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
Date: August 29, 2022 Court File No.: C54/22
Between:
HALTON CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY
- and -
M.A.R & M.D.R
Before: Justice Sarah Cleghorn Heard on: August 9, 2022 Decision on Motion Released: August 29, 2022
Counsel:
- Halton Children’s Aid Society: Diane Skrow
- M.A.R.: Lynn Kirwin
- M.D.R.: Heather Garfinkel
- Office of the Children’s Lawyer: S. Misheal
Endorsement
CLEGHORN, J.:
[1] On August 9, 2022, I heard a contested motion brought by the Halton Children’s Aid Society (“the Society”). It was set for 90 minutes. As a result, it was necessary to have time limits put on each party’s submissions to ensure the motion was heard in the time available to the court. Although the parents’ affidavits were limited to 10 pages, both parents attached hundreds of pages in exhibits.
Background
[2] The Society is seeking an order that the child, S.A.R., born […], 2013, be placed with the father subject to supervision and that the mother's parenting time be supervised.
[3] The Society's protection application alleges emotional harm and the risk of emotional harm to the child because of the high conflict family law proceedings between the parents and the mother’s continued but unfounded allegations that the father has engaged in sexual activity with the child.
[4] Currently, S.A.R. is in the temporary and without prejudice care of the father pursuant to an order made on February 28, 2022, by Justice O'Dea. The mother has supervised access twice a week for a period of two hours.
[5] Some background concerning the high conflict family proceedings between these parties in the Superior Court is necessary, to put the motion in context. Proceedings in the Superior Court began in early 2019.
[6] On September 17, 2019, a temporary without prejudice order was made by Justice Jain (Superior Court, Barrie). The child was placed in the primary care of the mother. The father’s parenting time was supervised by his aunt, L.K. Neither parent was allowed to physically examine the child except in a medical emergency.
[7] The Superior Court held a focus hearing on the issue of the father’s parenting time. Reasons for Decision were released on June 7, 2021, increasing the father’s parenting time gradually to a shared residence with no supervision required.
[8] In October 2021 the OCL provided its report to the Superior Court. The recommendations included shared parenting and that supervision was not required for the father.
[9] On November 25, 2021, the parents entered a consent without prejudice order. Terms included the removal of any supervision of the father’s parenting time, shared parenting, neither parent was to schedule medical appointments for the child without the other parent’s knowledge and the child was to continue with therapy.
[10] Having summarized the court orders to date in the family proceedings, I will outline, in broad strokes, each affidavit that has been filed on the motion.
Affidavits filed by the Society
Affidavits of K.H.
[11] K.H. is a child protection worker. She has filed two affidavits. The first was sworn February 27, 2022.
[12] The concern of the Society is the repeated allegations by the mother that the father is engaging in sexual activity with the child. Despite numerous investigations, the concerns have never been verified. As a result of the allegations, the child has undergone three physical examinations for sexual abuse. The Society believes the mother may be coaching/influencing the child.
[13] This file has a lengthy background and involves both the Simcoe CAS and the Halton CAS.
[14] The file was transferred to Halton from Simcoe CAS in March 2020. At the time of the transfer Simcoe CAS had been involved with the family for two years. During that time, the mother was the referral source for three allegations that the father had engaged in sexual activity with the child. The fourth referral was the child’s doctor, who had a duty to report what the mother told him. The first two investigations resulted in the concerns not being verified. The last two investigations were deemed inconclusive.
[15] Halton CAS conducted four further investigations after March 2020. The first investigation was a result of the mother alleging sexual abuse by the father. The protection concern was not verified.
[16] The referral source for the second investigation was the child’s therapist, D.A. Ms. A was concerned that the mother was videotaping the child to support the mother’s allegations of sexual abuse by the father. The protection concern of sexual activity was not verified. The protection concern of emotional harm by the mother was verified.
[17] The third investigation was an allegation by the paternal aunt, L.K., that the mother physically disciplined the child. It was not verified.
[18] The fourth investigation was the mother alleging the father had engaged in sexual activity with the child. A joint investigation was conducted by the Society and the Peel Regional Police. It was not verified.
[19] On December 10, 2021, the mother reported the child returned to her home with bruises on her back after a visit with the father. Concerns were not verified.
[20] Having outlined the history of the file, I will turn to the current investigation which began on February 2, 2022. The Society is concerned that the mother's mental health is harming the child. The Society claims the mother is having inappropriate conversations with the child, continually examining, and photographing the child, and is obsessed with making what are ultimately false allegations against the father. The Society believes the mother denigrates the father to the child.
