WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:
This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
87.— (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication.
Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, 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, the court may make an order:
(c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.
87.— (8) Prohibition re 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.
87.— (9) Prohibition re identifying person charged.
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.
142.— (3) Offences re publication.
A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(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 Information
Date: June 14, 2018
Court File No.: C105007/18
Ontario Court of Justice
Parties
Between:
Children's Aid Society of Toronto
Anna Harris, for the Applicant
Applicant
- and -
K.D. and O.P.
Michelle Meighoo, duty counsel, for the Respondent, O.P. The Respondent, K.D., not appearing
Respondents
Hearing and Judge
Heard: June 14, 2018
Justice: S.B. Sherr
Endorsement
[1] On May 1, 2018, this court released an endorsement setting out how Children's Aid Societies and the court should be addressing the purposes set out in subsection 1(2) of the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 (the Act), and in particular, the provision of services for children and their families at all stages of a case. See: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. K.R. and Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. K.D., 2018 ONCJ 288.
[2] The court set out that as early as practicable in a case a Children's Aid Society should be doing the following:
a) It should be providing timely and ongoing file disclosure to counsel for the parties and counsel for the children so that they can meaningfully participate, if they choose to do so, in a discussion about what services for the children and their family will best meet the purposes of subsection 1(2) of the Act.
b) It should be assessing the strengths of the children and their family in order to determine what services can be provided to them that will build on those strengths.
c) It should be giving the children, where appropriate, and their family the opportunity to have input into what services should be provided to them, in a manner that best meet the purposes set out in subsection 1(2) of the Act.
d) It should be providing a clear list of expectations for the children's family about what they need to do to have the children returned to them. This can be set out in a letter.
[3] The court also set out its own obligation to ensure that the purposes of the Act are achieved and indicated that it would set out its expectations of the society, the parents and any caregiver for the child, and even for the child, where appropriate, at court appearances.
[4] In this case the subject child (the child), born on March 14, 2018, was brought to a place of safety from the care of the mother, the respondent, K.D., on March 16, 2018, due to serious mental health concerns about her. On March 21, 2018, an order was made placing the child in the temporary care of the society.
[5] The matter was adjourned until May 1, 2018. The mother did not attend at court. The father, the respondent, O.P., attended at court and indicated that he wanted to plan for the child. The case was adjourned until June 14, 2018.
[6] The society was asked to do the following during the adjournment period to comply with its obligations pursuant to subsection 1(2) of the Act:
a) Assess the strengths of the father.
b) Set out for the father its proposal for services for him and the child – a service plan that should be consistent with the purposes set out in subsection 1(2) of the Act.
c) Provide the opportunity to the father to give input into the service plan.
d) Set out and deliver to the father its list of expectations of him for the child to be placed in his care.
e) Provide an oral report to the court about its proposed service plan for the child and the father and its list of expectations for the father at the next court date.
[7] The matter returned to court for a case conference on June 14, 2018. The mother did not attend at court. The father attended at court and was assisted by duty counsel. Neither parent has filed an Answer/Plan of Care.
[8] The society provided the court with a comprehensive report about how it has complied with the court's directions and its obligations pursuant to subsection 1(2) of the Act.
[9] The society reported that it has assessed the strengths of the father as follows:
a) He is affectionate and gentle with the child.
b) He is very responsive to parenting direction.
c) He is showing improved parenting skills.
d) He has had positive interaction with the society.
e) He is very motivated to parent the child.
[10] The society has had an access supervisor providing parenting instruction for the father. The society is also providing transportation for visits in the father's home. He started overnight visits with the child on June 8, 2018.
[11] The society and the father are working closely together. He is attending Plan of Care meetings at the society's office and medical appointments for the child. He has had input into the service plan.
[12] The society plans to increase the length of the child's visits with the father with the hope of integrating him into his care at the end of the adjournment period.
[13] The society has made a referral to the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program so that a Public Health Nurse will be available to assist the father once the child is placed in his care. The society will also have a family service worker to assist him.
[14] The father has proposed two community persons to assist him with child care when he is working. During the adjournment period the society will meet with these supports to ensure that an appropriate plan is in place to care for the child.
[15] The society has clearly set out their expectations of the father. These expectations include:
a) Registering the child with a family doctor and taking him to doctor appointments.
b) Arranging for appropriate child care while he is working.
c) Meeting with the society to coordinate his support network.
d) Working cooperatively with the society and the Healthy Babies, Healthy Children program to assist him with parenting and child development.
e) Signing necessary consents for the society to speak to his service providers.
f) Supporting contact between the mother and the child.
[16] The society reported that the mother advised it that she supports this plan. It plans to bring a motion to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee to represent her on the return date.
[17] The case was adjourned until July 18, 2018 for a continued case conference. The society has leave to bring motions on that day to place the child in the temporary care of the father and to appoint the Public Guardian and Trustee for the mother.
[18] The court highly commends the society for its effective work with the father during the adjournment period. This is an excellent example of a Children's Aid Society ensuring that the purposes of the Act are achieved and providing the necessary assistance and clarity to a family to give them the best opportunity to succeed.
[19] The court also highly commends the father for his positive attitude, openness to direction and commitment to the child. He will be expected to use his best efforts to comply with the society's list of expectations during the adjournment period.
Released: June 14, 2018
Justice S.B. Sherr