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.

(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.

(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.

ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE

CITATION: Bruce Grey Child and Family Services v. A. B.-C., 2018 ONCJ 516

DATE: 2018·07·11

COURT FILE No.: Owen Sound 172/15

BETWEEN:

BRUCE GREY CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES,

Applicant,

— AND —

A. B.-C.

and

G.M.

Respondents.

Before Justice P.A. Hardman

Heard on April 30, May 1 and May 2, 2018

Reasons for Judgment released on July 11, 2018

John Morscher ................................................................... counsel for the applicant society

Jill Gamble ..................................................................... counsel for the respondent A. B.-C.

G.M. ………………………………………………………. noted in default on January 24, 2018

HARDMAN J.:

[1] The society commenced a protection application dated November 17, 2015 seeking findings and an order of six months society wardship with access for child OBC born […] 2015. The society amended the application September 29, 2017 to seek a disposition of crown wardship without access.

[2] Although GM had been identified as the father of the child throughout the documents, there was paternity testing completed due to the possibility that the respondent mother’s boyfriend RT might be the father. Paternity testing excluded RT as the father.

[3] Despite being served, GM did not file an answer to the original protection application or to the amendment. GM was noted in default on October 26, 2016 and again on January 24, 2018. It appeared from the evidence of the respondent mother that she has kept in touch with him and that he is aware of the proceedings. GM has made no effort to be reinstated as a party nor has he been a part of the child’s life.

[4] The mother filed Answers to both the original protection application and the amendment. The mother seeks the return of the child. She was represented by counsel at trial, the same counsel who has assisted her since the beginning of the proceedings.

[5] As this matter was commenced but not completed under the Child and Family Services Act (CFSA) which was repealed April 29, 2018, there were transitional requirements pursuant to Ontario Regulation 157/18 (Transitional Matters) (O. Reg.157) to address and any future orders had to be made under the new Child, Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA).

[6] Subsection 11(1) of O. Reg. 157/18 states as follows:

A proceeding commenced under Part III of the old Act but not concluded before the day this section comes into force is continued as a proceeding under Part V of the Act.

[7] The society has asked the court to find the child in need of protection under subsection 74(2) of the CYFSA and to make an order of extended society care pursuant to paragraph 3 of subsection 101(1) with an order of no access.

The mother seeks a return of the child pursuant to paragraph 1 of subsection 101(1). In the alternative, the mother asks for an order of access pursuant to subsection 104(1), arguing that such an order is in the best interests of the child and meets the test under subsection 105(5).

[8] I raised three issues with counsel: the statutory findings under the CYFSA subsection 90(2), parties and notice under subsection 79(1), and the findings in need of protection under subsection 74(2).

Statutory Findings and Parties

[9] It appeared that Justice Morneau had made the initial statutory findings required under subsection 47(2) of the CFSA on November 17, 2015. The child was found not be identified by a religious denomination and pursuant to subsection 47(2) (c) was found not to be “native”.

[10] I determined that it was important prior to proceeding further to consider whether the child should be found to be a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child under subsection 90(2)(b) of the CYFSA.

[11] This requirement is set out in section 12 of Ontario Regulation 157/18:

s. 12. Despite any determination made under clause 47(2)(c) of the old Act in respect of a child who is the subject of a proceeding mentioned in subsection 11(1) of this Regulation or a proceeding commenced under Part V of the Act, the court shall, as soon as practicable, determine under clause 90(2)(b) of the Act whether the child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child and, if so, determine the child’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities.

[12] When the court raised the issue of the statutory findings under the CYFSA, counsel for the respondent mother informed the court that her client said the child should have been noted as a Roman Catholic. As religious faith is no longer a statutory finding under subsection 90(2) of the CYFSA, the new information regarding the child’s church affiliation is not of significance in re-visiting the findings although it could be a best interests consideration under subsection 74(3)(c)(iii) as part of the child’s “creed”.

[13] The mother also informed the court through counsel that there may have been a Métis connection through her grandmother’s brother but could provide no details. The mother took the position through her counsel that neither the mother nor the child has had any connection with any Métis community or group. It was her position that the child was not a “First Nations, Inuk or Métis child” as contemplated under subsection 90(2)(b) and therefore no notice of the proceedings was required to any band or Métis community.

[14] The society agreed with that position.

[15] I made the ruling finding that the child was not a first Nations, Inuk or Métis child and indicated that I would expand on my reasons later in order to allow the hearing to continue.

[16] Subsection 90(2) of the CYFSA states the following:

90(2) As soon as practicable, and in any event before determining whether a child is in need of protection, the court shall determine,

(a) the child’s name and age;

(b) whether the child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child and, if so, the child’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities; and

(c) where the child was brought to a place of safety before the hearing, the location of the place from which the child removed.

[17] The interpretation of First Nations, Inuk or Métis child to be used in this decision is set out in section 1 of Ontario Regulation 155/18 (Interpretation, First Nations, Inuk or Métis child):

1. A child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child for the purposes of the Act if,

(a) The child identifies themselves as a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child or a parent of the child identifies the child as a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child;

(b) The child is a member of or identifies with, as determined under section 21 of Ontario Regulation 156/18 (General Matters Under the Authority of the Minister) made under the Act, one or more bands or First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities; or

(c) It cannot be determined under clause (a) or (b) whether the child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child but there is information that,

(i) a relative or sibling of the child identifies as a First Nations, Inuk or Métis person, or

(ii) there is a connection between the child and a band or a First Nations, Inuit or Métis community.

[18] The determination of the bands or communities with which the child identifies in subsection 1(b) is set out in section 21 of Ontario Regulation 156/18 (Determination of Bands or First Nations, Inuit or Métis Communities With Which a Child Identifies):

21. The bands or First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities with which a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child identifies, if any, are determined in accordance with the following rules:

22. If the views of the child can be ascertained, the bands or First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities with which the child identifies are any bands or First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities with which the child indicates that they identify.

23. If the views of the child cannot be ascertained, the bands or First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities with which the child identifies are any bands or First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities that a parent of the child indicates are bands or communities with which the child identifies.

[19] Finding a child to be a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child impacts a number of considerations and decisions made affecting the child throughout the CYFSA. Where adoption is one of the plans, it can be of particular importance.