[21] On February 18, 2022, the mother made a report that the child had disclosed the father is touching her vagina and threatened to kill the mother if the child told anyone about the sexual activity. A joint investigation occurred.
[22] In the interview with the police, the child stated the father did touch her vagina and had inserted his finger in her vagina. The child also told the police the father sat on her face.
[23] The mother, father and paternal aunt, L.K., were also interviewed by the police.
[24] The police recommended to the mother that the child be taken to the hospital to have a rape kit completed. The mother followed this recommendation. A rape kit was not conducted on the child given the passage of time. The doctor believed that, given the passage of time, there was no DNA evidence that could be collected.
[25] The police did not lay charges against the father and told the Society the following:
- The child was inconsistent in her allegations.
- The father and the aunt appeared credible.
- The police were of the opinion the mother did not provide a fulsome detail.
- A teenager lives in the same household of the mother. The police reported this teen is oversexualized.
- The police were concerned the mother may be coaching the child.
[26] Following this investigation, the Society implemented supervised parenting time for the father by the paternal aunt. The father was agreeable to the supervision to protect himself against the allegations the mother continues to make.
[27] As the mother did not agree with the decision by the Society to allow the father to have supervised access, she withheld the child on February 23, 2022. The mother called the police when L.K. attempted to collect the child for the father’s parenting time. The mother also would not let the child go to school. The Society contacted the mother to tell her she cannot withhold the child from going to school.
[28] On February 24, 2022, the Society spoke to the principal at the school. The principal noted his concern that the mother is withholding the child from school. The child is on an IEP and the child is behind in her schoolwork.
[29] The Society was able to meet with the child privately at the school on February 24, 2022, and then later the same day at the father’s home. While at school, the child reported to the worker that the father has touched her private parts the night before. However, the father did not have access to the child the preceding day and evening. The child claimed the father had touched her in a sexual way on ten occasions but could provide no details.
[30] During the home interview, later that same day, the child told the worker she enjoys her time at her father’s home, she is happy there, no one is mean to her, she has no concerns at either parent’s home. Additionally, the child could not remember any details about the alleged sexual activity the night before and denied that the father had touched her, either the day before or ever.
[31] At the conclusion of the investigation, the Society takes the position that: The child is at risk of serious emotional harm in her mother's care and that no terms of supervision would adequately protect the child.
[32] Ms. H swore a second affidavit dated April 1, 2022. It details the mother's supervised parenting time. At the visit on March 8, 2022, the child told the mother to get help so they can see each other more often and not be mad at the father. The mother denied she had told the child she was mad at the father, and the child responded by telling the mother she did tell her that. The mother denied coaching the child to the worker. The mother agreed to continue with her counselling.
[33] The child was observed expressing love and affection to both the mother and the father. The child was requesting more time with the mother. As a result, the visits were increased to three hours.
[34] The father was agreeable to facilitating the telephone calls between the mother and the child. The calls were recorded. This is something the parties agreed to in a court order dated November 21, 2021, in the family law proceedings.
[35] An update was sought from the child's therapist. Ms. A reports the child is upset and angry about what is transpiring. The child has told Ms. A that the mother says bad things about the father. Ms. A expressed her concern about moving the mother's parenting time to unsupervised as it may undo the gains the child has made in therapy. Ms. A is working with the child to understand the difference between what is true and what is false.
[36] An update was sought from the child's doctor. The doctor noted concerns with the appropriateness of the child's response in social settings. The child may have a learning disability. A recommendation was made for the child to see a child psychiatrist.
[37] An update was sought from the child’s school who reported behavioural concerns. The child has been mean and aggressive towards other students.
[38] The worker met with the child on March 30, 2022. The child stated she never told her mother that her father had touched her sexually.
Affidavit of J.C.
[39] J.C. is the supervisor of protection services. She swore an affidavit dated February 27, 2022. The affidavit provides a history of the involvement and repeats what was deposed in the affidavit of K.H. It provides further details regarding each investigation. I will briefly outline the allegations:
- January 31, 2018 – mother alleged that the child disclosed the father inserted his finger in her bum. Protection concerns not verified.
- April 2, 2019 – unknown caller reports that the mother reported the child told her that, “Daddy peed on my underwear” and “Daddy peed in my mouth”. Two forensic interviews were conducted, and the child did not report any sexual activity. Protection concerns not verified.
- July 10, 2019 – the mother contacted the Society stating the child disclosed sexual activity by the father. The child disclosed sexual activity but could not provide timeframes or details surrounding the alleged abuse. The Society became concerned the mother was coaching the child. Protection concern that the child is exposed to emotional harm due to parental conflict was verified. The findings as to sexual activity were found to be inconclusive.
