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) (publication of identifying information) or an order 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 No.: OWEN SOUND 51/08

Date: 2013-07-15

Citation: Bruce Grey Child and Family Services v. K.A.A., 2013 ONCJ 385

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

BRUCE GREY CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

Applicant,

— AND —

K.A.A., R.R. and D.S.

Respondents,

Before Justice W.W. Bradley

Heard on April 29, April 30, May 1, May 2, May 3, 2013

Reasons for Judgment released on July 15, 2013

Helen Trentos............................................................................................... for the applicant society

Mario Miceli ............................................................................................... for the respondent K.A.A.

R.R................................................................................................................................ unrepresented

D.S. ........................................................................................................................... noted in default

Glenna McClelland............................................................... for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the child

Bradley J.:

[1] The Bruce Grey Child and Family Services has brought a Status Review Application requesting an Order of Crown wardship with no access other than sibling access for the child D.J.M.R. date of birth […], 2005.

[2] On April 8, 2009 D.J.M.R. was found to be a child in need of protection within the meaning of subsections 37(2)(b)(i), (b)(ii) and (g) of the Child and Family Services Act.

[3] On February 14, 2011, D.J.M.R. was placed in the care and custody of R.R. subject to supervision by the Bruce Grey Child and Family Services, hereinafter referred to as the Society for 12 months.

[4] On July 26, 2011, D.J.M.R. was once more placed in the care and custody of R.R., subject to supervision by the Society for seven months.

[5] On May 20, 2012, D.J.M.R. was placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society.

[6] D.J.M.R. has spent a total of 1430 days in the care of the Society being more than half of his life.

[7] K.A.A. is the mother of D.J.M.R. She has nine children. Only her 19-year-old son J. is living with her. Six of the children have been made Crown wards without access, including A.B.L.S., date of birth […], 2008. A.B.L.S. was made a Crown ward on February 14, 2011.

[8] Since the Orders of February 14, 2011, in which A.B.L.S. was made a Crown Ward without access except for sibling access and the Order of Supervision placing D.J.M.R. in the care and custody of R.R. a number of unfortunate events have occurred.

[9] First, R.R. demonstrated a greater need for marihuana than for his son D.J.M.R. That resulted in Society intervention and placement of D.J.M.R. back into the temporary care of the Society. The Society also had a concern about conflict between R.R. and K.A.A.

[10] Second, the Society failed to make reasonable efforts to comply with the terms for sibling access as required by the Order of February 14, 2011.

[11] That Order provided for reasonable access for A.B.L.S. to her brother D.J.M.R. as well as access to her other siblings in the discretion of the Society.

[12] The Society made virtually no efforts to ensure access between A.B.L.S. and her siblings.

[13] Given the close relationship between A.B.L.S. and D.J.M.R, it is incomprehensible how the Society only arranged one access visit for each of 2011 and 2012 between A.B.L.S. and D.J.M.R. and none between A.B.L.S. and her other siblings.

[14] The Society worker stated her primary concern was not to jeopardize the adoption by the proposed adoptive parent. The adoptive parent made it clear from the outset that she was concerned about access because of possible interference by K.A.A.

[15] The Society worker should have impressed upon the proposed adoptive parent, the court order for access and the expectations of the Society as to what reasonable access should be as well as the expectation of compliance with the Order.

[16] In failing to do this, the Society set aside the existing beneficial relationship between A.B.L.S. and D.J.M.R. in order to continue the placement of A.B.L.S. with her proposed adoptive parent.

[17] The placement was successful and A.B.L.S. was adopted; however, it was at the cost of disregarding the relationship between A.B.L.S. and D.J.M.R. as well as her other siblings.

[18] It is difficult to understand why the Society chose to permit a contravention of the placement of A.B.L.S. in a home with a prospective adoptive parent who was so reluctant to comply with a court order for access.

[19] Third, the Society showed a serious lack of judgment in delegating its discretion for access between K.A.A. to R.R., as well as failing to comply with the Order of February 14, 2011 to set out in writing to R.R. the terms of access.

