, provided the court with great insight into the personalities and special needs of each child. The foster mother testified that the children arrived at her home in April 2011 displaying considerable difficulties for their ages: they had delayed communication, social, hygiene and eating skills. They have made great progress since coming into foster care. She said that the children can be stressful, chaotic, loud, and their play can quickly turn into screaming and fighting. They need a lot of redirection and structure to their play times. When they misbehave, a variety of discipline techniques are required depending on the nature, duration and severity of their misconduct.
S.J.
[44] S.J. is not yet 7 years old, but she has already had 6 changes in caregivers over her short life. She was described by her foster mother as an endearing, hyper-active little girl who suffers from anxiety at times and who engages in temper tantrums several times per week. She has been described as "a handful" at school. She was psychologically assessed on June 10, 2009. At that time she was seen to be displaying borderline cognitive ability and was exhibiting serious emotional and behavioural difficulties. She displayed a tendency towards hyperactivity and impulsivity, and it was felt that she needed support in managing her social behaviour. There were also indications of delays in her language development.
[45] S.J. was again assessed on July 15, 2011. Her cognitive profile remains basically unchanged. Her overall verbal and nonverbal reasoning skills are in the borderline range and this is likely to present a considerable challenge for her at home and in the community. She likely has a learning disability and will require one-on-one assistance in the classroom and supplementary tutoring in order to manage an academic program. In addition to her cognitive difficulties she continues to display a pattern of hyperactivity, impulsivity and oppositionality, which according to Dr. Fitzgerald are suggestive of an Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. She will likely require additional support in developing effective social, interpersonal and problem-solving skills in order to relate to others effectively. She requires caregivers with superior behaviour management expertise, patience and persistence in order to help her remain focussed, calm and on-task.
D.J.[1]
[46] D.J.[1] is 6 years old and has had 3 caregivers so far in his life. The foster mother described him as compliant, eager to please, and the easiest of the 3 children for her manage. He was most recently psychologically assessed on July 22, 2011, and found to be functioning in the low average range of intellectual ability. He appeared at that time to have reasonably good adaptive skills and there were no indications of significant emotional or behavioural difficulties, although he was found to be "somewhat lacking in social and interpersonal skills". Clearly D.J.[1]'s situation has deteriorated in the past year, given the fact that since January 2012 he has been placed in a behavioural class at school due to his problematic behaviour. Given the relentless emotional abuse inflicted on this child by his father at access visits, it is not surprising that D.J.[1] has developed behavioural problems. D.J.[1] will most definitely require caregivers who are patient, kind and able to provide him with the structured support he needs to function more appropriately in a learning environment.
N.J.
[47] N.J. is not yet 6 years old but so far he has already had 6 changes in caregivers in his young life. His foster mother described him as "interesting, complex, methodical, particular, extremely routine, compliant and eager to please". He "gets angry in a passive-aggressive way when disciplined", and sometimes chants, cries and whines unintelligibly in a mouse-like squeaky voice for up to an hour. He was psychologically assessed on June 10, 2009. At that time he was displaying serious emotional and behavioural difficulties. Testing revealed intellectual functioning at the lower end of the low average range and he displayed behavioural traits that were indicative of ADHD.
[48] N.J. was again assessed on July 22, 2011. Dr. Fitzgerald found that he'd made significant gains and was much better able to interact with and relate to others. He remains in the low average range of intellectual ability with relative weakness in the area of expressive and receptive language, and he is likely to have difficulty acquiring written language skills (reading and writing). He needs to be very closely monitored as there is a risk for the development of a learning disability. Intensive support at this early age for the development of word identification, word attack and writing skills will be important for N.J.. He may also need to participate in a reading recovery program, and he may require supplementary tutoring to acquire core literacy skills. In addition, as his social skills are not strong, he will need support in learning how to relate to peers and adults.
Best Interests Analysis
[49] In arriving at a disposition that will be in accordance with the children's best interests, the following factors in s.37(3) of the Act are in my view the most important:
1. The child's physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.
2. The child's physical, mental and emotional level of development.
[50] With regard to the above 2 factors, the psychological reports and testimony of Dr. Fitzgerald were most instructive. Clearly these children have special needs and require caregivers whose patience, kindness, and behaviour management skills far exceed those of the parents.
