WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should 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

Ontario Court of Justice

Date: 2019-10-03

Court File No.: FO-18-00051-00 Address: 125 N. Brodie St. Thunder Bay, ON

Between:

The Children's Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay Applicant

— AND —

S.M. AND R.M. Respondents

Before: Justice D.J. MacKinnon

Heard on: January 28, 29, 30 and 31, February 1 and April 1, 2019

Decision Rendered: August 6, 2019

Reasons for Judgment Released: October 3, 2019

Counsel

K. Cleghorn — Counsel for the Applicant Society

R. Karlstedt — Counsel for S.M., Mother

M. Petryshyn — Children's Lawyer

Note: No appearance by or on behalf of R.M., even though served with notice.

MACKINNON, J.:

INTRODUCTION

[1] This is an application by the Children's Aid Society of the District of Thunder Bay ("the Society") for findings pursuant to s.74(2)(b) (risk of physical harm), s.74(2)(g) (risk of emotional harm) and s.74(2)(i) (risk of emotional harm and treatment not provided) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act in regard to R.J.M. (male) born […], 2007 and K.M. (female) born […], 2004. The agency seeks a disposition of six months of interim Society care pursuant to s.101(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

[2] The mother S.M. has had counsel and participated in this trial. The father R.M., who is separated from the mother, has not participated in this matter.

[3] Evidence in this trial was received by affidavit and will-says from Society workers who attended for cross-examination, medical reports and documentary evidence, testimony from Dr. Warkentin and Dr. Braunberger and other witnesses called for both the mother and the Society. The mother did not testify herself.

BACKGROUND

[4] R.M. and S.M. are the parents of three children: M.M. (female) born […], 1998, K.M. born […], 2004 and R.J.M. born […], 2007.

[5] The involvement of the family with the Society started in 2009. At that time, the mother S.M. had punched the older child M.M. in the thigh while giving her an enema. She also discussed with this child the abuse she had endured as a child. On one occasion she gave M.M. an alcohol drink (cooler) when the child was 12 years of age.

[6] With three young children the parents were stressed and overwhelmed. There were a number of short Temporary Care Agreements entered into by the parents with the agency. The Temporary Care Agreements signed throughout the involvement of the Society with the parent or parents are set out herein:

• (a) September 15, 2009 to September 18, 2009
• (b) January 10, 2010 to January 13, 2010
• (c) March 19, 2011 to March 22, 2011
• (d) March 24, 2013 to March 28, 2013
• (e) February 13, 2015 to February 15, 2015
• (f) March 13, 2015 to March 15, 2015 (with respect to Kendall only)
• (g) April 10, 2015 to April 13, 2015
• (h) May 3, 2015 to May 31, 2015 while Sherri had a medical procedure
• (i) July 24, 2015 to July 26, 2015
• (j) August 6, 2015 to August 9, 2015
• (k) September 18, 2015 to September 20, 2015
• (l) November 20, 2015 to November 22, 2015
• (m) December 18, 2015 to December 20, 2015
• (n) April 1, 2016 to April 3, 2016
• (o) May 6, 2016 to May 8, 2016
• (p) July 15, 2016 to July 17, 2016
• (q) August 19, 2016 to August 21, 2016
• (r) September 16, 2016 to September 18, 2016
• (s) October 28, 2016 to October 30, 2016
• (t) November 25, 2016 to November 27, 2016
• (u) December 9, 2016 to December 11, 2016 (regarding R.J. only)
• (v) December 16, 2016 to December 18, 2016 (regarding Kendall only)
• (w) July 21, 2017 to July 23, 2017
• (x) August 18, 2017 to August 20, 2017
• (y) October 6, 2017 to October 22, 2017

[7] At various times the mother, S.M., was cooperative with the Society and also would advocate for services for her children from the Society and from other service providers such as schools. However, S.M. could also be combative, argumentative and on numerous occasions refused to engage in services to address her own history of being abused as a child. She reported that she suffered physical, sexual and emotional abuse as a child.

[8] The following sets out the chronological history of issues which engaged Society involvement with this family.