[20] One would have expected that the Society would have taken control of access as soon as it became aware of access difficulties between K.A.A. and R.R.

[21] That failure by the Society in retaining control of access was partly responsible for the exposure of D.J.M.R. to domestic conflict.

[22] The concerns relating to K.A.A. at the time of the Order of February 14, 2011 and as set out in the Reasons for Judgment at Tab 9 of the Trial Record are as follows:

• Domestic conflict;
• Mental health;
• The number of new partners;
• Whether the new relationship with S.T. would continue; and
• The ability to control her anger.

[23] The issue before the Court is whether K.A.A. has addressed these concerns sufficiently to demonstrate that it would be in the best interests of D.J.M.R. to place him in the care and custody of K.A.A.

[24] K.A.A. has continued to remain in a relationship with S.T. and it appears to be a positive relationship. S.T. has employment; he does not have alcohol or drug abuse issues; and there is no indication of issues relating to domestic violence.

[25] S.T. has had access to D.J.M.R. and there do not appear to be any issues relating to their relationship.

[26] The issue of concern is S.T.’s commitment to D.J.M.R. That concern is based on his failure to be involved with his son who is now 13 years of age. S.T. separated from J.B. and had supervised access with his son, N. for two or three years. S.T. stated he stopped exercising access because of difficulties placed on access by J.B. although he continued to pay support.

[27] He lost contact with N. for a number of years and only exercised access on one occasion two years ago after K.A.A. made contact with N.’s grandmother. S.T. said they spent an afternoon together and the visit went well. At that time, he learned N.’s mother and grandfather had both committed suicide by hanging.

[28] Notwithstanding this knowledge, S.T. did not make any effort to establish regular access to this child who had experienced such horrific tragedy in his young life.

[29] At trial, S.T. learned for the first time that N. has been made a Crown ward. Given this history, there is a concern as to whether S.T. will have a lasting commitment to D.J.M.R.

[30] Dr. Wayne Richardson, a psychologist qualified as an expert witness in Parenting Capacity Assessments prepared a Parenting Capacity Assessment dated January 17, 2010.

[31] Dr. Richardson at pages 40 to 43 part 11.5 provides a summary of the assessment of K.A.A.’s capacity to parent D.J.M.R. given D.J.M.R.’s needs.

[32] The following are some of the factors to be considered:

1. The nature of D.J.M.R. Dr. Richardson noted minor attention and temper problems that if left unchecked, are likely to develop into significant behavioural problems.

2. Degree of stress related to: children, personal, interpersonal, environmental, social, financial.

3. Dr. Richardson concluded: Problematic: Significant anxiety about being in the home and in the community. Always wants an adult male with her.

4. Parents’ personality, mental health and ability to manage stress. This was noted as Problematic. K.A.A. has a high level of anxiety and finds it difficult to be alone in the house and outside the house. She can only walk alone for six blocks.

5. Problems in adult relationships are noted as serious problems. K.A.A. has had at least ten live-in-relationships in the past 18 years. The two longest relationships were three years. Relationships have been fraught with domestic violence. Partners are frequently abusive and/or use drugs and/or alcohol excessively.

6. Risks of violence is noted as Problematic, due to choice of partners and related domestic violence.

7. Ability to protect the children from illness and harm/potential for abuse and/or neglect.

8. Dr. Richardson concludes Problematic because of the probable exposure of the children to multiple partners who are also likely to be abusive of K.A.A., otherwise this would be a strength.

9. Ability to meet the child’s emotional and social needs. Dr. Richardson notes K.A.A. is very affectionate with her children, however, meeting the children’s emotional needs would be problematic because of the probable exposure of the children to multiple partners who are also likely to be abusive of K.A.A.

10. Ability to help children achieve their potential. This is noted as Problematic because of the probable exposure of the children to multiple partners who are also likely to be abusive to K.A.A.

11. Likelihood of sustaining adequate parenting over the next ten years. This is also noted as problematic because of the probable exposure of the children to multiple partners who are also likely to be abusive to K.A.A.