- January 2, 2020 – the mother contacted the Society alleging the child disclosed the father had peed in her mouth, threatened to kill the mother if the child disclosed that he had done so, and punched the child. The mother videotaped the child and had her repeat the allegations. A forensic interview took place. The child did say her father peed in her mouth and put his penis in her vagina. The child was not able to provide sufficient details to warrant criminal charges. Protection concerns were noted as inconclusive.
- May 11, 2020, to June 25, 2020 – the mother contacted the Society alleging the child was disclosing sexual activity by the father. The allegations included that his parenting time was not being supervised and the father was touching the child’s private parts. When the child was interviewed, she denied any sexual activity and denied telling her mother anything of the sort. The child reported she was not left unsupervised with the father. Protection concerns were not verified.
- September 21, 2020, to November 17, 2020 – The child’s therapist contacted the Society after the mother sent Ms. A the videotape she recorded while interviewing the child. The child was interviewed by the Society and made no allegations surrounding sexual activity by the father. Protection concerns not verified.
- May 4, 2021, to May 20, 2021 – L.K. reported that the child disclosed the mother had hit her. The investigation found the incident to be an accident. Protection concerns were not verified.
- July 14, 2021, to August 16, 2021 – the mother reported the child disclosed that the father had stuck his fingers up her bum. A joint investigation with the police was conducted. The child made no disclosures. Protection concerns not verified.
[40] After the January 2, 2020, investigation Simcoe CAS made the following recommendations:
- The father should undergo a psychosexual assessment including phallometric testing
- The father’s access be supervised
- Both parents engage in counselling
- The child engage in counselling
[41] Halton CAS inquired about the psychosexual assessment with the Child Advocacy & Assessment Program. The Society was told that phallometric testing is controversial and that a psychosexual assessment of the father would not assist with what may or may not have happened to the child.
[42] In May 2021, the mother agreed to a psychological assessment but would not agree to answer all the questions necessary to complete the assessment. The mother agreed to answer just one question:
Does the mother have any underlining diagnosis/trauma that would contribute to her belief that the child is being sexually abused and then making sexual abuse allegations against the father?
[43] The psychologist, Dr. Wong, did not report significant symptoms of posttraumatic stress and psychological sequelae of traumatic events.
[44] The child began therapy with a registered psychotherapist, D.A., on October 28, 2019. Ms. A has reported concerns about the child being in the mother's care. The child told the therapist that her mother calls her, "little cunt" and hits her. Of great concern to Ms. A is the incident where the mother videotaped the child, having the child repeat allegations of sexual assault by the father while using leading questions. Ms. A believes that the mother is coaching the child.
[45] The Society closed its file on October 2021, as the parents had completed counselling and the matter appeared to be resolving in Superior Court with a shared parenting schedule.
[46] The file was re-opened on December 10, 2021, as the Society had concerns of what the mother had reported to the OCL, but not disclosed to the Society. The mother’s nephew lives in the same home as the mother. The nephew suffers from ADHS and FASD, has behavioural issues, including engaging in sexualized behaviour.
[47] Lastly, the mother reported to the worker that the child returned from the father’s parenting time with a bruise. The worker met with the child that same day but did not observe a bruise and the child made no disclosure of physical harm.
Affidavit of M.D.R. (father)
[48] The father has sworn an affidavit dated April 11, 2022. It details his frustration with everything that has transpired. He believes the mother's mental health continues to deteriorate. He is in support of the Society’s motion and the relief sought.
[49] The father lives with his aunt, L.K.
[50] The father attached as an exhibit; an affidavit sworn by D.A. dated February 1, 2021. The affidavit was part of the court proceedings in Superior Court.
[51] Ms. A has over 30 years of experience.
[52] Ms. A referenced an incident where the mother spoke negatively of the father in the presence of the child. Based on Ms. A’s observations she found the child had a “strong secure attachment towards the father”. Her observation regarding the mother were “S displays a strong insecure attachment towards mother, as observed in her reluctance to disappoint mother in fear of rejection”. Ms. A also noted, “As therapy progressed S came into some of her sessions indicating that mother told her to tell therapists that “daddy did bad things to me”.
[53] In terms of the sexual activity allegations, Ms. A wrote, “Although mother has brought forth information regarding father pertaining to sexual allegations when explored with S, throughout therapy S has not recounted this narrative. We have not observed any sexualized play throughout the therapeutic process to date”. This was noted in a letter dated November 14, 2020, after 32 separate 50-minute sessions had taken place.
[54] Ms. A also wrote in the November 14, 2020, letter, “In video and audio recordings, S’s distress is apparent through mother’s probing, which is concerning. Mother is heard distinguishing between ‘different Ss’ throughout the recordings at times, which also is concerning”.