[20] One of the first considerations after a finding that a child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child is the issue of who then may qualify as a party entitled to notice pursuant to subsection 79(1) of the CYFSA.

[21] Where a child has been found to be a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, then paragraph 4 of this section generally applies.

79(1) The following are parties to a proceeding under this Part:

1.The applicant.

2. The society having jurisdiction in the matter.

3.The child’s parent.

4.In the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, the persons described in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 and a representative chosen by each of the child’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities.

[22] While section 79 does not address the issue of service, it is clearly intended that as a party the representative would be entitled to notice under subrule 8(5) of the Family Rules.

[23] Subsection 79(7) addresses the ability of the court to dispense with notice under very limited circumstances.

79(7) Where the court is satisfied that the time required for notice to a person might endanger the child’s health or safety, the court may dispense with notice to that person.

[24] Presumably the rules regarding substitutional service and dispensing with service, subrule 6(15) and (16), may also apply in some circumstances.

[25] In considering this matter, it is also important to note the preamble to the CYFSA.

[26] Prior to Part I of the CYFSA there is a “Preamble” setting out certain commitments, acknowledgements and beliefs identified by the Government of Ontario. First, the Government acknowledges that children are “individuals with rights to be respected and voices to be heard”. Then the preamble sets out principles to which the Government of Ontario is committed which include child-centred, family-based services built on families’ strengths, services respecting diversity and a commitment to have services that address the barriers of systemic racism so that children can reach their full potential.

[27] The preamble then goes on to acknowledge a number of issues regarding their relationship with the indigenous people of the province and their belief in the following:

First Nations, Inuit and Métis children should be happy, healthy, resilient, grounded in their cultures and languages and thriving as individuals and as members of their families, communities and nations.

Honouring the connection between First Nations, Inuit and Métis children and their distinct political and cultural communities is essential to helping them thrive and fostering their well-being.

[28] The preamble then concludes with the government’s commitment to working with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people to “help ensure that wherever possible, they care for their children in accordance with their distinct cultures, heritages, and traditions”.

[29] Presumably the preamble is intended to highlight the intention of the Government in making some of the changes it has to this legislation. The specific purposes of the act remain, however, in section 1 of Part I of the Act itself.

[30] While there appears to be a more detailed emphasis on the importance of the family and the provision of services, the paramount purpose remains to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children.

[31] However, the comments in the preamble should sharpen the court’s focus in dealing with the individual child and that child’s best interests.

Conclusion

[32] I think that it is important to recognize that a finding under subsection 90(2) (b) is NOT a declaration of status. It is a “finding” by the court for a specific purpose, that purpose being to “promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children” (CYFSA subsection 1(1)). That purpose is promoted through the service of appropriate parties so that interested parties can participate in finding child-focused solutions.

[33] It is somewhat similar to a court in the Ontario Court of Justice finding a person a parent for the purpose of ordering child support under the Family Law Act (FLA) but not as a general declaration of that person’s status as a parent.

[34] This finding ensures that a First Nations, Inuit or Métis community with connection to the child is recognized as a party and participant in the decision-making around that child. With the recognition comes the expectation that that community may be able to help the society, parents and court make a plan addressing the best interests of that child.

[35] It would appear that the intention of the amended finding is to help maintain and emphasize a child’s connection with his or her First Nations, Inuit or Métis heritage particularly through his or her cultural community.

[36] Given the fact that the finding is made to ensure the right interested parties are served, there appears to be an underlying expectation that there be some identifiable connection between the child or his or her family and that particular cultural community. Indeed, notice in subsection 79(1)4 is given to “a representative chosen by each of the child’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities”.

[37] Further, subsection 74(3)(b) in dealing with best interests directs the court when dealing with a child found to be a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child to consider the importance of “preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community”. Again, there is the expectation of an identifiable connection with a band or community.

[38] The concept of connection appears to have significance elsewhere in the Act. For example, under section 80, a plan for customary care should be pursued if a child who is in need of protection and unable to return home is “a member of or identifies with a band, or is a member of or identifies with a First Nations, Inuit or Métis community” (ss. 80(b)).

[39] Indeed the preamble speaks about honouring the child’s connection with his or her “distinct political and cultural community”.

[40] Section 21 of O.Reg.156/18 appears to expect that the child or parent of the child is in a position to name the bands or communities with which the child identifies.

[41] In this matter, there is only a suggestion of a possible connection that a relative may or may not have to an unidentified Métis community. In my view, that is not sufficient to support a finding that the child is a Métis child. It is important that the court have sufficient evidence of a connection of someone – the child, parent or named relative – to a particular band or identifiable community in order to make that statutory finding, identify that band or community as a party, ensure service to a designated representative and have the expectation that that band or community will have an interest in at least considering participating in the proceedings.

[42] Although the definition should not be interpreted narrowly, it should not be made casually either. Any finding may impact the particular child and the parents, including litigation time, not to mention the First Nations, Inuit and Métis communities. The legislation does not suggest a focus on simply a biological connection, remote or otherwise, in making this finding. Indeed, had that been the intention, genetic testing would seem the only evidence required. However, this is not the case.

[43] Many children are raised with a number of different cultural and community interests. Even a child’s remote connection or interest in a culture or community can be recognized and considered under subsection 74(3) best interests.

[44] The decision must be focused on the purposes of the determination under Part V of the CYFSA both from the child’s perspective and that of the bands and communities.

[45] In Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. C.T., 2017 ONCA 931, the Ontario Court of Appeal dealt with a number of issues, one of which was about whether a parent should have access in order to prevent the child from suffering from a lack of connection to the child’s Indigenous culture. Certainly this decision was made prior to the changes in the act and relate to the interaction between best interests and the mandatory requirements of the then section 59(2.1) of the CFSA. However, the comments made by the court and those quoted from other decisions regarding the need for an evidentiary foundation I believe hold true in the court’s approach to the statutory findings.

[46] The court noted at paragraph 57: “There is no evidence that the parents had any connection to their culture; that the child was ever exposed to the Indigenous culture; or that anyone from the Indigenous community had ever been involved with the parents or the child.”