12. Adequacy of housing is noted as adequate.

[33] At Page 42, paragraph 11.16 Conclusion: The assessors believe that the cumulative effect of the problems outlined above would be that any child in the care of K.A.A. would be at very high risk of having maltreated and/or neglected. We believe their personal, social and psychological development would be profoundly affected in an adverse manner by the social environment to which they would be exposed.

[34] The Assessment of Dr. Richardson is over three years old and must be considered in the context of the present circumstances of K.A.A. and D.J.M.R.

[35] Doctor Richardson testified at trial. Dr. Richardson stated that D.J.M.R. showed some behaviour partly attributable to exposure to violence such as tempter and said that D.J.M.R. needed more guidelines than most. He noted D.J.M.R. needs firm guidance and rules and strict control but did not have any needs that any adequate parents couldn’t address.

[36] Dr. Richardson was given a number of hypotheticals as to D.J.M.R.’s recent behaviour which hypotheticals are substantiated by the evidence.

[37] Dr. Richardson noted the behaviour was consistent with what he had observed in the Assessment.

[38] Dr. Richardson’s testimony on Attachment Disorder was that he had assessed D.J.M.R. unlikely to attach through observation of D.J.M.R. interaction with his parents.

[39] Dr. Richardson stated an assessment of attachment in children is a difficult complex problem and is not a reliable assessment as others in children such as intelligence.

[40] One has to look at the behaviour of a child with a parent and make inferences. In his two observations of D.J.M.R. and his mother K.A.A. interacting, he observed D.J.M.R. showing some minor testing behaviour such as pushing for some kind of firmness and direction. His opinion was that D.J.M.R. was looking to be able to depend on a parent. He said a child looks to a parent for protection, someone to rely on and guidance and K.A.A. did not provide that guidance

[41] Dr. Richardson stated K.A.A. had some counselling and some counsellors were impressed by her participation in the counseling; however, he did not think that there were any gains and felt there was no change. He listed some of the reasons why he didn’t think the counselling was useful such as counsellors being handicapped by only receiving self-reporting information. He felt the probability of K.A.A. making prolonged changes in three years was remote.

[42] Dr. Richardson listed the kind of things he felt were required to make changes.

First, either to get into a stable relationship or to be in a relationship.

Second, if in a relationship it must be one that is not abusive, or with alcohol or drug issues.

Third, if K.A.A. got a job and was able to show she’s dependable and deal with the relationship in employment and cope with that.

Fourth, no police occurrences.

[43] Dr. Richardson noted K.A.A. had been in relationships in the past for three years including relationships with men not abusing alcohol or drugs. As a result he felt the relationship needed to be long enough to stand out from prior relationships. This is a longer period than Dr. Richardson had referred to in his assessment.

[44] Later Dr. Richardson said the relationship has to stand out from the previous twenty years to tell that it’s really different.

[45] Dr. Richardson stated K.A.A. is a mother who knows that firmness and guidance is required to deal with children but doing it is the issue.

[46] On the issue of whether K.A.A. has a border line personality disorder, Dr. Richardson was reluctant to use that label and preferred to look at behaviour.

[47] He did say that individuals with a borderline personality disorder have long standing problems that affect interpersonal relationships with people, that it starts in adolescence and is resistant to change and individuals often think the problems are not problems for them. They are often emotional with anger management issues or difficulties controlling ones emotions and this interferes with relationship to other people.

[48] At paragraph 11.4 on pages 32 and 33 of the Parenting Capacity Assessment, Dr. Richardson provided a Summary of the findings relating to K.A.A. Dr. Richardson said he continues to hold that view.

[49] Dr. Richardson was asked about changes in K.A.A.’s life such as not changing her residence and in a continuing relationship with a man who has employment and no addictions. He said that it was a good start, a good change, but he did not know if it was a substantive change.

[50] Dr. Richardson stated K.A.A. consistently denied problems and on tests was excessively defensive with many problems. He referred to K.A.A. having ten relationship and eight children, anxiety to the extent of being afraid to go out of the home.