2013

[9] S.M. struggled with parenting. She indicated to the Society worker that she had started using ice cold showers on K.M. and R.J.M. as a form of discipline. The children were made to stand in a shower with ice cold water pouring on them while in their clothes. She found the method successful in getting them to listen.

[10] On January 2, 2013 the mother admitted that she "beat up" R.J.M. because of her frustration. She slapped him a few times, kicked him, picked him up and pinned him against the wall leaving a bruise on his shoulder. When asked what message that would send to the child, the worker Sarah Morrison reported that S.M. said she did not care if R.J.M. was afraid of her. The child was six years old at the time.

[11] Another form of discipline reported to the worker by the mother was to have either of the children stand on a pail for 20 minutes as a form of punishment.

[12] In regard to her older daughter M.M., S.M. continued to indicate that she was hitting M.M. due to her non-compliance, and that M.M. was continuing to be physically aggressive with her siblings. The mother read the journal kept by M.M. where M.M. said that she felt her mother was physically and verbally abusive, that she hated her and that she wanted to kill herself. The child also said the only way she would be able to leave her mother was to get pregnant and kicked out of the house.

[13] In the spring of 2013, the school called the Society to report that the child M.M. was afraid to return home. In the morning the mother had struck the child on the forehead with an open hand and threatened that when she returned home from school her "ass is mine". When contacted by the Society worker, the mother replied that, "that little bitch" could go live elsewhere and that if the child returned home she would, "beat her to one inch of her life". She then hung up on the worker.

[14] Later the mother phoned and demanded that the agency bring over a Temporary Care Agreement (TCA) to be signed within the next ten minutes. She said that M.M. was not allowed to contact her and she wanted her out of her home immediately. Then she indicated that she wanted to sign over Crown wardship of M.M. to the agency.

[15] A Temporary Care Agreement was signed on April 4, 2013 regarding M.M.

[16] A few weeks later, S.M. saw M.M. outside of the school during school hours. She phoned the agency and told them that she wanted M.M. home as the Society was not caring for her. She told Ms. Morrison that when she had M.M. home she would, "chain her up in the basement" where she could "beat her".

[17] On April 23, 2013 during a meeting the mother found that the child M.M. was doing her own laundry in the foster home and also had helped the foster parent with snow shoveling. As a result, she terminated the TCA and M.M. was returned to her mother's care on April 30, 2013.

[18] The Society and the mother went to mediation and developed a plan. S.M. and her oldest daughter were attending counselling. However, communication with the agency continued to deteriorate.

[19] In July of 2013, K.M. disclosed that a neighbour had sexually assaulted her.

[20] From May to July, S.M. indicated that she would no longer work with the agency, nor follow a mediation plan that had been agreed to.

2014

[21] The father and mother separated in 2014 as a result of a domestic assault. S.M. became a single parent. S.M. began counselling through the women's shelter and the Catholic Family Development Centre but did not continue these services.

[22] In May of 2014, findings in regard to K.M. and R.J.M. were made on consent pursuant to s.37(2)(b) and s.37(2)(g) and a six-month supervision order was ordered. The mother continued to have conflict with M.M., and the siblings had conflict with each other.

[23] As a result, on November 4, 2014, M.M. became a Crown Ward and the supervision order related to K.M. and RJ was terminated.

2015/2016

[24] In March of 2015, K.M. and R.J.M. were in counselling and R.J.M. also attended occupational therapy at George Jeffrey Children's Centre.

[25] The mother continued to struggle and required numerous short term Temporary Care Agreements for respite. In May the children were to be on a short term TCA but the mother cancelled it and demanded the children be returned to her when she heard that the children would visit their father during the respite period.

[26] On one occasion the mother was on the telephone with her older daughter M.M. Her daughter said that she was depressed, S.M. told her daughter that she should "slit her wrists". S.M. did not call the Society or crisis response to report the situation of her daughter.

[27] In June of 2015, S.M. admitted spanking K.M. on the bottom because of her attitude. K.M. and R.J.M. were fighting and bugging each other. S.M. also admitted slapping K.M. The children were receiving counselling through Children's Centre Thunder Bay.

[28] In the summer the children attended a community program. The program personnel reported that the children were unclean with poor hygiene, they were not provided with lunches by their mother and their clothing was inappropriate for the weather.