[47] The court went on to say at paragraph 58:

“I recognize that Indigenous membership has expanded to include self-identification. However, there still must be evidence in relation to the child so a determination can be made as to whether access is beneficial and meaningful to her. The appeal judge erred by ordering access based on nothing but the parents’ self-identification with Indigenous heritage in the absence of any evidence on this issue specific to this child.”

[48] Certainly that court was dealing with different issues. Nevertheless, the comment that there must be evidence in my view is a child-focused and practical approach. There should be evidence in relation to the child so a proper determination of the appropriate statutory finding can be made.

[49] In this matter, given the position of counsel and the fact that the mother and child and the parent appeared to have no connection to any particular Métis community, I ruled that the child OBC was not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child as contemplated under subsection 90(2)(b).

In summary, I find that:

1. There must be an evidentiary basis for finding that a child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child.

2. That evidence can be

(a) that the child identifies as a First Nation, Inuk or Métis child or a parent identifies the child as a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child (O. Reg. 155/18 ss. 1(a)) or

(b) that the child is a member of or identifies with a band or community (O. Reg. 155/18 ss.(b)) or

(c) it cannot be determined under (a) or (b) but “there is information that demonstrates that” a relative or sibling identifies as a First Nations, Inuk or Métis person or the child has a connection with a band or community (O. Reg.155/18 ss. 1(c)).

3. Evidence of an unnamed relative with a possible connection to an unspecified band or community is not in my view sufficient to support a finding that the child is a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child under O. Reg. 155, ss. 1(c)(ii) for the purposes of the Act.

4. The purpose of the finding must be taken into account in looking at the evidentiary basis for the finding. There needs to be sufficient evidence about the child’s connection to allow the court to order service. That information will hopefully make it possible for the identified band or community to assess whether they wish to participate.

[50] In this matter, given the lack of specificity, any finding that the child was a Métis child would not serve the purposes of the Act as service as set out by subsection 79(1)4 would be impossible to effect.

[51] Of course, given the transitional nature of the proceedings, it would be open to the court in this matter to decide even after finding the child to be a First nations, Inuk or Métis child to determine that it would not be in the child’s best interest to serve the representative of the band or community.

[52] Subsection 11(2) of the transitional regulation O. Reg. 157 provides as follows:

11(2) Despite subsection (1), in the case of a proceeding relating to a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, paragraph 4 of subsection 79(1) of the Act does not apply if the court is satisfied that it would not be in the child’s best interests for that provision to apply and makes an order that the parties to the proceeding are those who were parties immediately before this section comes into force.

[53] This matter has been before the court for two and a half years with the child, now three years of age, in care over 29 months. The society’s plan is that the child be adopted in the foster home where he has resided while in care. The child has been in care more than double the maximum twelve months identified under subsection 122 (1)(a) of the CYFSA for interim care. Therefore permanency planning is urgent.

[54] Further, any lengthening of the 120 days maximum time for the completion of a child protection case under Family Subrule 33(1) cannot be ordered by the court without finding that the child’s best interests “require it”( Subrule 33(3)). As the application was issued November 17, 2015, this matter is way outside the maximum and it is my view that no time extension is required to address the best interests of the child. The opposite is true. As noted, time is of the essence regarding permanency planning.

[55] It would not be in the child’s best interests to delay the proceedings further to investigate a remote connection with an uninvolved relative’s possible community.

[56] As I have not found the child to be a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, I do not need to make that order under subsection 11(2) under the transitional legislation; however, I certainly would have if it had been necessary to prevent any further delay in this matter.

[57] Of course it is hoped going forward that this issue of status will be resolved at the beginning of an application to prevent delay and reduce the opportunity for the issue to be raised at the last minute, potentially derailing the proceedings.

Finding in need of Protection

[58] The third issue was for the society to clarify which findings in need of protection were being sought under the CYFSA. Counsel for the society indicated that findings were being sought pursuant to subsection 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 74(2)(h). Counsel for the mother said that given the similarity of the sections to those in the protection application under the CFSA, there was no prejudice and no need to recall any of the society witnesses for further examination.

[59] In fact, counsel for the mother indicated that the mother’s position was that the child should be placed in her care subject to a supervision order and therefore took no issue with the findings.

[60] Certainly the evidence supports the findings sought. The child is in need of protection due to the risk that he may suffer physical harm and emotional harm in the mother’s care given a number of concerns.

Background

Prior to apprehension

[61] When the society learned that the mother was pregnant, they reached out to her to try to assist. The mother, whose stepfather had just been incarcerated, was living with her mother, the maternal grandmother, in a one bedroom apartment along with two other adults and two children. The mother was at times resistant and rude to the workers from the society, public health and Keystone who were trying to provide support.

[62] As the society would not approve her mother’s home as an appropriate place for the baby, and the mother did not wish to stay at Ramoth Life Centre, a maternity home, arrangements were made for the mother and baby to stay with the mother’s great aunt SJ. The maternal grandmother appears to suffer from a number of ailments including arthritis, scoliosis, and cerebral palsy and uses marijuana as well as painkillers. Further she is thought to be on the methadone program.

[63] The mother and child moved in with SJ January 22, 2015.

[64] Although the mother continued to refuse to cooperate with the society, she appeared to be providing some care for the child. Issues arose about the mother spending the night with friends and returning in what appeared to be a stoned condition. On March 13, 2015, SJ said that she could no longer continue to support the mother in her home. The mother agreed to go to Ramoth House and she resided there with the baby from April 8, 2015 to October 1, 2015.

Ramoth House

[65] At Ramoth House, the mother was rude, defiant and resistant to the programming. There was concern about her inconsistent response to the baby’s needs. It was noted that she had difficulty identifying the child’s cues. Without direction, the mother tended to be self-focused, putting her needs ahead of those of the child. For example, the child would have to skip meals because the mother was outside smoking. She failed to provide the child with sufficient stimulation and age appropriate activities, arguing with the staff about their recommendations. She struggled to maintain her self-care as well as that of the child. She refused to follow any advice, constantly blaming others. She would ignore the problem, get angry and blame others. She did not attend parenting programs regularly.