[51] He spoke of K.A.A.’s recognition of the serious detrimental impact upon her children of introducing a series of men into their lives but continued to do it. He said it was as if she needed a relationship with a man even if it impacted on her children.

TESTIMONY OF SHELLY JUONI

[52] Shelly Juoni is the foster parent for D.J.M.R. The most recent placement of D.J.M.R. with her was on May 30, 2012.

[53] At that time D.J.M.R. was described by Ms Juoni as being a typical 7 year old, very happy, got along well with the other children and no conflict.

[54] After November of 2012, his behaviour deteriorated. He is more aggressive, not listening. A check mark list was required for school because he was bullying other children and not following classroom rules.

[55] At the beginning of December, his visits with his father R.R. had stopped.

[56] His behaviour at school has improved but not his behaviour at home. He is disruptive, not following rules and fighting with the other children.

[57] Between September and December he was introduced to a prospective adoptive family. In December he went to spend two weeks with this family. It was reported he was not getting along with the other children and it wasn’t working out. As a result D.J.M.R. was returned after four days.

[58] To this date, a placement in a home with a view to adoption has not been identified for D.J.M.R.

[59] Ms Juoni testified that after visits with R.R. were suspended in December of 2012 as well as the visits in the home of the proposed adoptive parents, D.J.M.R. became more aggressive and did not listen well at home. D.J.M.R. has shown improvement at school, but his behaviour at home is an issue with D.J.M.R. being disrespectful and not following rules.

[60] Ms Juoni said that during the time D.J.M.R. has been placed with her K.A.A. has never said or done anything to interfere with her parenting. She stated D.J.M.R. has expressed a wish to see his brother S., but that has not happened.

[61] D.J.M.R. has said he wants to move back with his mom and has said he is going to save his pennies to hire a taxi to go visit her.

TESTIMONY OF CAROLYN CAFIK

[62] Carolyn Cafik is a Family Resource Worker for the Society and supervised many of the K.A.A. visits with D.J.M.R. She stated the visits are generally positive. She noted two concerns, one of which related to K.A.A. allowing D.J.M.R. to toboggan towards oncoming traffic. There did not appear to be any immediate risk of harm, but it was not good judgment on the part of K.A.A.

ANALYSIS

[63] Dr. Richardson set out the changes that were needed to be made by K.A.A. and said there needed to be a radical change that stood out from the landscape of the past. He acknowledged positive chances such as the stable, positive relationship with S.T., but the changes are not sufficient at this time.

[64] It is concerning that K.A.A. hasn’t done more to address the identified issues. Dr. Richardson noted that a lack of attachment according to his definition of attachment could be problematic and believes that K.A.A. cannot be relied on.

[65] It should be noted that Dr. Richardson’s observations on attachment were very limited and the result of observations on only two occasions.

[66] The issue of serial relationships in the past demonstrated K.A.A. had placed her need above those of her children.

[67] K.A.A. has not obtained professional assistance to address the concerns of Dr. Richardson although she has made some efforts to obtain information from the internet. In spite of this, failure to take the necessary steps to seek and follow through with professional assistance K.A.A. is somewhat successful in managing her anxiety and stress issues. It appears that the relationship with S.T. has assisted in stress reduction and she had made some gains in being out in the community including driving a car when necessary.

[68] The current relationship is free from domestic conflict and violence and is a positive change from prior relationship nor is alcohol or drug abuse a problem.

[69] This relationship address a number of significant concerns of Dr. Richardson, although Dr. Richardson’s testimony at trial is that his concerns continue.

[70] Dr. Richardson focussed on the issue of attachment and related his concerns for K.A.A. to meet the requirements for attachment.

[71] At the same time, Dr. Richardson seemed to down play the psychological impact upon D.J.M.R. of a permanent separation from his K.A.A. who he unquestionably loves and wants to be with.

[72] Dr. Richardson says D.J.M.R. will be sad for a while.

