WARNING

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

This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to one or more of subsections 48(7), 45(8) and 45(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

45.—(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.— The court may make an order,

(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing,

where the court is of the opinion that . . . publication of the report, . . ., would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding.

(8) Prohibition: identifying child.— No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child's parent or foster parent or a member of the child's family.

(9) Idem: order re adult.— The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

85.—(3) Idem.— A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (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.

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

DATE: 2013·07·18

COURT FILE No.: Belleville 457/12

Citation: Highland Shores Children’s Aid v. A.VW., 2013 ONCJ 430

BETWEEN:

Highland Shores Children’s Aid Applicant,

— AND —

A.VW. and L. B. Respondents

Before Justice W. Malcolm

Heard on June 27, 2013

Reasons for Decision on Motion released on July 18, 2013

Cynthia Law ....................................................................... counsel for the Applicant Society Cheryl Lean ................................................................... counsel for the Respondent, A. VW. L.B. ................................................................................................................ on his own behalf

Malcolm J.:

Overview

[1] The Applicant Society brought a motion on December 21, 2012 requesting the temporary care and custody of the children, D.B., born […], 2010 and K.B., born […], 2012.

[2] The parents of the children are the Respondents.

[3] The children were apprehended from the care of their parents on December 19, 2012. On the first court appearance on December 21, 2012 the Court ordered that the children remain in the care of the Society, subject to access at least three times a week for not less than two hours per visit, to be supervised by the Society or an approved third party. The Society was given the discretion to expand the access.

[4] Although the children continue to be in the care of the Society, the access has been expanded. The access is now occurring on Tuesdays and Thursdays at the Society’s office, Fridays at the Early Years Centre, supervised by the foster mother, C. B., and Saturdays at the parents’ home, supervised by the mother’s maternal aunt, C.R..

[5] Although at the start of these proceedings both parents were represented by counsel, the father is now self-represented.

[6] Although the mother filed a Plan of Care on January 25, 2013, the parents did not contest the temporary placement of the children until May 1, 2013 when a temporary care hearing was scheduled for one half day on June 10, 2013 (subsequently adjourned on consent) with permission for oral evidence. The mother’s Affidavit was sworn June 19, 2013 and the father’s Affidavit was sworn June 18, 2013.

[7] Counsel for the mother examined the main child protection worker, Jestine Hammer, on May 27, 2013. The evidence taken at the hearing was not relied upon at this hearing.

Evidence at Motion

[8] The evidence at the hearing consisted of affidavit evidence only and there was no oral evidence called. Both counsel introduced documentary evidence through affidavits of their staff. Medical reports on both children from their family physician and pediatrician were filed. All parties consented to my review of the reports and the documentary evidence for purposes of this hearing.

[9] The Affidavits of the Society workers consisted of the following: Affidavit of Melani Hare, sworn December 20, 2012; Affidavit of Jestine Hammer, sworn December 21, 2012; Affidavit of Kristen Goodwin, sworn June 3, 2013; Affidavit of Michelle Bosma, sworn June 4, 2013; and Affidavit of Jestine Hammer sworn June 25, 2013.

[10] The Society also filed the Affidavit of the foster mother, sworn June 25, 2013.

[11] A report dated February 20, 2013 of Dr. Langewisch, a clinical psychologist, was attached to an Affidavit of Nancy Patrick, sworn June 17, 2013.

[12] The Society filed reports dated June 16, 2013 of Dr. Seybold, the family doctor for the children, attached to the Affidavit of Nancy Patrick, sworn June 18, 2013.

[13] Further, two reports dated June 21, 2013 from the children’s pediatrician, Dr. Dempsey, were filed as Exhibit One and Two.

[14] The evidence of the parents consisted of the following; the Affidavit of the mother, sworn June 19, 2013; the Affidavit of the father, sworn June 18, 2013; the Affidavit of the paternal grandfather, sworn June 18, 2013; the Affidavit of the maternal aunt, sworn June 19, 2013 and the Affidavit of Susan Dudgeon, the assistant to Ms. Lean, sworn June 20, 2013. Her Affidavit was filed in order to provide the Society’s plans of care, a Society case note, and a copy of supervised access notes.

[15] The Society also filed a Factum.