[66] The mother refused assistance with budgeting and yet had difficulty filling in the paperwork for Ontario Works. She was rude to the bank financial advisor who was trying to explain how to budget and save. She often ran out of money and had none for diapers and wipes despite having been in receipt of the Child Tax Benefit and Universal Benefit since August. She was always too late in asking for help. There was concern about the mother’s inability to manage money and her lack of understanding about the issue as well as her inability to problem-solve.

[67] The mother had strong reactionary outbursts to situations and people in the residence. She refused to do household chores. Her space was cluttered and disorganized. She told staff that cooking was too much work and that she would live on Mr. Noodles and Pizza Pockets once in her own place. Her lack of motivation to provide a safe environment for the child was a concern. Staff were concerned that the child was frequently exposed to the mother’s angry outbursts.

[68] In the Summary of concerns found in the report from Ramoth, it was noted that the mother “did not make consistent progress in the areas of parenting or financial management”. They note that she “presented with a quick temper and as an immature, unmotivated individual”. Further, they concluded that her “emotional instability, poor self-regulation and lack of problem-solving skills present a risk to (the child’s) emotional and physical well-being”.

[69] They also noted that her “family support system is weak and not reliable” despite her insistence that they will be there for her when she parents independently. Staff have noted that the mother was often angry with her mother and father on the phone and shared that they do not listen to her or support her. She made excuses for them when they did not come through with promised help. The mother acknowledged that her mother had cerebral palsy and could not go out much. She also complained that they would not drive her to see apartments. She called them “nut jobs” and said that they were not there for her.

[70] The staff at Ramoth House noted “serious concerns for (the child’s) emotional and physical safety if parented by (the mother) without direct, twenty-four hour supervision”.

[71] Despite knowing about these concerns, the society agreed that the mother could live independently with the child. The mother agreed to work cooperatively with the society and meet bi-weekly.

[72] After her departure from Ramoth on October 1, 2015, the mother and child moved to live independently in an apartment.

Independent living

[73] On one visit, October 15, 2015, the worker observed the mother to have concerning skin rashes and a right eye that was very red, raw and watering. The mother said that she had pink eye and that a cigarette ash had gotten in her eye but the worker did not think that the condition looked like pink eye. The mother also appeared to have something like acne all over her face. She was also concerned about the lack of food in the apartment. However, the child appeared alert, smiled and cooed when spoken to. The worker encouraged her to go to the hospital regarding her eye.

[74] On November 2, 2015, no concerns were noted.

[75] On November 13, 2015, the society received a referral from the hospital indicating that the mother had been seen the night before for the use of alcohol, marijuana and crystal methamphetamine. The doctor expressed concern about her well-being. There was concern from the crisis unit that the mother had been brought in by police under the influence of crystal meth with her face bleeding from being picked due to a perception that bugs were crawling over it. She acknowledged a crystal meth binge. The mother told the hospital that she had started using crystal meth two weeks earlier in order to better clean her apartment.

[76] After repeated attempts to find her, the society made contact with the mother and learned that the mother and child were at a friend RT’s mother’s house. The mother would not provide a location but did meet the worker the next day at her own apartment. The worker observed her droopy and glassy eyes, her slow faltering speech, and her agitated fidgety mood. She also noted a number of open sores on her face, hands, forearms, neck chest and legs. She seemed unable to follow the conversation. She was rambling and unclear. She was unable to say what she had been doing for the last few days, what day it was or when the baby had woken up.

[77] The mother acknowledged being on a crystal meth binge and suffering from withdrawal. She acknowledged using crystal meth and marijuana on a weekly basis. She also said that she felt that she had depression, anxiety and postpartum depression.

[78] As a result of the mother’s information, the worker called RT’s mother SH while she was with the mother in order to confirm what she had been told.

Although the mother had said that the baby had been with SH November 12, 2015, SH said that was not true. SH confirmed that the mother had arrived at her home November 13, 2015 in a disheveled state, slurring her words and making no sense. It was RT who drove the mother to hospital where she was released the same day. It appeared that the mother had actually had the baby in her care that night. When the worker told the mother the information provided by SH, the mother’s behavior began to escalate and she became very argumentative. The mother told the worker to leave and she did.

[79] The society apprehended the child November 14, 2015.

Post-apprehension

[80] Despite the efforts made by the society and other services concerns about the mother persisted.

[81] On December 10, 2015, the mother acknowledged a meth binge for a week with drugs she got from her maternal uncle KC who was staying at her mother’s house. She became angry when asked about her marijuana use, denying that it impacted her parenting. She said that she used it to help her sleep but that despite not being able to hear her phone or alarm she could still hear the child. She said there would never be a fire so she was not worried about hearing the alarm.

[82] As often appears to be the case, the concerns regarding the mother’s mental health and her substance abuse are somewhat intertwined. They have affected the mother’s choices in the past and cause her parenting to pose a risk to the child. The majority of the concerns about the mother as a single parent relate to these two unaddressed problems as well as her family of origin issues and choice of partners.

[83] While there is other evidence about the mother’s choices and issues, for the purpose of the findings, it is my view that the diagnoses of the assessor, Dr. Sas, and her evidence regarding the impact of the diagnoses are sufficient for the purpose of supporting the protection findings.

Parenting Capacity Assessment

[84] Dr. Sas, who completed the Parenting Capacity Assessment (PCA) dated August 22, 2017, was found by the court to be an expert able to give an opinion on the ability of the mother to parent and her issues. In her evidence, Dr. Sas set out some concerns about the mother’s mental health including her consistent inability to regulate her emotions. She noted that the mother was initially resistant, angry and volatile, walking out on the first meeting and missing another. She would rant against the society and other professionals although was calm when speaking about her child.

[85] Dr. Sas was concerned that the mother lacked insight into how important the assessment was and acknowledged telling her that her immature behaviour was intolerable. She told her that the interview was the most important in her life and said that she was hopeful when the mother attended the remaining appointments.

[86] The assessor testified that the mother could not understand why the child was taken from her care. She denied that the child was at risk. She felt that her rights had been violated and refused to speak to the worker KN. Although she wanted a new worker, the mother was unable to state what problem she had with KN. She simply was not prepared to trust her.