[29] R.J.M. attended with a paediatrician, Dr. Warkentin. The child was having trouble at school with opposition behaviours and fighting with other children. The mother complained that he appeared "stoned" from his medication.

[30] Dr. Warkentin informed S.M. that R.J.M. should never be touched in a negative manner and that he can never be struck or manhandled. He also told S.M. that R.J.M. feels insecure and is trying to assert his dominance and that she needs to instill confidence in him through her parenting style. S.M. admitted that she never learned to parent effectively due to her own horrible upbringing. R.J.M. was referred to a child psychiatrist.

2017

[31] R.J.M. struggled emotionally at school but a change of medication assisted him with self-control. He often worried about other children being mad at him.

[32] The mother reported that she had slapped R.J.M. in the face and that there had been a mark. She told the worker that, "R.J. got a taste of my hand.". She said she had slapped him across the face with an open hand, that he was stunned and cried and that he accused her and her friend of beating him up all of the time. S.M. admitted being depressed about the children's behaviours and poverty.

[33] On another occasion, she had grabbed R.J.M. by the back of his neck and flung him into bed and yelled in his face for lying.

[34] The mother reported that she was highly stressed over not being able to feed the children, the children were not going to their father's home for respite and she had no money. S.M. reported that there were days she did not want the children there and "went nuts" when they were there. She felt like giving up.

[35] The mother was caring for a friend's two boys, while the friend and her husband attended to a medical facility in southern Ontario with a very ill child. One of the children cared for by S.M. was a medically fragile child with Cystic Fibrosis, epilepsy and a feeding tube. S.M. reported to the worker that she was fearful of continuing to care for the children as she had grabbed one of the children and had been, "too rough" with that child. She was worried that she would lose her temper and get physical with the children. Other arrangements for the care of the children were made.

[36] On October 6, 2017, S.M. reported to the Society that it was taking everything in her not to beat her son R.J.M. right then. She claimed that he had cost her a family doctor. She was screaming at R.J.M. and said that he was a little "asshole". S.M. told the children that the children might be better off without her and that she had thoughts such as drowning herself in the bathtub.

[37] The children came into voluntary care for two weeks in October of 2017.

[38] The Society became aware that a teacher had been providing R.J.M. with a lunch each school day for the last year.

[39] Consents for disclosure of information from R.J.M.'s paediatrician and child psychiatrist were given but then the consent related to the psychiatrist was withdrawn by the mother.

[40] K.M. began to wear diapers and wanted to continue to act in a baby-like fashion in a syndrome called adult baby. She was about fourteen years of age at the time. Her mother refused to allow her to have counselling, but a referral was made to Dr. Braunberger, the child psychiatrist.

[41] In December of 2017 a package was delivered to S.M. This resulted in a referral to the Society. The mother S.M. had received items in the package related to the practice of sexual bondage and sado-masochism.

[42] The children were apprehended, interviewed and then returned to the mother on December 22, 2017. R.J.M. did confirm seeing the sex toys and had seen his mother dressed in a shiny or leather dress where he could see her private parts. It did not appear that the children had been exposed to any other aspects of this part of their mother's life.

[43] At a meeting with the male social worker assigned to the file, the mother told him that she had some sex toys that he "might like" but not that she would be the one using them on him. He was reassigned.

[44] In an interview of the mother conducted on December 20, 2017, she attended with a man named "Derek" who she introduced as her "master".

2018

[45] In January of 2018, the mother withdrew K.M. and R.J.M. from school and terminated the services of the paediatrician and child psychiatrist. In terminating the services of the psychiatrist, she told his office that she did not care about the mental health of her children any more. She did not require R.J.M. to take his medication.

[46] On hearing that the children had been withdrawn from these activities, the worker called S.M., who referenced the Society workers as, "you f…kers" and that she was done working with them.

[47] At a subsequent meeting, there was an attempt to introduce the new worker. S.M. said to, "tell the worker to take a dildo and shove it up her vagina."

[48] At a home meeting on January 17, 2018, S.M. was angry and yelling. She was very escalated and refused to tone down. She continued to swear and yell within hearing of the children. S.M. made the children come out and say they did not want to go to school for two weeks and they do not want Society involvement.