[55] The father attached numerous texts messages sent by the mother. They are nonsensical. L.K. has been the target of numerous nonsensical texts as well.
[56] Of concern is the mother’s texts which read, “Only cuz I am going live with S I Heaven will u” and “Now lets pray I do not get tempted”.
[57] The father has voluntary agreed to have supervised access for long periods of time. He wants to do all that he can to protect himself from what he claims are the continued false allegations brought on by the mother. He no longer assists the child with bathing, and he does not attend to the child during the night. These tasks fall to L.K.
Affidavit of M.A.R (mother)
[58] The mother has sworn an affidavit dated April 11, 2022. She maintains that the child's disclosures to her have been spontaneous and that she has reported what she has been told by the child as required by the law. She further submits that the fact that the child disclosed to third parties (the doctor, society worker’s, police, etc.) strengthens her position that she has not coached the child.
[59] Much of her affidavit poses questions about why the father has not had to undergo the scrutiny that the mother feels she has had to endure. The mother questions the actions of the Society workers. It is apparent that she feels the Society workers are not doing their jobs diligently. She points to the fact that in February 2022 investigation, the child disclosed sexual abuse while at school, when the father was not present, and unsurprisingly did not repeat that allegation later that same day when interviewed at the father’s home because he would have been present.
[60] She categorically denies that she has coached the child. In her view, it is the father and his extended family members who are coaching the child. The mother believes L.K. is fixated on proving the father’s innocence. She does not trust her. She believes that L.K., who was to supervise the father’s parenting time, has not always followed through on supervision, leaving the child alone with the father and vulnerable to his sexual advances.
[61] The mother acknowledges sending inappropriate texts to L.K. However, in her view, that this is not a reflection on her mental health but the result of her reacting or acting in anger.
[62] The mother is concerned that the child may be “splitting” her personalities. Referring to “other S” who was abused by “the other daddy”.
[63] The mother does concede that when she videotaped the child she posed leading questions, however, she did not know that this would be viewed as “wrong”.
[64] The mother has attached numerous exhibits to her affidavit. One is labelled, “Transcription of interview between N.B. and S.R.”. There is a second, “Interview with M.B.B and S.R.”. It is unclear who created these documents.
[65] The mother attached the psychological assessment report dated June 15, 2021. Dr. Wong reported, “Although M.R. does not meet DSM 5 criteria for an ongoing Adjustment Disorder, she may benefit from monitoring to ensure that levels of stress and distress do not negatively affect her ability to carry out daily expectations and activities”.
[66] In Dr. Wong’s report, he wrote, “M.R. may not have answered in a completely forthright manner. Her response style indicated that she tends to present herself in a consistently favourable light and be relatively free of common shortcomings to which most individuals will admit. Furthermore, she may deny distress and minimize or be unaware of problems in functioning that might be less than optimal. Overall, the clinical profile may underrepresent the extent and degree of any significant findings in certain areas due to her reluctance to acknowledge personal problems or failings”.
[67] In short, the mother is of the view that if there were no truth to the allegations of the father sexually touching the child, the child would not continue to disclose such things to her. She believes her child and does not understand why no one else can see the truth. The mother feels that the child is now having behavioural issues at school and during the mother’s supervised access visits because she is acting out as no one will believe her about the sexual abuse to which she has been subjected by her father.
Affidavit of OCL clinician, K. M-A.
[68] The clinician assigned to assist the OCL, K.M-A. has sworn an affidavit dated June 27, 2022. The child has been difficult to engage with at times. She told the clinician that her father has never hurt her. The child reported she enjoyed it when there was a shared parenting schedule. When asked if she wanted to see her mother for more time or less time, the child responded, "I don't know anything." She did say that she wanted to spend alternate weekends with her mother. The child has no concerns about spending time with her mother. The child expressed being angry with her father and said she wanted to "punch him in the face."
[69] The clinician spoke with the school. The child is behind academically.
[70] The OCL recommended gradually increasing the mother's parenting time.
[71] Having summarized the evidence on the motion I will now turn to the law.
Law
[72] Section 94(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1, states:
Custody during adjournment
(2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child,
(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part;
(b) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate;
(c) be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; or
(d) remain or be placed in the care and custody of the society, but not be placed in a place of temporary detention, of open or of secure custody.
AND
(4) The court shall not make an order under clause (2) (c) or (d) unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause (2) (a) or (b).
AND
(8) An order made under clause (2) (c) or (d) may contain provisions regarding any person’s right of access to the child on such terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate.