Position of the Parties

[16] The Society takes the position that the child, K.B., at the time of apprehension was seriously malnourished based on the advice of the family doctor, pediatrician and the nurse at the Health Unit. Further, the Society worker and the protection worker observed the child to be very quiet and unresponsive with a grey pallor. The Society determined at that time the risk to his health was imminent. The Society had been involved with the family because of a number of protection issues, including longstanding neglect of both children’s basic needs and medical concerns.

[17] The Society takes the position that, at present, there is no supervision order that can adequately protect the children. However, they continue to reassess the mother’s plan in the context of the extended family members who have expressed a willingness to supervise and support the mother.

[18] The mother and father ask that the children be returned to their care. The father’s brother and father indicated their willingness to come to the family home twice a day and the maternal aunt indicates that she can assist twice a month or more if required. The parents deny that the protection concerns are as serious as the Society alleges and at the time of the apprehension the mother’s grandmother had just passed away and the family was very upset and the Society should have been more sensitive in the circumstances.

Society Involvement with the Family

D.B. - Dr. Seybold’s Concerns

[19] The Society has been involved with the family since June 2012 when Dr. Seybold, physician for the children and the mother, made a referral to the Society based on protection concerns. The doctor indicated that he had longstanding concerns as to the family’s care of D.B. He described the child as having significant malnutrition issues. He was concerned about bonding between D.B. and his mother and the mother’s difficulty in following up on basic medical care and treatment. At this time he indicated that the mother was behind on routine appointments and immunization. For example, D.B. received his one year needle at 18 months.

Severe Dental Decay

[20] However Dr. Seybold’s main concern was the state of D.B.’s teeth. He told Ms. Hammer that D.B. had severe nursing bottle rot. He said that he had warned the mother many times not to let the child go to bed with a bottle but the practice had continued and now the child was going to have extensive surgery to remove 12 teeth.

[21] Dr. Seybold and his secretary have reported to the Society that the mother would miss appointments, come to an appointment and then leave before seeing the doctor, or cancel appointments. Further the mother did not attend for the child’s preoperative appointment and the first day scheduled for the child’s dental surgery.

[22] Despite the warnings of the doctor and Ms. Hammer, the mother continued to allow the child to use a bottle. The mother also allowed the child to drink Pepsi and drink sugary drinks. This continued after the child finally had his surgery in Kingston with Dr. Butler when he had all his molars capped and had his upper teeth extracted.

[23] Dr. Butler, in her letter to Ms. Law dated June 11, 2013 and attached as an Exhibit to the Affidavit of Ms. Hammer, sworn June 25, 2013, indicated that the diagnosis for D.B. was Early Childhood Caries. She indicated that this is caused when there is bacteria that causes the breakdown of the tooth’s enamel. She said that the intake of sugar and the frequency of the intake provided the opportunity for enamel breakdown due to acid production. She said that tooth brushing and flossing as well as fluoride can help to decrease the rate of decay.

[24] Although the evidence as to the exact number of teeth involved is unclear, D.B. had six to eight teeth extracted and his molars capped. He has no upper front teeth.

[25] The mother, father and aunt in their material indicate that mother’s family suffers from “weak enamel”. The mother has told Ms. Hammer that she does not really like brushing her own teeth and often does not. She also admitted allowing D.B. to take a bottle to bed.

[26] There is no evidence that weak enamel is the cause of D.B.’s dental decay. It is more likely caused by excessive bottle use and drinking or consuming sugary food or drink and not brushing his teeth. Further, the mother was not active in ensuring his timely dental and medical care.

[27] As to her problem in attending at the doctor’s appointments or leaving early, the mother indicates that she had Ontario Works pay for a taxi from her home in Trenton to Picton and the doctor often made her wait for an hour so she had to leave without seeing the doctor or the taxi would not wait for her.

[28] Ms. Hammer spoke to Kelly Light at Hasting’s County Social Services about the policy of providing taxis for Ontario Works clients for transportation to medical appointments. She told Ms. Hammer that so long as the taxi fee is over $15.00 for the transportation to the medical appointment it is covered. She said that the taxi does not wait but another taxi should be called at the end of the appointment.

K.B.

Conditions of the Society

[29] K.B. was born in […] 2012 and because of Dr. Seybold’s report of neglect the Society worked with the family. The Society told the mother that the child was not to be left unattended unless in his crib or bassinet; that the baby needed to be held when his bottle was being fed to him; the bottle was not to be propped; the child needed to have tummy time in order to develop so long as he was properly supervised; and the child should not have hazards in his crib.