THE APPREHENSION

[49] Warrants to apprehend the children were issued on January 23, 2018 and executed that day.

[50] A worker and the police attended at the home. R.J.M. answered the door but his mother was not home. S.M. was walking up the street with K.M.. When given the papers S.M. became extremely angry and threw the papers on the ground. S.M. had the children and herself run into the house and lock the door. She told the children to kick, hit or bite the workers to stop the apprehension. She told the police that if they touched her or the children, they would be charged with assault. She told the children she would kill herself. The police had to break into the home. R.J.M. was laying on the floor crying uncontrollably. He later said that if his mother died, he wanted to go and live with his father.

POST-APPREHENSION

[51] S.M. refused to meet at the Society offices. She refused access even if arranged. S.M. told the agency that she does not care if the children are hurt by her refusal. On February 12, 2018, she told the agency that she wants R.J.M. and K.M. to become Crown Wards at the next court appearance.

[52] The mother S.M. refused to visit the children for much of the next six months. She did not have visits in January, February, May or July. The visits in March, April and September were cancelled due to the mother's behaviour. A few visits were attempted, but the mother's attitude toward the Society was abusive and negative. At one point she asked a worker who had an eight month old baby, how she would like it if someone shoved a dildo up her baby's bum.

[53] By the end of January, R.J.M. was back on his medication and seeing his paediatrician and child psychiatrist. From January to the end of the school year he consistently improved. He was seen to be smiling and engaged. He told the school principal that he was happy to be back on his medication. The school reports that he appeared to be a "completely different kid".

[54] R.J.M. engaged in soccer and became involved in school activities. He wore pajamas to bed instead of the clothes he wore in the day.

[55] On February 14, 2018 S.M. tells R.J.M. that she hoped he would come home so she could sleep at night again.

[56] On February 20, 2018, K.M. received a message at school from her mother telling her that R.J.M. and K.M. would never be returning home. The mother stated that she would be better off dead. K.M. shared this message with her brother. Both children were crying and emotionally distressed and the principal called the Society. R.J.M. was on the floor weeping when the worker arrived.

[57] Police were called to conduct a wellness check on the mother and she was hospitalized for a 72 hour period. Sometime later S.M. showed a mental health assessment to the worker, but would not allow her to obtain a copy for her supervisor, stating that if the supervisor needed a copy, the worker, "should have brought the dumb c..t with her".

[58] Eventually access commenced between the mother and each child. In addition, K.M. would often attend at the mother's home for lunch hour.

[59] On April 24, 2018, K.M. messaged her mother that she was going to commit suicide. The worker picked K.M. up from school. K.M. was angry and said that the worker was an idiot and the children should return to their mother's care. She confessed that she would not actually kill herself. However, she was angry with her mother because of her mother's response to her message. She reported that her mother said that K.M. was never going to come home and, "don't call me anymore you are no longer my kid".

[60] On some occasions when S.M. wanted the Society to do something for her, she would text the worker 50 to 60 times per hour and continuously call the office, tying up their telephone lines.

[61] There was a birthday party for R.J.M. at the bowling alley. The worker who picked up the children said that they were in good spirits and chatting in the car. When they arrived at the alley, they became subdued when they saw their mother's red and angry face. The children went to get their shoes. The mother was in a very heightened state. She told the worker she was going to charge them with child abuse. The worker did not know why she was upset but told S.M. that they needed to try to have a good time for R.J.M. The mother continued to complain about the agency. She took R.J.'s card and gift and threw them on the floor. R.J.M. started to cry. When the worker tried to pick up the card and bag and put them on the table, the mother again got upset and continued to complain about the workers.

[62] K.M. had a self-harming/cutting incident. She began to attend counselling but stopped in the summer of 2018.

[63] R.J.M. was being taken to Tim Hortons for a visit with his mother. He began to visibly shake and begged the worker that she was not to upset his mother and that if she did his mother could become, "very, very angry very, very quickly". At one visit with R.J.M., S.M. ends it abruptly, saying that K.M. only gets a twenty minute visit so that is all he will get.