[73] It does not require an expert opinion to know that a child who is removed from a loving relationship with a parent will experience sadness, grief and emotional stress that will in all likelihood be of a lasting nature.

[74] Contrary to the submissions of the Society, there have been positive changes by K.A.A. The issue is whether those changes sufficiently address historical concerns and whether they are lasting changes.

[75] The submission by the Society that “it would be a miracle if she isn’t fighting with S.T.” is speculative. There is no probative evidence of domestic conflict between K.A.A. and S.T.

[76] Contrary to the concerns of the adoptive parent of A., K.A.A. made no attempt to attend at the home of D.J.M.R.’s foster parents and there appear to be no problems in the relationship between K.A. and the foster parents.

[77] Concern was expressed by Society witnesses that K.A.A. went beyond the boundaries of her role as an access parent. In fact, the concerns of the Society about K.A. attending at the school to ensure D.J.M.R. was registered as well as obtaining counselling for D.J.M.R. through Keystone are not indicative of K.A.A. overstepping her role as an access parent. In each instance, her actions were approved of by R.R., who did not take these steps on his own initiative.

[78] With respect to arranging for counselling at Keystone for D.J.M.R., this was a necessary intervention and one that should have been encouraged or in fact arranged by the Society.

[79] These are positive indicators of K.A.A.’s ability to parent and address the needs of D.J.M.R.

CREDIBILITY OF K.A.A.

[80] There are concerns relating to the credibility of K.A.A. She stated she met S.T. at a coffee shop. That is only partially true. In fact, the meeting took place as a result of her seeking out a contact through the internet site Plenty of Fish.

[81] K.A.A. stated the Society did not provide her with written terms of access to D.J.M.R. In fact, an access schedule was provided to K.A.A. by a letter dated March 11, 2011.

[82] The following are positive changes made by K.A.A.:

1. K.A.A. has been in a stable positive relationship for more than the one year that Dr. Richardson initially stated was required in his Parenting Capacity Assessment. He has now changed that to three years.

2. There have been positive changes in the mental health of K.A.A. An adjustment in her medication according to K.A.A. has assisted in controlling her anxiety levels. She states things that stressed her previously do not bother her now.

3. Her finances and home are stable.

4. She has disassociated herself from her previous partners and their friends.

5. She has made improvements in managing her anxiety and is able to leave the home and walk short distances on her own as well as driving for necessities.

6. K.A.A. has demonstrated an ability to provide for the basic needs of D.J.M.R. as well as recognizing his medical needs. She took proactive steps to arrange for counselling through Keystone for D.J.M.R.

7. K.A.A.’s states her days are structured and appears to recognize the need of structure for D.J.M.R.

[83] On the evidence before the Court, D.J.M.R. continues to be a child in need of protection pursuant to subsections 37(2)(b)(i), (ii) and (g) of the Child and Family Services Act. In determining the best interests of D.J.M.R. and the Order to be made under Section 57, the Court must consider the factors set out in Section 37(3) of the Act.

[84] The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs. K.A.A. possesses the knowledge to meet the physical, mental and emotional needs of D.J.M.R.

[85] In the past her need for a relationship with men resulted in the placement of her needs above those of her children. This led to exposure of the children to domestic violence and a number of men coming into the lives of the children.

[86] Notwithstanding K.A.A.’s testimony of the stability of her present relationship, there remains a risk she will place her emotional needs above that of D.J.M.R.

[87] At the same time, K.A.A. has demonstrated her ability to recognize the needs of D.J.M.R. particularly with respect to counselling and has taken action to meet those needs.

[88] D.J.M.R. is not a child with exceptional needs, but he requires more than average guidance and is in need of counselling to address behavioural concerns which appear to be directly related to his losses in relationships with his father, R.R., his sister A., and other siblings, especially his brother S. with whom he had a close relationship.

[89] In addition he had been exposed to domestic violence in the past. D.J.M.R. requires structure and stability.

[90] There is no probative evidence of conflict in the relationship between K.A.A. and S.T.