[30] Despite these warnings the Society worker found that the mother was leaving the child unattended in a bouncy seat; she was propping a bottle in the seat; she was not giving the baby tummy time and she had an adult sized pillow and blanket in the baby’s crib. When he was only one month old he was put in his bouncy chair with a bottle propped beside him and allowed to soothe himself to sleep.

[31] In September 2012 the maternal grandmother moved into the home.

[32] The workers noticed both before and after the grandmother moved in that the caregivers were not following the conditions as set out in August. Further, the worker noticed that the child had, among other concerns, a flattened back of his head, a protruding forehead, and chronic diaper rash. The family doctor reported the persistent diaper rash as a neglect concern.

[33] Dr. Seybold reported to the Society on September 24, 2012 that after three weeks K.B.’s diaper rash had not cleared up and given the cream prescribed and the length of time that had passed, he was concerned.

[34] Dr. Dempsey had diagnosed the child with torticollis in October, but despite this Ms. Hammer, during an unannounced visit, found the child in a bouncy chair with a bottle propped beside him.

[35] The mother had difficulties in feeding the child and she was going to feed him pabulum at three months of age in a liquid form without her doctor’s advice. In November Ms. Hammer was concerned about how small the baby was and asked the mother how much her son weighed. She did not know. The worker asked how many scoops she was putting in the bottle and found the mother was not following the correct instructions.

[36] Leading up to the apprehension, the mother had taken K.B. to the family doctor. On December 19, 2012, Ms. Hammer spoke to Dr. Seybold’s nurse, Janet, who advised that Dr. Seybold had seen K.B. on December 13, 2012. He was so concerned about K.B. that he made an urgent referral to Dr. Dempsey. K.B.’s weight had dropped from the fifteenth percentile to the third percentile.

[37] The nurse also commented that D.B. was waiting in the waiting room with his mother while the grandmother took K.B. in to see the doctor. D.B. was out of control, throwing chairs at other patients and drinking Pepsi (this was less than one month after his surgery).

[38] The nurse also commented that K.B. was very floppy and moved very slowly. She stated that K.B.’s head was very deformed, flat on the back and beginning to protrude on the left front side. He weighed 11lbs.,11oz.

[39] He was unclean with feces on his stomach.

[40] Ms Hammer made arrangements for K.B. to be seen at the Health Unit. The nurse, Beth Baxter, weighed the naked child and confirmed his weight. The nurse indicated that a child of four months should gain four ounces in five days. He was only 11lbs, 11.5oz., with a weight gain of only .5 ounces. Ms. Hammer confirmed with Dr. Seybold’s office that that child was weighed in his office without his clothing.

[41] Because of the concerns of the worker and her supervisor, Melani Hare, a decision was made to apprehend both children that day.

[42] When Ms. Hammer and Ms. Hare went to the home they noticed that the child was not very responsive, had a misshapen head with a beginning bedsore on it. He was noted by Ms. Hare to be gray in colour. These concerns were discussed with the parents and the maternal grandmother, who did not see anything wrong with the child.

Mother’s Cognitive Functioning and Report of Dr. Langewisch

[43] After the apprehension, the Society received from the mother’s counsel a report from Dr. Langewisch, dated February 20, 2013. This was a report on the cognitive and academic functioning of the mother. The referral was from Hastings County Social Services. Dr. Langewisch was asked to determine the mother’s capacity to obtain employment and be successful in a job situation. Further, he was asked to examine her psychological and emotional functioning.

[44] The mother reported that she was in a common law relationship for six years, but at the time of the assessment she was living with her mother. She reported that her mother assisted with her finances and issues involving literacy. She described her mother as being diagnosed as bipolar.

[45] Dr. Langewisch administered to the mother the Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) to evaluate her overall level of intellectual functioning. Her Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ) was found to be in the 3rd percentile or in the borderline range.

[46] Her overall attention, concentration and mental control (working memory index) placed her at the 1st percentile or extremely low. Her overall ability to quickly and accurately process routine visual information (processing speed index) fell in the borderline range or sixth percentile.

[47] Her general aptitude or ability to learn and retain new information was in the borderline range at 7th percentile.

[48] Her academic functioning pursuant to the Wide Range Achievement Test Rev. 4 (WRATH4) was found to be in the 14th percentile.