[64] During visits the mother either refused to stay because she was unhappy with the agency in regard to the worker who attended, or funds she wanted from them or the foster placement or the scheduling of visits. Workers tried to redirect her, but she was unresponsive and focused only on her own agenda. She would not have male workers or student workers supervise the visits. She would not allow the workers to call her by her first name. The Society was not allowed to phone her directly, but only to leave messages with her daughter M.M. She was abusive, often swearing at the workers and calling them names.

[65] S.M. referred to the foster parents as "stupid". She told R.J.M. that she would like to "smack" the foster mother. In regard to his father, she told R.J.M. that his father doesn't care about him. R.J.M. had a school sweater bought for him by the foster mother. S.M. told him that he was never to wear the sweater again for the visits.

EVIDENCE OF THE MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS

Dr. Warkentin

[66] R.J.M. was referred to Doctor Warkentin as a result of his non-compliance at school and home, which was characterized by impulsivity and difficulty focusing. He was diagnosed with ADHD. He was unable to handle strong emotions and would lash out as he felt threatened.

[67] The doctor observed that R.J.M. had a flat effect, appeared not emotional, was not communicative and did not maintain great eye contact. It was clear to the doctor that there was a strong bond with his mother and R.J.M. often looked to her for answers when he was asked questions.

[68] Dr. Warkentin had R.J.M. put on medication for the purpose of settling him so that rehabilitative work could begin. If he had had no medications, Dr. Warkentin testified that R.J.M. would have continued to struggle at school.

[69] The doctor had a sense that R.J.M. improved while in care. He believed that R.J.M. had developmental trauma disorder and Dr. Warkentin referred him to Dr. Braunberger.

[70] The paediatrician felt that he had a positive relationship with S.M. and was surprised when she terminated services for R.J.M. without any discussion. While S.M. was a good advocate for her son, the doctor expressed concern regarding the negative and excessive comments made by the mother in the presence of R.J.M.; comments such as, "I felt like I wanted to strangle him.". Dr. Warkentin was so concerned about the way that she talked to R.J.M. and the physical discipline she disclosed to him that he would have reported the matter to CAS if the family had not already been involved.

Dr. Braunberger

[71] Dr. Braunberger is a child psychiatrist who provided services to R.J.M. R.J.M.'s mother was concerned with his reactive, explosive and aggressive behaviours. The doctor was able to diagnose R.J.M. with ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) and ODD (Oppositional Defiant Disorder). This meant that R.J.M. would act before thinking, he was impulsive and could not organize himself to say no. This was a core processing issue.

[72] The roots of these behaviours, the doctor testified, are often early trauma. Some sources of early trauma for R.J.M. were the difficult separation of his parents, domestic violence in the early years, and emotionality in the home. Intense emotions can compromise a child's ability to self-regulate. Intense emotions can include a parent's emotional state or the inability of a parent to respond to the child's emotions. The impact on R.J.M. was not good and persisted beyond these events because of his ADHD and his ODD. The child's loyalty to his mother is hurt by her comments such as that she was going to "give him up". Similarly her comment that R.J.M.'s father did not want to be involved with him would hurt a child such as R.J.M. even more.

[73] The doctor reported a change in R.J.M. over the course of his treatment. He started to see a spark of a sense of humour in this young man who was of average or above average intelligence.

[74] When asked about K.M., the doctor indicated he would be very concerned about her. Her adult baby diaper syndrome and self cutting were usually the result of trauma and distress in the child's life. She needed therapy. The result of not having therapy was often the development of unhealthy coping mechanisms, relational distress and internalization of negative feelings. In regard to her sexual abuse, the exposure of K.M. to other sexual behaviours of adults could continue to erode her ability to have normal sexual relations. Cutting is because of strong emotions that the child cannot handle.

EVIDENCE FROM THE RESPONDENT MOTHER

[75] The mother did not testify at trial. While the affidavit and oral evidence of the Applicant was tested, the mother did not answer the allegations of the Society with her own evidence. I draw an adverse inference from this failure to respond to the allegations. However, she did have a number of friends speak to their observations of her as a parent.

T.H.

[76] Ms. T.H. had known S.M. for about eighteen years. She trusted her to look after her own children. She observed S.M. to be a good mother and saw her discipline her children by taking away privileges.