[91] Dr. Richardson and the Society workers identified a source of conflict in the home created by the presence of K.A.A.’s son J., although K.A.A. stated the plan is for J. not to residence in the home if D.J.M.R. is returned.

[92] R.R. has made statements to Society workers of conflict by K.A.; however, that evidence was not subject to cross-examination.

[93] It is concerning that K.A.A. attributes all of the conflict with R.R. to the actions of R.R. At the same time, part of the problem was created by the Society in delegating control over access to R.R. Further, on K.A.A.’s evidence when R.R. initiated conflict, she walked away.

[94] The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.

[95] D.J.M.R. has issues of defiance and aggression that are related to the instability in his life particularly with respect to the loss of contact with his father, R.R., his sister A. and other siblings as well as a break down in a tentative placement in a foster home with a view to adoption.

[96] D.J.M.R. is an intelligent child in need of security and permanency. He has an identified problem with attachment to K.A.A. but has a great desire to live with her. Further, the opinion of attachment by Dr. Richardson must be considered in the context of his limited number of observations.

[97] The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.

[98] This factor is especially important for D.J.M.R. given the breakdown in his placement with his father, R.R. and the placement in a foster home with a view to adoption.

[99] The child’s relationship and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other family member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community.

[100] D.J.M.R. has strong emotional ties to his mother and siblings. He has expressed a wish to live with his sister A. and his mother. I have previously stated my concern to the emotional well-being of D.J.M.R. if he suffers the loss of his mother in addition to the loss of his father, R.R.

[101] I do not attach great significance to K.A.A.’s answer to the question as to what access should occur for D.J.M.R. if it come down to a choice of access to A. or to herself.

[102] After some hesitation and thought K.A.A. stated herself.

[103] It appeared she was attempting to determine which would better reflect the best interests of D.J.M.R. She chose access between a child and his mother as opposed to sibling access. She was wrong in saying D.J.M.R. would forget A., just as Dr. Richardson was wrong in downplaying the effect of a complete separation of D.J.M.R. and his mother.

[104] A return of D.J.M.R. to the care of his mother K.A.A. would increase the likelihood of contact between D.J.M.R. and his brother S.

[105] A concern has been expressed from the outset about access between D.J.M.R. and A. if K.A.A. remains part of D.J.M.R.’s life.

[106] There is a court order for sibling access between A. and D.J.M.R. and the Society has an obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure that order is complied with.

[107] To date that has not occurred. Any concerns of the adoptive mother of A. can be addressed by an order that prohibits direct or indirect contact between K.A.A. and A. except through a court order.

[108] The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.

[109] An order for Crown wardship may provide for permanency in D.J.M.R.’s care with the possibility for adoption. D.J.M.R. is seven years of age and has good prospects for adoption.

[110] Balanced against that is the visit for proposed placement that broke down after a few days. Notwithstanding the actions of K.A.A. in placing her emotional needs ahead of the needs of D.J.M.R., she has been a constant in his life maintaining her relationship with D.J.M.R. by regular access.

[111] 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.

[112] The plan of the Society is for placement for adoption. To date an adoption placement has not materialized.

[113] The home of K.A.A. at present is a stable, with the exception of the presence of her eldest son J., who has at times created disruption and conflict. S.T. has been a positive influence on K.A.A. He is steadily employed and has no issues with abuse of alcohol or drugs nor are there issues of domestic violence.

PROPOSED PLANS OF CARE

[114] The plan of the Society is for Crown Wardship with a view to adoption and no access to the parents. It does propose sibling access.

[115] To this point there is no concrete plan in place for adoption. A prior prospective placement broke down.

[116] The efforts of the Society in implementing a prior order for sibling access were an abysmal failure.

THE CHILD’S VIEW AND WISHES, IF THEY CAN BE REASONABLY ASCERTAINED

[117] D.J.M.R. has expressed a wish to live with his mother.

THE EFFECTS ON THE CHILD OF DELAY IN THE DISPOSITION OF THE CASE

[118] D.J.M.R. is seven years of age. D.J.M.R. desperately needs a resolution of this case and permanency.