5. The importance for the child's development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.
6. The child's relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child's extended family or member of the child's community.
7. The importance of continuity in the child's care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.
[51] With regard to the above 3 factors, I have taken into consideration the fact that the parents appear to be the only "constant" in the children's lives throughout their many years of instability in their placements. There is no question that the children feel some affection and bond towards their parents and have at times enjoyed aspects of their access visits. However, I have determined that the impact of the parents' personalities and longstanding parenting deficits would significantly and negatively outweigh the modest benefit to the children of maintaining a relationship with them. The children's need for a permanent stable placement in which they can receive the love and care from competent loving parents who can meet their needs is absolutely paramount to any other concerns at this time.
[52] The children have a number of half-siblings and extended family with whom they have little or no bond. None of them attended the trial or testified. It is hoped that the children can be placed with caregivers who will be open to considering maintaining contact for the children with their half-siblings, if possible.
8. The merits of a plan for the child's care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent.
[53] The Society is proposing to place the children together for adoption. The undisputed evidence is that the children are adoptible. The Society has had success in placing sibling groups similar to these children for adoption, and its adoption worker Ms. Ashton was confident that these children can within the foreseeable future be placed together in the care of suitable parents who can meet their needs.
10. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.
[54] The system has let these children down. They have suffered much instability by reason of multiple placements (especially S.J. and N.J.). In addition, the timelines prescribed by s.70(1) of the Act have been grossly violated in respect of S.J. and N.J., who have been in foster care cumulatively for 36 months. These children are urgently in need of a permanent home where they can be part of a "forever family". Any further delay in this case by way of an extension under s.70(4) of the Act (keeping the children in the Society's temporary care for up to another 6 months to give the parents more time to acquire the necessary parenting skills) would be unconscionable. In any event, neither parent requested such an extension.
11. The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent.
12. The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
[55] The parents' conduct at access visits and in dealing with the society throughout this case has made it abundantly clear that the risk factors which justified the children's apprehension, and which justified the restricted access order which has been in place from the outset, continue to exist to this day. The parents have made little or no progress in their parenting skills since the date these applications were commenced. There is no evidence upon which a court could reasonably find that the parents are likely to make significant improvements in their parenting skills in the foreseeable future. In these circumstances it would be unthinkable to return any of the children to the parents.
Society's Efforts to Assist the Family
[56] In accordance with s.57(2) of the Act, I am required to inquire as to the efforts made by the Society to assist the children before intervention occurred. The Society has been working with this family almost continuously since 2005. The parents were provided with a variety of services and referrals throughout that time. Sufficient progress was made to have the children returned in March 2010. The Society then monitored the family for a year under a supervision order. Since the children were apprehended in April 2011, there have been numerous meetings between Society workers and the parents in an effort to identify and rectify their parenting deficits. I find that the Society has made reasonable efforts to assist this family.
Alternative Family or Community Placements
[57] Section 57(3) of the Act requires the Court to select the least disruptive alternative that will protect the children and meet their best interests. Section 57(4) of the Act requires the Court to consider whether it is possible to place the children with a relative, neighbour or other member of the child's community or extended family. The Society has over the years investigated the possibility of placing the children with: A.O. (the aunt who previously cared for D.J.[1]); M.G. (S.J. and N.J.'s maternal aunt); J.P. (S.J. and N.J.'s mother, who resides in Grenada); M.J. (paternal aunt); J.S. (Mr. D.J.'s ex-wife); C.J. (Mr. D.J.'s sister-in-law); K.J. (the children's half-sister); and C.J. and P.J. (paternal aunt and uncle). Unfortunately, none of the above-mentioned relatives were found to be sufficiently committed or suitable as kin placements. None of these people attended the trial or testified, and the parents did not propose any alternative placements. I find that there is no viable kinship plan for the children.