[77] In her opinion, R.J.M. was a defiant young man who was hard to relate to. He had to be doing something at all times and would not come to her house if there was nothing he could be doing there. He appeared defiant and stubborn and could enter into a full blown "fit" when privileges were removed by the mother. He would raise his voice and yell, which would cause S.M. to have to raise her voice.

[78] Ms. T.H. felt that K.M. was a sweet, amazing and very caring young woman with a good heart. K.M. was attached to babies but showed social anxiety around crowds or strangers and it was hard for her to talk.

[79] The witness was not aware of any special needs of the children. She was very surprised that S.M. had admitted hitting the children and could not picture her doing it. She admitted that she did not know about the physical disciplining but recognized that S.M. struggled as a single parent. She was concerned about the cancellation of services for the children.

A.N.

[80] Ms. A.N. is a cousin to the mother. At one time she saw S.M. and the children three to four times per week but now seldom. She testified that she knows S.M. loves her children and would do anything for them. She was an advocate for her children. As a parent she described S.M. as competent and loving.

[81] K.M. was described as a loving child who could laugh and tell jokes. She was coming out of her shell and started to be more outgoing. K.M. did not like men and Ms. A.N. was aware of the sexual abuse. She knows that K.M. loves her mother.

[82] Since the apprehension, she had seen K.M. at two family events. She felt that K.M. was more withdrawn and not talking to family as previously and was less open.

[83] In regard to R.J.M., Ms. A.N. reported that he was an energetic child who loved to be doing things and also loved to be cuddled. His diagnosis surprised her and she agreed that R.J.M. could sometimes be disruptive. She recalled an incident where R.J.M. had been escalating all day and his mother struck him. S.M. was so upset that she did that that she called Ms. A.N. and was crying. She had seen S.M. take time-outs to calm down.

[84] Ms. A.N. did not agree with the following actions: giving copies of the court documents to the children, telling the children that the mother was "going to give them up", physical disciplining of the children, discussing adult issues with them or telling M.M. that she should "slit her wrists". Ms. A.N. said that she did not witness the incidents but that she did not pry into the lives of S.M., K.M. and R.J.M.

[85] K.T. was an approved foster mother. For a time she and her children lived near the family of S.M. and they became friends. She saw that K.M. had a strong connection with her daughter who was about four years old. K.M. was a quiet, happy and outgoing child who preferred playing with the younger children, even with dolls. She was shocked to hear of K.M. cutting herself.

[86] Ms. K.T. found R.J.M. to be hyperactive and intense – a child that must be doing something at all times. At times he was out of hand and she could see that S.M. was frustrated. S.M. would raise her voice but go out for a smoke to calm down.

She was surprised that S.M. would use physical discipline and that was very concerning to her. She had thought that S.M. could be a foster parent except for her temper. She admitted there was a lot she did not know.

SUMMARY

Consistently throughout the involvement with the Society, S.M. has shown an inability to cope with the needs of her children. While she has had times of cooperating with the Society and trying to employ better strategies for parenting, overall the mother cannot parent her children because she is unable to address or acknowledge the impacts that her own past abuse has had on her. She becomes easily frustrated and angry and violent with the children.

It is not surprising that the acquaintances of the mother were not aware of the physical disciplining and verbal abuse in the home. Just as domestic violence is often hidden, so child abusing behaviours are secretive and private.

S.M. has made it clear that the impacts of her anger on her children is not her concern. She threatens them, calls them names, discusses the court case with them, threatens suicide, and undermines their relationships with others. Yet S.M. makes consideration for her emotions the center of each encounter with her children; an example of her neediness. S.M. loves her children and they love and are loyal to her. However, similar to victims of domestic abuse, R.J.M. and K.M. with their loyalty and love for their mother have had to tolerate her abusive and violent interactions with them.

K.M. and R.J.M. are each fragile emotionally. I accept the recommendations of the Dr. Warkentin and particularly Dr. Braunberger that these children need therapeutic interventions, stability of home and an environment in which there is no excessive violence or anger.