THE RISK THA THE CHILD MAY SUFFER HARM THROUGH BEING REMOVED FROM, KEPT AWAY FROM, RETURNED TO OR ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN THE CARE OF A PARENT

[119] It is apparent that there is a high risk of emotional harm to D.J.M.R. from being kept away from his mother. There is also the risk expressed by Dr. Richardson of lack of attachment and instability in the home created by a pattern of different partners coming into D.J.M.R.’s life.

THE DEGREE OF RISK, IF ANY, THAT JUSTIFIED THE FINDING THAT THE CHILD IS IN NEED OF PROTECTION

[120] The degree of risk has been reduced somewhat by the stability of K.A.A.’s present relationship with S.T. as well as the modest improvement in K.A.A.’s ability to cope with her issues of anxiety and stress. Further, the relationship addresses many of the concerns raised by Dr. Richardson.

[121] This is a particularly difficult disposition. There is a risk of emotional harm to D.J.M.R. whether he is made a ward of the Crown without access or whether he is returned to the care of his mother, K.A.A.

[122] In spite of my reservations and concerns, on a balance of probabilities, I find that it is in the best interests of D.J.M.R., dated of birth of […], 2005 to be placed in the care and custody of K.A.A., subject to the supervision of the Children’s Aid Society of Owen Sound and the County of Grey for a period of 12 months on the following terms and conditions:

1. K.A.A. shall attend for counselling as directed and arranged by the Society.

2. K.A.A. shall cooperate with the Society through announced and unannounced home visits.

3. K.A.A. shall advice the Society seven days in advance of any proposed change of residence and shall not change the place of residence of D.J.M.R. or his school without the prior written approval of the Society.

4. K.A.A. shall facilitate private contact with D.J.M.R. by Society workers as may be requested.

5. K.A.A. shall maintain an appropriate residence for D.J.M.R.

6. K.A.A. shall inform the Society immediately of any conflict between herself and S.T. and of any change in their relationship including a separation or one of them moving out of the home.

7. No person other than K.A.A. and S.T. shall reside with D.J.M.R. unless approved in advance in writing by the Society.

8. J.B. shall not be present in the home of D.J.M.R. without the prior written approval of the Society.

9. R.R. and D.S. shall not be present in the home or on the premises of the home without the prior written approval of the Society.

10. K.A.A. shall not permit any access, contact or communication between D.J.M.R. and R.R., save and excepting such access that is permitted through a court order.

11. K.A.A. shall promptly inform the Society of any behavioural issues of D.J.M.R. at home or at school.

12. K.A.A. shall ensure that D.J.M.R. attend all counselling that may be arranged by the Society. Further, she shall inform the Society forthwith of any counselling that she arranges for D.J.M.R.

13. K.A.A. shall take reasonable steps to ensure there is access between D.J.M.R. and his brother S.

14. K.A.A. shall cooperate with the Society in arranging for access between D.J.M.R. and his sister A. Further K.A.A. shall not contact or communicate directly or indirectly with A. except through a court order. This condition includes any communication by D.J.M.R. or S.T. to A. at the request of K.A.A.

15. K.A.A. shall ensure that D.J.M.R. attends school regularly and on time as required by law.

16. K.A.A. shall ensure:

i. That D.J.M.R. is provided adequate daily care, nutrition and age and stage appropriate stimulation.

ii. That D.J.M.R. have regular medical and dental check-ups, and shall immediately report any serious medical and dental concerns to the Society.

17. K.A.A. shall sign releases of information to the Society in relation to:

i. The medical/health records relating to D.J.M.R.

ii. The school records relating to D.J.M.R.

18. D.J.M.R. shall have access to R.R. to be exercised at the discretion of the Society with respect to frequency, duration, location and supervision of access visits. Such access shall be in writing as provided to K.A.A. by the Society.

19. The Society shall not delegate this discretion for access to K.A.A.

Signed: “Justice W.W. Bradley”