[49] As to her psychological functioning under the Diagnostic Statistical Manual _IV (DSM_IV) she was found to have adjustment disorder with depressed mood and features of social phobia. She reported that she is anxious in classroom situations. At page eight of his report he indicates that she for the “most part takes a passive, submissive stance when dealing with others”.

[50] It has been suggested by the mother’s family that some of the mother’s problems in providing appropriate care to her children were caused, in part, by her mother who directed her to do such things as prop a bottle beside the baby.

[51] It would have been very helpful for the Society to have been in possession of this assessment when they first started supervising the family. Ms. Hammer believed that the mother had cognitive delays, but not to this extent.

[52] Ms. Sweet, who facilitates the Parenting for Success course (her report being attached as an Exhibit to the Affidavit of Ms. Hammer, sworn June 25, 2013), found that although the mother attended the classes and participated fully, she was not able to retain the information and she recommended that she take the program again. Given the mother’s cognitive limitations it would be understandable that she would not always be able to learn and retain information about caring for her children.

Dr. Seybold’s Medical Reports

[53] Dr. Seybold provided two reports dated June 16, 2013, one for each child.

[54] As to D.B., he said that the mother had not sought his help for prenatal care until she was 15 weeks gestation. By this time it was too late for genetic testing (this point is important because D.B. is now undergoing genetic testing). The mother smoked during her pregnancy. At 36 weeks the birth was induced because of intra uterine growth retardation.

[55] The doctor describes problems with the child’s weight and the mother not feeding the child appropriately. Further D.B. was given a bottle at night, despite warnings for the doctor. As indicated earlier, the child suffered from extensive dental decay. He said he had “grave concerns” about the care given to the child by his mother.

[56] As to K.B., Dr. Seybold said that the mother did not see him for prenatal care until the 25th week. He also said that in spite of D.B. suffering from intra uterine growth retardation and his advice against cigarette smoking and the role it plays in growth retardation, the mother continued to smoke for her entire pregnancy.

[57] The mother missed the first two baby checkups and the four month visit scheduled for December 10, 2012. When the baby was seen on December 13, 2012 the doctor noted a dramatic falling off of weight from the 15th to the 3rd percentile and he made an urgent referral to the paediatrician, Dr. Dempsey.

[58] He described K.B. as having inadequate provision of nutrition and global development. He said he had “grave concerns” about the care the mother provided to the child. He said the inadequate weight gain had no other cause than parental neglect. He also described global developmental delay due to lack of parental stimulation.

[59] When he saw K.B. on March 11, 2013 he saw significant improvement and the child was at the 10th percentile for weight.

Dr. Dempsey’s Medical Reports

[60] Both children have been seen by Dr. Dempsey, who provided reports dated June 21, 2013.

[61] As to D.B., he said that he was “showing significant expressive and receptive language delays, cognitive delays, significant social isolation and an increasing number of atypical mannerisms, as well as gross and fine motor delays”. He said the mannerisms were consistent with a diagnosis of autism. D.B. is being assessed for Fragile X Syndrome through genetic and metabolic screening and is also being assessed for development delays.

[62] Concerning K.B., Dr. Dempsey found at the time of apprehension he had hypotonia (low muscle tone) and insufficient weight gain because of poor nutrition. In his letter to Dr. Seybold on February 14, 2013, he described K.B. as having severe malnutrition and failure to thrive at the time he came into care.

[63] He said the prognosis is excellent with good feeding and developmental stimulation.

[64] He said that the plagiocephaly and torticollis, as well as coloboma were not affected by parenting or developmental stimulation. He said that the child now had steady developmental progress but was at the low end of normal.

Analysis

[65] Using the analysis in the decision of Justice Blishen, I accept, on the credible and trustworthy evidence of the health care providers, Ms. Hammer and Ms. Hare, that K.B., and to a lesser extent, D.B., on the date of apprehension, were likely to suffer physical harm in the care of their parents and grandmother due to neglect of their basic needs, including, but not limited to, their nutritional needs. (Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., 2000 CanLII 21157 (ON Sc) pp 10).

[66] I recognize that the parents do not agree that the risk was as serious as I find but the evidence of the society is overwhelming. Two physicians have expressed their concerns about the physical state of K.B. and the developmental state of D.B. at the time of apprehension.