[87] It appeared that the mother had been mistreated by her foster mother while she had been in care which contributed to her mistrust. The mother felt that she could not trust professionals, an attitude noted in her own mother. Dr. Sas said that this inability to trust is consistent with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

[88] Dr. Sas confirmed the following diagnoses:

Very severe PTSD-“trauma on trauma”-“classic abuse on the extreme”

❖ parents separated when quite young- witnessed domestic violence by mother’s partner on her mother- physically abused by the partner-witnessed significant drug use (crack cocaine and marijuana)-serious neglect of her needs as a child- highly anxious as emotional and physical needs not met

❖ anxiety and depression as adult from severe emotional abuse and physical abuse as a child

❖ relationship with her own partner RT-horrific physical and emotional abuse-threatening-demeaning verbal abuse-physical and sexual acts taped and put on the internet-beat her-raped her-drugged her-had others rape her (Dr. Sas said that the mother told her this was all RT but at trial the mother said he just physically assaulted her and someone unnamed did the other things to her.)

❖ cluster of symptoms: hypervigilance (feeling world not safe, no one can be trusted, difficult to engage, startle easily, overreaction to innocuous situations), avoidance reactions (avoids situations), intrusive thoughts and flashbacks, severe sleep disturbances (nightmares), difficulties with concentration and memory

Anxiety, depression and emotional dysregulation

❖ if feels vulnerable, symptoms exasperated-emotional dysregulation-angers quickly-unreasonable-finds social situations hard and withdraws

❖ significant triggers-speaking about her mother or the society

❖ symptoms: anxiety, hopelessness, irritability, serious panic attacks from lack of trust, escalates quickly, depression including “vegetative signs”(consistent difficulty with emotions, poor appetite, difficulty in getting going and getting it done)

Substance Abuse

❖ drug use -part of her culture- her partner, her friends, her family

❖ not unusual to be associated with trauma

❖ drug use is not assisting with her PTSD symptoms but “augmenting” them

[89] Dr. Sas was also concerned about a possible organic link between the mother’s difficulties with memory and concentration and her being beaten on the head by RT (or someone else) and stressed to the mother that she should see her doctor about possible post-concussive brain issues, meaning a brain injury of some kind. Indeed with the mother’s consent Dr. Sas spoke to her doctor who did not know about the mother being hit on the head.

[90] There is no evidence that the mother followed up this concern with her doctor.

[91] The assessor noted that while she had not seen any concerns with the mother’s ability to regulate the child, she did acknowledge that the mother would be in a better position to handle non-compliance in the child if she were stable and her mental health in good shape.

[92] Dr. Sas said that she had a meeting with the worker KN and the mother prior to the release of her report and explained that the mother needed to engage in services for her anxiety and PTSD as they were issues affecting her behaviour.

As the mother denied any ongoing use of hard drug use and only occasional use of marijuana, Dr. Sas told her to participate in drug testing. The mother told Dr. Sas that she used marijuana several times each week to help her sleep and improve her appetite.

[93] Dr. Sas concluded that a failure to follow through with the recommendations could seriously impair her ability to parent. She needed trauma therapy. She referred the mother to her doctor as her doctor was prepared to make a referral to a psychiatrist to assist her in immediately implementing some techniques to deal with her anger. She also told her a parenting program would assist her.

[94] Dr. Sas told the court that an adjustment disorder had impacted the mother as a child and feelings as an adult would be hard to change. While trauma requires long term psychotherapy, Dr. Sas said that with DBST gains can be made in several months.

Conclusion

[95] The evidence supports the findings in need of protection sought by the society.

Disposition

Her Plan

[96] The mother, born […] 1997, is now almost 21. Growing up, her grandmother in spite of her own issues with alcohol, was the person that she trusted the most and her place was the place she called home. Unfortunately her grandmother has passed away.

[97] The mother dropped out of high school but is hopeful to complete her GED at some point. She said that her boyfriend at the time was jealous and forced her to leave school. She said that she lived with her mother and her current boyfriend who was fairly new at the time while she was pregnant. She acknowledged that the baby had spent about three months in her care at SJ’s. She said that the police were called there by her cousin and that she and the child ended up going to Ramoth House as a result of the society’s “blackmail”.

[98] The mother seeks the return of the child into her care.

[99] The mother, after spending months staying with relatives and friends, obtained an apartment on […]th Avenue East July 2017 and remains at that address. She told the workers that she became employed October 18, 2016 but lost the job December 24, 2017 due to miscommunication. She said that she expected to work at Zehrs selling and repairing phones.

[100] She said that she already knew budgeting and had had parenting and baking classes in high school.

[101] At this time, the mother has identified her mother as a principal support for her plan despite her own remarks about her. She told the court that the mother’s partner Jeff hit and pushed her, hit her mother and threw the cats when she was between the ages of 8 and 11. She said that he kicked her out of the house at 11. She said that while she stayed with a friend or her grandmother or her father, her mother “tried to get rid” of Jeff but appeared unable to do so for a very long time.

[102] She stated that her comments about her family being “worthless” were made because she was younger (November 2015). On that date she said that she was struggling in the community since leaving Ramoth house October 1, 2015 because she had no support. She also noted that her mother could be “verbally and emotionally abusive” towards her. However, her own mother has issues. As recently as August 12, 2017, the mother was at the hospital complaining about pain and her inability to be able to afford any Aleve and her lack of money and network.

[103] Although she acknowledged that she and her mother had a highly conflictual relationship, at trial, when challenged with her remarks about her family, said that that opinion was” ignorant” and a year old.

[104] In the assessment, Dr. Sas noted that the mother told her that she felt abandoned by her father who did not rescue her from the abuse she suffered as a child in her mother and her boyfriend’s home. She said that when she was 13 she finally got to live with him for about two years but that he did not provide adequately for her either.

[105] When her father sought to put in a plan from Saskatchewan in March 2017 for the child, the mother opposed it saying that he was too militaristic and had not been a good parent to her.

[106] She said that he had physically disciplined her. She remembered an incident when her father had choked her mother in anger.

[107] Despite his failures in the past, the mother said that she had been upset when her father chose his girlfriend over her and moved west despite her need of him to be a support now that she was pregnant.

[108] The mother told the court that she wanted to find a place and finish her schooling. She said that she would take the child to the Early Years Centre, the Y and swimming. She said that she would “get stable and steady”. She said that she was going to try to keep her health on track by eating what she remembered her late grandmother told her. She said that she was doing art therapy with herself.