[58] The court heard from the father's longtime friend, R.K., who testified that she is willing to employ him and provide parenting support if the children were to be returned to him. Ms. R.K. speaks with the father frequently on the telephone but she has not seen the father or the children in 3 years; this means that she did not once observe the father's parenting during the 13 months that the children were most recently in his care. She has no relationship with Ms. J.H.. She resides in Ajax and is a very busy person with many family and professional responsibilities. There is no realistic possibility that she can be counted on to ensure the children's safety and well-being.
Disposition
[59] For all of the above reasons, the least disruptive alternative that will meet the children's best interests is that they be Crown wards.
Access
[60] Section 59(2.1) of the Act prohibits the granting of access to a Crown ward unless the court is satisfied that: (a) the relationship between the person and the child is beneficial and meaningful to the child; and (b) the ordered access will not impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.
[61] The children are certainly familiar with their parents. They are happy to see them at the beginning of access visits and at times they appear to enjoy their parents' company. They have expressed affection towards their parents. However, they separate easily from their parents at the end of visits.
[62] It takes more than pleasant encounters to constitute a "beneficial and meaningful" relationship for a child; the child must be bonded and emotionally attached to the parent before the first branch of the test in s.59(2.1) of the Act can be satisfied: Children's Aid Society of Niagara Region v. J.C. (2007), 36 R.F.L.(6th) 40 (Ont.Div.Ct.); Children's Aid Society of Owen Sound and Grey County v. T.T. (2005), 16 R.F.L.(6th) 235 (Ont.S.C.). As Sherr J. wrote in Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S.S., 2011 ONCJ 803 (Ont.C.J.) at para. 45, "even if there are some positive aspects to the relationship between parent and child, that is not enough – it must be significantly advantageous to the child."
[63] S.J. (age 6) and N.J. (age 5) have spent over 3 years (cumulatively) out of their parents' care. D.J.[1] (age 6) has spent over 2 years (cumulatively) out of his parents' care. The children see their parents for 2 hours once per week in fully supervised visits. Given these facts, and having carefully considered the nature and quality of the access visits, I have concluded that the relationship between the children and their parents is not "beneficial and meaningful" to the children in the way contemplated by the legislation and jurisprudence.
[64] As the first branch of the test in s.59(2.1) of the Act has not been met, it is not necessary to address the second branch of the test. In any event the onus is on the parents to show that an access order would not impair the children's future opportunities for adoption. The parents must satisfy the court that access will not diminish, reduce, jeopardize or interfere with the children's future opportunities for adoption; this is a heavy onus: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. S.(L.), 2011 ONSC 5850 (Ont.S.C.), paras 419 – 421 and 427. The parents led no evidence to address this issue and accordingly did not meet their onus.
[65] Even if I were required to apply the second branch of the test, I would find that the children's future opportunities for adoption would be impaired by an access order. I am mindful of the recently enacted sections 145.1.1 and 145.1.2 of the Act, which allow Societies to place Crown wards with an access order for adoption, and provide a mechanism to convert access orders to openness orders. These provisions may "open the door slightly", but they do not in any way reduce either element of the conjunctive test in s.59(2.1): Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S.(S.), 2011 ONCJ 803 (Ont.C.J.) at para. 145. Moreover, the Society will doubtless have sufficient challenges in finding an appropriate adoptive home for this sibling group. Common sense would dictate that an access order in the circumstances of this case might well have the effect of narrowing the pool of prospective adoptive parents – and this would impair the children's future opportunities to be adopted.
[66] Accordingly, no access to the children shall be ordered.
Order
There shall be an order setting out the statutory findings in accordance with the agreed statements of facts filed on May 28, 2012;
S.J. and D.J.[1] shall be found to be in need of protection pursuant to s.37(2)(a) of the Act;
N.J. shall be found to be in need of protection pursuant to s.37(2)(b) of the Act;
All three children shall be made Crown wards without access for the purpose of adoption.
[67] Finally, I wish to thank counsel for their professionalism, efficiency and child-focussed approach throughout this trial.
The Honourable Mr. Justice H.P. Brownstone
Released: June 8, 2012