Events Since the Apprehension

[67] I need to consider the events after the apprehension and whether the same risks are still present and whether a supervision order can adequately protect the children if they are returned to the care of their parents, pursuant to Section 51 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. c. 11, (“the Act”).

[68] The access that the parents enjoy with their children has steadily increased since December 19, 2013. All of the access is supervised.

[69] The evidence of the maternal aunt is that the access that she supervises on Fridays and Saturdays go well and the parents need less and less coaching from her. She is a foster mother, although I am not aware as to whether she fosters young children. She is also the mother of three children who are now grown.

[70] The aunt indicates that the father’s father and brother and she have proposed a plan of supervision to allow the children to be returned home.

[71] She indicates that although the father may sometimes be resistant to suggestions and argue with you, shortly thereafter he does respond and changes his behaviour in accordance with what she has said.

[72] Both of these children have special needs and may require specialized care. The parents, and the extended family members, do not accept that either child suffered from poor nutrition or that D.B.’s dental needs were neglected. They suggest that the dental decay is from soft enamel and not from not having proper dental cleanings, propping bottles at bedtime or allowing sugary drinks. Further they suggested that Dr. Seybold‘s scheduling practice affected the mother’s ability to attend or stay for scheduled medical appointments.

[73] It is suggested by the family, that the weigh scales at Dr. Seybold, Dr. Dempsey and the Health Unit were not calibrated the same so K.B. was not suffering from poor or malnutrition at the time of apprehension. The parents seem to believe that if K.B. was gaining weight that was sufficient. Perhaps the question of how K.B.’s weight compares to other children of the same age is a difficult concept for them. The calibration of the scales does not detract from the size of the child, his physical attributes and the opinion of the treating physician that his nutrition was poor.

[74] Further, the issues of attachment between K.B. and his mother, bottle propping, and inadequate stimulation appear to be minimized or ignored.

[75] I recognize that these parents do have many strengths. They love their children. The mother is highly motivated and wants to care for her children. The parents have extended family who have offered to help.

[76] The aunt was not able to help earlier because she was caring for her mother, who died on December 19, 2012, and further when she offered to help prior, the mother refused her help.

[77] Counsel for the mother attached to her assistant’s affidavit Plans of Care, observation notes and case notes and supervised access notes, all recorded since the children came into care. The notes are submitted to show that the parents interact appropriately with the children and D.B. has many positive characteristics, which would seem to be in contradiction to a diagnosis of autism. I have reviewed the notes and the workers have commented on D.B. being a polite, friendly, caring and affectionate child. Therefore it is suggested by the parents that D.B. really has no issues.

[78] However, there is evidence that D.B. can be very aggressive with other children and while in the care of his mother she had difficulty controlling him. She will often seem to neglect K.B.’s needs because D.B. requires so much attention. D.B. is to go to daycare in the fall but with his aggressive behaviours his foster mother is concerned that he may not be a suitable candidate.

[79] The Society workers and the foster mother have experienced the mother’s challenge in appropriately feeding K.B., even in a supervised situation. They have also seen her difficulty in controlling D.B. and giving enough attention to K.B. They have seen that the mother requires constant redirection and guidance to implement strategies taught to her and continues to have problems with the correct water to formula ratio.

[80] The foster mother, who has cared for young children in her home and has volunteered as an educational assistant in her children’s school, has been supervising access on Fridays. She comments that the father does not always attend the access.

[81] She has described some concerning behaviours of D.B., such as not chewing his food enough, stuffing his mouth too full, throwing things, obsessively picking at the edge of his nose and the skin on his lips and he cannot alternate his feet when going up or down stairs. He appears to have no interest in his brother who is in the same foster home. He often repeats the last word repeated to him and has significant issues with memory and attention span. Further, he can be very physical with other children.

[82] The foster mother has supervised about 15 visits at the Early Years Centre. At about half of those visits she has had to remind the mother how to make K.B.’s bottle properly or to give it at the right time. She has had to remind the mother to watch D.B.’s aggressive behaviours with other children. She has noticed the mother not interacting with K.B. On the other hand, the mother has allowed other mothers to hold her son and she has held and interacted with a little girl at the visits.

[83] I find that a family plan with two family members coming to the home for three or four hours a day is not sufficient. Given the needs of the children and the mother’s cognitive delays, I find that she needs constant supervision and direction. Perhaps this can be accomplished by the father giving up his job and being at home with the children.