[109] The mother said that she would agree to announced and unannounced visits. She said it would “be a breeze” having the child at home in her care. She said that her mother lived two minutes down the street and could be called in an emergency. The mother said that she “didn’t mean to lose him” to the society.

[110] The mother suggested that the child be transitioned into her care perhaps on weekends at first. She said that, although her relationship with the foster parents was “a little rocky” as a result of their sense of “entitlement”, she was prepared to allow some contact.

[111] She acknowledged that she was supposed to attend school when the child had been in her care but that she had not because her boyfriend RT did not come over to babysit. She said that she was working on her GED so that she could go to college.

[112] She said that if the child was returned, she would be able with the baby bonus to get a bigger apartment. She said that she had moved fourteen times in the past eight years and was “done moving”.

[113] The mother acknowledged telling the hospital worker on February 22, 2018 that GM was the father of her child and that they intended to co-parent. However, she said at trial that her plan was to have the child with her with the help of “Dustin” and her mother.

[114] When she was challenged with her remarks about GM needing to deal with his issues of mental health, the mother stated that he had smartened up a lot and was on ODSP. She said he does not suffer from bipolar or PTSD anymore but still has depression. The mother did acknowledge that she would be nervous about his access. She also admitted that she had not discussed it with him and had not seen him since July 2017.

[115] The mother said that she had worked as a Personal Support Worker at a Retirement Home for one year and three moths but was fired January 2018. She said that she primarily worked nights.

Inability to follow direction/attitude toward professionals

[116] There is unfortunately a great deal of evidence about the mother’s inability to accept anyone’s direction and move forward to address her issues. She appears unable to trust anyone professional and dismisses any assistance. There are many examples of this.

[117] On November 14, 2015, despite her child just having been apprehended and her crystal meth binge, she refused a referral by the hospital to a program to help. She said that she hated all professionals and all they do is “fuck up” her life.

[118] The mother refused to work with society worker KN despite there being no problem between them. She talked about how Ramoth House, a charity-run residence set up to help young mothers parenting their children, is a money-laundering scheme as the workers all had new cars. She said that Dr. Sas, despite the assessor’s intervention and effort to have the child returned to her, was paid to be at the trial to help the society. She told the court that Dr. Sas had been paid to “make it seem worse than it was”. She also said that she should not have been forced to sign the PCA, that it was “technically harassing”.

[119] There were many occasions where the mother escalated when the workers tried to set-up meetings with her. On a number of occasions, the mother left, refusing to meet with workers.

[120] There were occasions when she became belligerent in supervised access, despite the presence of the child.

[121] The mother told the court that all doctors cannot be trusted as it is all about money. She testified that health professionals routinely make up reports and add to them to make it look worse for the patients.

[122] The mother testified that the medication recommended for her contained metals and that over time they collect in the body and cause brain deterioration. She said that the mercury in the Mad Hatter’s hat is what made him “mad”.

[123] The mother stated that prescribed medication can be dangerous and should not be taken but people get forced into it. She said she only took it because her child was being held over her head.

[124] The mother was initially reluctant to allow the child to have his “needles” but ultimately agreed.

[125] The mother said that the reason that the society had groups of parents at access was because they were “lazy”.

[126] She explained that she was initially resistant to working with Dr. Sas because she found “this all nonsense”. She said “Just let me parent my child. I find it annoying.” She said that she did not need to work on anger management strategies. She said that there were no parenting programs available and that they were controlled by the society. She added that she did not have time for counselling as she needed a job to maintain her apartment and had 6 hours/week for access. She noted that she had attended counselling while in Ramoth House but that her counsellor had quit so she stopped despite her agreement in September 2015 to continue.

[127] Her complaints about Ramoth House did not appear reasonable. She talked about them interfering with her religion and yet she did not seem to have one. She acknowledged that she was kicked out.

[128] In October 2015, she agreed that she needed to deal with her anger and agreed to attend CBT therapy but failed to show up.

[129] She said that she “got blackmailed again with (her) child” as they held the return of the child over her head. She complained that the workers who said that she was doing well, testified against her.

[130] Although she acknowledged that the police attended August 2016, September 2016 and again in October 2016, the mother complained about the police, saying that they refused to leave when not needed. She said that she did not trust them as they kept “tasering” and shooting people for no reason. She consistently refused to cooperate with them.

[131] The mother stated in her evidence that what the society did was “against natural law”. She said that there was nothing wrong with her plan to stay with her mother in the beginning and that “they forced her” into Ramoth House.

[132] The mother acknowledged that she knew what she had to do to get her child back but did not do it since it was “against natural law”.

[133] There were some occasions where the mother would apologize for her behavior and seemed well and cheerful but generally her behavior with the workers was dismissive and rude.

[134] The mother was extremely resistant to meeting with the workers to find out what she needed to accomplish to have the child returned to her care. She was reminded on November 8, 2017 at a case conference that the society expected her to promptly and faithfully follow through with the recommendations made by Dr. Sas. A letter was sent shortly thereafter reiterating the commitments needed and asking for a meeting. The mother failed to attend.

[135] Her messages left at the society were often concerning. She said that she was too busy to meet and said that the society should stop trying to help her as they just made it worse. When they did meet, the mother appeared to be more interested in talking about her boyfriend and her life.

[136] The mother appears to be unable to remain calm and reasonable when she does not get her own way. For example, she insisted that they should visit RT while on an outing April 19, 2016 despite RT not being approved for access; when the worker said no, she became escalated and threatening, speaking about human rights and other unrelated issues.

Mental Health

[137] The mother appeared quite preoccupied with the issue of her rights being violated. She testified that her aunt sent her a human rights link. She told the court that she was looking into her rights as a human being.

[138] The mother appears to have had a tumultuous upbringing, suffering physical and emotional abuse from parents and her mother’s boyfriends.

[139] More recently she has suffered significant physical, sexual and emotional abuse from boyfriends and others.

[140] The mother has had a long history of self-harm. On November 14, 2015, she acknowledged a history of cutting and burning herself to a hospital worker but stated that she has not done so since her pregnancy. She said that when she was younger, about five years of age, she would bite herself or remove chunks of hair.