FINDINGS

Risk of Physical Harm

[87] I find that there is a risk of physical harm to both K.M. and R.J.M. The reasons for this finding are:

1. S.M. has used inappropriate and excessive physical discipline and punishments on the children before;
2. S.M. has struck the children in anger;
3. S.M. resorts to physical discipline instead of using other methods of discipline or correction;
4. S.M. used inappropriate physical discipline on the older child M.M., who is not the subject of this application;
5. S.M. has refused to address her own childhood traumas in order to eliminate that source of her excessive disciplining of K.M. and R.J.M.;
6. S.M. fails to appreciate the impact of her discipline method on the well-being of the children.

Risk of Emotional Harm

[88] Each of the children of S.M. have had responses to her poor parenting. M.M. tried to stand up to her mother but had to leave the home. K.M. has retreated to a role she sees as safe. R.J.M., in trying as M.M. did to establish some recognition of his own worth in the parent-child relationship, has been instilled with fear, anxiousness and concern. The children love their mother, but it is clear that in regard to K.M. and R.J.M., the price has been high. I find that there is a risk of further emotional harm if the children were to be returned to their mother.

Risk of Emotional Harm and Treatment Not Provided

[89] I find that there is a risk of emotional harm as I am not confident the mother will ensure treatment for the children that is required for the following reasons:

1. The mother is unable to acknowledge the emotional harm suffered by her children.
2. The mother terminated the services of the paediatrician and the child psychiatrist for R.J.M. even though these services were and are necessary to R.J.M.'s rehabilitation. She did so without discussion with the service providers.
3. Each of the children needs the support and monitoring of professionals in order that their recovery remains on track. The mother is unable to work collaboratively with any professional.

[90] I find that K.M. and R.J.M. are in need of protection pursuant to s.74(2)(b) (risk of physical harm), s.74(2)(g) (risk of emotional harm) and s.74(2)(i) (risk of emotional harm and treatment not provided) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act.

DISPOSITION

[91] In determining the disposition of this matter, I must consider if the children should be returned to the mother with or without the supervision of the Society, as such would be the least intrusive resolution.

[92] Given the findings in this case, the children cannot be returned to the mother without supervision.

[93] While the mother is a strong advocate for her children, she is unable to work with Society employees or other professionals. She attempts to control matters through petty belligerences (did not like the Christmas hamper, did not like the voucher etc.) or brutal verbal assaults on workers.

[94] S.M.'s antagonism toward the agency means that the children would be subjected to and be the center of further harm. She has demonstrated her expectation that the children should align with her and that her emotions and views should be adopted by them. R.J.M. has already experienced the anxiousness of being in such a precarious situation. K.M. has already felt the rejection of her mother.

[95] The type of parenting needed by R.J.M. according to Dr. Braunberger was a stable predictable environment with age appropriate expectations so that he can make appropriate decisions and have small successes. This has been compromised in R.J.M. R.J.M. learns self-regulation from being in an environment where the adults are self-regulating. He should not be exposed to anger over the long term as that modelling can be internalized and may be particularly destructive for a child who has ADHD and ODD. He would be much more vulnerable to the negative impacts of physical discipline due to his past traumas.

[96] Exposure to adult issues, such as the mother's opinion about the Society, brings the child into adult decision-making for which he does not have the tools. It breaks down trust with adults, such as when S.M. criticizes the foster parents. The emotional harm to R.J.M. of the continued undermining of his relationships with adults can be significant and high. If he can't develop trusting relationships with adults, R.J.M. is likely to develop personality disorders, bring his own needs to the fore in abusive relationships and develop substance abuse.

[97] There are no interests of the children that would be served by returning them to their mother.

[98] In fact, in regard to R.J.M., I have had to contemplate if the mother should have access to him. Given the views of Dr. Warkentin and Dr. Braunberger that R.J.M. has an attachment to his mother and wants to have the continuation of a relationship with her, I am compelled to agree that he should.

[99] K.M. is almost an adult and will determine if she wants to continue to engage with her mother. She went to her mother's for lunch hours even before the agency was aware of this interaction. She is, however, a fragile child who has to cope with the actions of her mother and her sexual victimization.

[100] I have determined that the children K.M. and R.J.M. shall be in the interim care of the agency for a period of six months with access to the mother in the discretion of the Society.

Released: October 3, 2019

Signed: Justice D.J. MacKinnon