Father’s Offer to Leave his Employment

[84] At present I know little of the father’s employment or role in caring for the children. The evidence of the doctors does not mention the father, so I assume he attended no or few appointments. Ms Hammer, in her first Affidavit, indicates that the father works in the evening catching chickens and sleeps during the day.

[85] The father in his Affidavit says he works odd hours and he has spoken with his employer about quitting work. He says that his employer would welcome his return. This plan is not specific enough. How long does the father think he needs to be at home?

[86] He says that the mother has intellectual issues, but learns quickly. This would seem to be in direct contradiction to the psychological assessment and observations of the Society workers and Patty Sweet, who indicates the mother does not retain parenting information.

[87] The father does not accept any responsibility for the poor nutrition of the children and says that Dr. Seybold never told the parents that he was concerned about D.B.’s weight.

[88] As to the propping of the bottle, he blames the grandmother.

[89] With respect to D.B.’s extensive dental decay, he blames this on weak enamel.

[90] The father does not seem to have given enough thought to his offer to stop working if required. Based on the evidence before me I would require someone at home full time with the mother.

[91] The father does seem to be able to care for the children during supervised access and the children appear to be attached to him and they to him. These are positive things. However, I am not satisfied that he recognizes the seriousness of the situation and the importance to follow the direction of the Society and the health care providers. He was in the home and did not see any shortcomings with the mother’s care of the children.

[92] The mother has said that although Dr. Seybold has been her doctor all her life she is looking for a doctor in Trenton so the distance will not be so great. I am unaware as to whether she has accomplished that. I take notice that the children’s pediatrician is in Belleville and D.B. has seen a specialist in Kingston and there may be more specialist appointments for the parents. They must commit to making and keeping appointments.

Parent’s Ability to Work with the Society

[93] The family is deeply offended by Ms. Hammer’s comments that K.B. did not receive Christmas or Easter gifts. The parents say this shows insensitivity to the fact that they do not have much money and K.B. would not remember or know that he received gifts; they cannot recognize that Ms. Hammer is concerned about attachment issues and also that D.B. knows his brother did not receive a gift. I accept the concern of the worker as to potential attachment issues between K.B. and his mother.

[94] The family is also offended that Ms. Hammer told them not to allow K.B. to have a noodle from the father’s plate. Ms. Hammer explains that the father was feeding K.B. Kraft dinner made with milk when K.B. is too young to have milk and given his nutrition issues this should be reviewed with the doctor first. This is not unreasonable.

[95] The father also comments that the separation of the family has gone on for too long. However, there was no request for a temporary care hearing until the children had been in care for almost six months.

[96] Further, the parents vehemently opposed a parenting capacity assessment, pursuant to section 54 of the Act. The Society asked for this in December 2012. An assessment may have provided the parties with information of any cognitive limitations of the mother and the ability of the parents to address those limitations.

[97] I ordered the assessment without the parent’s consent on July 3, 2013. This assessment will assist the Court with making a decision as to whether the father can be at home full time and whether he is likely to abide by the direction of doctors and the Society. It will also assist in assessing the mother’s cognitive limitations as it relates to her ability to provide care to her children.

Decision

[98] At this time I am not satisfied that the children can be adequately protected by a temporary supervision order, pursuant to section 51 of the Act. However, the Parenting Capacity Assessment will be completed by the end of August 2013. Therefore, the parents may request a Motion to Vary this Order with further evidence in the form of the parenting capacity, more evidence as to the father’s willingness to work with the Society and his ability to leave his employment and support his family.

[99] At present the children are with their mother and sometimes both parents four days a week for extended periods of time. This ensures that the parents have the opportunity to care for their children and maintain their bond with them. It also provides an opportunity to provide guidance to the mother to see if she can take direction and retain the information concerning the care of her children.

ORDER:

[100] I order that the children, D.B., born […], 2010 and K.B., born […] 9, 2012, remain in the temporary care of the Society, subject to generous and reasonable access to the parents, supervised by the Society or an approved third party, including the parents’ family.

[101] The Application and Motion are adjourned to August 22, 2013 at 9:30 am for a Settlement Conference. The mother’s aunt and the father’s brother and father may attend at the Conference.

[102] The parents may bring a Motion to Change my Order after the Section 54 Assessment has been completed, if an early trial date cannot be accommodated.

Released: July 18, 2013

Signed: Justice W. Malcolm