She acknowledged being discharged by the ACT team of the Canadian Mental Health Association for missing appointments.

[141] She told the court that counselling did not work for her and that she preferred doing her own art therapy.

[142] When asked about Dr. Sas’ testimony about her suffering from PTSD, the mother said that she had it in the past but did not any more. While she acknowledged that she suffered from anxiety and depression, she said that she no longer suffered from hyper vigilance although acknowledged it sometimes recurred. She also acknowledged being unstable at times but denied any difficulty managing her emotions or having a low frustration tolerance.

[143] The mother acknowledged that Dr. Sas set out what she should do to get her child back but she felt that what she had to do invaded her privacy.

[144] Despite her agreement in 2015 to follow through with treatment, the mother attended five sessions of CBT while at Ramoth house but only one after her discharge and her file was closed December 31, 2015. She said that she had recently re-contacted the program but had not yet seen anyone.

[145] On February 8, 2018, the mother was brought to the hospital as she was without shoes in a park. The mother told them that RT and another person had been after her. Later that day, she was formed under the Mental Health Act. She appeared to be still incoherent on February 12, 2018. When speaking to the society, the mother spoke quickly and her thoughts were jumbled and difficult to follow.

[146] The mother acknowledged that her admission into hospital February 8, 2018 was stress induced but denied having a psychotic episode or a substance abuse disorder. The mother said that at the park she had one shoe off and was trying to remove a planter’s wart. She said that there was no reason to be in hospital despite the hospital’s notation of disoriented thoughts and unknown drug use. Hospital staff indicated that she had no insight into her actions or behaviour.

[147] She said that she had the legal right to wear her clothes in the hospital but they took them and put them in a locker. She said that she knew from her work as a nurse’s aid that staff always made it out to be worse than it was.

[148] The mother acknowledged that her knapsack at the hospital had contained a “large black bong” for smoking marijuana.

[149] She said that she was pushed over the edge by the society’s position as she had been doing everything that they had asked. She told the worker on February 9, 2018 that she had had a breakdown and just wanted to get her child back.

[150] The mother acknowledged being on drugs prescribed by her doctor and stated they are doing her “a little bit” of good.

Drug use

[151] When asked why she did not do the drug testing recommended by Dr. Sas, she said that it was “hard to fit in”, what with laundry, access and work.

[152] The mother acknowledged marijuana and crystal meth use in May 2015 with GM but stated that GM has been clean for over a year. Despite this acknowledgement of a history of Meth use, she told the hospital on November 14, 2015 that she had used in the last two weeks only because the society was involved.

[153] The mother testified that the society was right to be worried about the child’s safety given her crystal meth use. She was not prepared to say that it was okay if a parent used if there was a babysitter.

[154] On February 8, 2018, staff at the hospital were concerned about her abusing drugs although were unsure as to which.

[155] The mother told the court that she had not used cocaine or MDMA for years although she continues to use marijuana. She acknowledged stating in the Addiction section of a report prepared February 8, 2018 that she had not used any crystal meth for the previous nine months. She admitted using marijuana on her day passes from the hospital in February 2018.

[156] The mother denied any possible negative effect of marijuana on vulnerable individuals or on mental health. She also denied that cannabis use may impair a person’s motivation to access services to address issues. She could not see any reason to be concerned about marijuana use to either stay awake or go to sleep.

[157] Indeed, when asked if she thought that marijuana use could impair a person’s ability to parent properly, she said no, stating that her mother had a marijuana card and “she raised me fine”.

[158] During parts of her testimony she made very grandiose statements that seemed unreasonable.

Relationships

[159] In the meeting of December 10, 2015, the mother stated that her boyfriend RT was a positive support. However, RT’s mother, said that RT had been diagnosed as bipolar, ODD, ADHD, Borderline Personality Disorder, and Borderline psychosis. She said that he was a user of synthetic marijuana, was being followed by a psychiatrist, and was triggered into aggression by small things. She said that he could never support the mother in caring for the child. RT was excluded as the father of the child through DNA testing.

[160] On March 10, 2016, the mother said that RT had kicked her out of the apartment and that she was homeless. She said that he had broken her two cell phones but got angry when the worker asked further about their relationship, saying she was done with the relationship.

[161] On March 9, 2017, the mother said that she had broken up with RT just two months earlier. The mother said that her relationship with RT was in the past and that she “barely lived through that last experience”. She said that the police attended their home many times because of RT’s violence but she never laid charges. She said that he would beat her and the neighbours would call the police. She said that the landlord moved to evict them.

[162] She said that in the future she was going to stick to her family and group of friends.

[163] The mother told the court that she had been in care as a result of her mother’s boyfriend but was able to return home when her mother “eventually” left him.

[164] The mother stated that when she had the child in her care RT had said that he would come in and help her with the child so she could do the cleaning but he did not and she had been frustrated. She felt that he was appropriate to look after the child. She said that others called the police because she was screaming as she wanted to be left alone.

[165] The mother denied knowing that RT used synthetic marijuana and was not aware of any aggression on his part as described by his mother at the meeting on December 10, 2015.

[166] She said that her only serious relationships were GM and RT and now keeps to herself.

Access

[167] The mother’s access was initially fully supervised and was twice weekly for three hours. In April 2017, that was expanded to include outings in the community. In August 2017, the mother and child attended twice weekly the Preschool Community Access Program, an off-site opportunity for visiting families in the Family Contact Program as well as a third individual family access.

[168] The mother’s access was put on hold between August 17 and August 21, 2017 as she had missed four consecutive visits. In October 25, 2017, due to her appropriate parenting during the two hour office visits, the supervision was reduced. On February 1, 2018, the office visit was cancelled and the mother’s access was then expanded at the preschool Community Group Access Program at St. Andrew’s Presbyterian Church to three days/week for two hours.

[169] Many positives were observed during the access: affection, calm interaction, good manners reinforced, some play on the floor with him, allowing independent play, providing encouragement, ensure safety, usually age appropriate activities, often tidies the spaces. However, there were concerns as well.

[170] She was late for almost a third of the visits that she did attend. Further, in the summer and fall of 2017, the mother missed ten visits, only calling in to cancel two of them. Generally there was no explanation –she just did not show up. She failed to make the necessary arrangements so that she could attend a special access at the mall for the mother and child to see Santa and get pictures taken.

[171] There were also concerns about the mother’s demeanour. In about a fifth of the visits, the mother demonstrated poor emotional coping strategies and failed to remain calm in front of the child. She often struggled with her composure making disparaging remarks about the workers and the society instead of interacting with the child. She escalated when she disagreed with the workers, usually taking a very unreasonable position.

[172] When Dr. Sas was late for the access visit March 16, 2017, the mother was upset and in a foul mood. She insisted that she would not meet with Dr. Sas. She allowed the situation to impact her visit with the child. Her mood affected the child who had an outburst at the table while eating. The mother left without meeting Dr. Sas that day.

[173] There were some safety concerns around the mother failing to put sunscreen on the child, not buckling the child in the high chair, giving the child too hot food, and lack of supervision of the child on play equipment. There was also concern about the mother being distracted by cellphone use during access.

[174] The society decided after a year of access that it was time for the mother to demonstrate planning for the child and told her she had to bring snacks. Despite having been working for a year, the mother got angry that the foster parents did not continue to provide the snacks for the visits, despite knowing that it was her responsibility. Even after being reminded of this responsibility, the mother failed to bring a snack the next visit and again railed against the foster parents.

[175] When the mother was given the opportunity to plan outings for her and the child, she did so inconsistently.

[176] The mother’s conversations about food at home appeared to suggest that she was not able to organize herself enough to have meals at home.

[177] The mother was unable to follow expectations or accept the consequences when she failed to do so. She allowed her anger to affect her interactions with the child.

[178] The mother said that during the access at the church she did want to spend time with her child but if he wanted to socialize with the other children, that was fine with her. She said that when the worker was concerned that she was just staring off into space, she was just relaxing and “admiring” the child. The mother said that she preferred access at the society as it is quieter and a more confined space so that he cannot run off.

[179] The mother said that the visit observed by Dr. Sas at the park was great. She said that the freedom was good, they saw ducks, but that she had to chase after him when he tried to go to the river.

The child

[180] The child has been observed to interact comfortably with his foster parents. He seeks them out for comfort, nurturance and support. He is thriving in their care. The foster parents have indicated that should the child be made a crown ward without access, they would be interested in adopting him. As they have previously adopted, they are an approved resource home.

Application of the Law

[181] Once the statutory findings and finding in need of protection have been made, the court first must determine pursuant to subsection 101(1) if “intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future”. Certainly in this matter it is acknowledged by the parties that such court involvement is necessary.

[182] Given the time limits under section 122, a subsection 101(1)2 order of interim care is not available as a disposition. As noted, given the passage of time and the age of the child, permanency for the child is paramount.

[183] While the society became involved with this child from the beginning, there were attempts to assist the child and the mother in the community, first under the supervision of an aunt and then on her own. Further, although members of the child’s extended family have been involved, no appropriate kin plan has come forward. The plan the society proposes provides the least disruptive plan for the child.

[184] The mother seeks the return of the child with an order of supervision pursuant to subsection 101(1)1. The society seeks an order of extended society care pursuant to subsection 101(1)3 for the purpose of adoption.

[185] The mother is very young and still struggling to move forward. Despite the clear warning by the assessor about the need for the mother to address her issues, she has failed to do so. At times the mother acknowledges that failure but has no insight into how to deal with it. Her background is fraught with issues of physical and emotional abuse. She clearly needs help but will not commit to it.

[186] Her family appears busy coping with their own lives and not available to provide the assistance that the mother would need if the child were placed in her care. Certainly her mother is not an appropriate care-giver given the evidence about her physical ailments, past parenting and drug use.

[187] She was aware of the concerns expressed by staff at Ramoth House and in the report but she has addressed none of them.

[188] The worker gave her letters outlining what she needed to do in order to have the child returned but she did nothing. Indeed on December 8, 2017 when the worker tried to address the services needed, the mother kept speaking about what was happening in her life. She declined assistance to set up appointments.

The mother has been unable to even start down the path identified by Dr. Sas. She is not in a position to parent this child safely. She does not have anyone who is capable and willing to assist her. The last time the child was in her care she went on a meth binge.

[189] Given all the evidence, I cannot find that the child would be safe in her care. The mother has not even started to deal with her mental health and substance abuse issues. She has little insight into her problems and takes no responsibility for her behavior and interaction with people. She cannot be supervised. She resists all direction and assistance and trusts no one. It is hard to imagine how she could successfully work with the child’s service providers. The mother is not able to consistently maintain her focus on what is in the best interests of the child.

[190] The child has been in the foster home since the apprehension and is thriving there. Fortunately the society’s plan is to have that become his permanent home. That plan is the only plan before the court that addresses the protection concerns and the child’s best interests.

Access

[191] Once the court makes the order for extended care under ss. 101(1)3, any existing order for access is terminated pursuant to ss. 105(4). Subsection 105(5) sets out the test to be met to order access for a child in extended care.

The court must be satisfied that an order of access is in the child’s best interests. In making that determination, the court is to consider

(a) whether the relationship between the person and the child is beneficial and meaningful to the child; and

(b) if the court considers it relevant, whether the ordered access will impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption.

[192] In this matter, I am not satisfied that the relationship between the mother and the child is either beneficial or meaningful to the child.

[193] Further, the mother’s attitude toward the foster parents would cause difficulties if she were to have access. She would never be able to accept them as the child’s parents. It could prove very destabilizing for the child. It would not be in his best interests.

[194] Also of concern is the evidence that the foster parents are prepared to adopt if there is an order for extended care without access. Any order of access may very well compromise the society’s plan, a plan which is so clearly in the child’s best interests.

[195] Therefore, I am not prepared to order any access.

ORDER

1. Statutory Finding:

The child OBC, born […], 2015, is not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child pursuant to Child, Youth and Family Services Act subsection 90(1)(b).

2. Finding in Need of Protection:

The child OBC is in need of protection pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act subsections 74(2)(b)(i), (b)(ii) and (h).

3. The child OBC shall be placed pursuant to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, subsection 101(1)3 on extended society care until the order is terminated under section 116 or expires under section 123.

4. There shall be no order of access.

Released: July 11, 2018

Justice P.A. Hardman