[73] At a temporary care and custody hearing, the onus is on the Society to establish on credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if a child is returned to the respondent, it is more probable than not that he or she will suffer harm. The onus is on the Society to establish the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order: see CAS v L.L. and J.G., 2019 ONSC 853, 20 R.F.L. (8th) 48, at para 32.
[74] A court must choose the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child. The degree of intrusiveness of the Society's intervention and the interim protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk. The Act gives priority to the person who had charge of the child prior to Society intervention: see CAS v L.L. and J.G., 2019 ONSC 853, 20 R.F.L (8th) 48, at para 32.
Analysis
[75] This child has had to endure investigations, intrusive physical examinations, and police interviews. I am satisfied that the Society has met its onus that there are reasonable and probable grounds that if the child were to be returned to the mother, or allowed to have unsupervised parenting time, it is more probable than not that the child will suffer harm.
[76] I have come to this conclusion for several reasons.
[77] First, the mother has made repeated allegations against the father, none of which, when investigated, has been verified.
[78] Second, the child’s therapist is of the view that allowing unsupervised parenting time with the mother could result in the child regressing.
[79] Third, the child has never disclosed sexual activity by the father during her extensive therapy sessions nor has the play therapy shown any indication of sexual molestation.
[80] Fourth, the police who interviewed the child raised concerns that the mother may be coaching the child.
[81] Fifth, the physical examination of the child revealed no indication of sexual activity.
[82] Sixth, there is the objective evidence from the author of the OCL report that the mother has been responsible for coaching the child to make allegations of sexual abuse against the father. The investigations of sexual activity by the father were ongoing during the preparation of the OCL report. During one of the interviews with the child, the author of the report noted the child stated, “her mother thinks her father touched her private parts, but he did not, and her mother lied.” And “S shared she still sees a therapist, but she does not know what they talk about. When asked about touching, S said no one had ever touched her private parts, but if someone tried, she would smack them and tell the people who come to her home to talk with her”.
[83] Seventh, on more than a few occasions, the mother has told proven falsehoods. For example, telling the Society worker telephone calls with the child should not be recorded despite the consent order of November 21, 2022, in the Superior Court which states otherwise. Similarly, reporting the child had come home with bruises after a visit with the father but no bruises being evident when a worker examined the child that very same day.
[84] Eighth, the mother is suffering from mental health issues. The texts sent to L.K. and the father are clear indications that something is not right. In one text the mother appears to threaten to kill herself and the child.
[85] Ninth, the mother cannot stop her obsession with proving the false allegations against the father. This has led her to videotape, photograph, and repeatedly subject the child to suggestive questioning.
[86] Tenth, since the mother’s parenting time has been subject to supervision, the child has made no disclosure of sexual activity by the father.
[87] I will now address some of the mother’s arguments to assure her that her concerns have been heard by the court.
[88] The mother emphasizes that the child has made allegations of sexual abuse by the father to third parties. However, she fails to recognize that what is more significant is that the child has consistently recanted such allegations and cannot provide details of any abuse. Nor does the mother seem to appreciate that several of the professionals who have dealt with her, and the child, have expressed the view that the mother has been coaching the child. Critically, none of these third parties believe the mother, that includes two different Societies, the police, countless social workers, and the child’s therapist. The mother relies on the fact that the child’s doctor was a referral source but fails to appreciate she was the source to the doctor.
[89] The mother feels unfairly targeted by the Society. For example, she does not understand why the father did not have to complete the phallometric and psychosexual testing. As noted above, the Society took appropriate steps to see if such testing would be of assistance in determining whether sexual activity by the father against the child had occurred. The Society was told it would not.
[90] The mother discounts the child’s therapist, Ms. A, and is of the view that the fact the child has not disclosed sexual activity by the father is proof that the father and L.K. are coaching the child to remain quiet. I cannot agree with the mother’s view. Ms. A is reporting what she has observed from her interactions with the child. Ms. A’s view is that the child should continue with therapy and allow the communication to flow organically.
[91] The mother relies upon police occurrence reports and disclosure reports to the Society as proof that the father has in fact engaged in sexual activity with the child. What the mother fails to appreciate is that reports are just that, a re-telling of what has been told to a third party. The results of the investigations are what is of critical importance.
[92] The mother submits that the report of Dr. Wong shows she is not suffering from any mental health issues. What she fails to recognize, however, is that when the report is read as a whole, Dr. Wong has expressed concern that the mother was not forthright in her responses. Dr. Wong flagged this as an issue.
[93] In the end, it is evident to me that the child is very confused. She is only 8 years old and has had to endure repeated and suggestive questioning by her mother. The child is no longer consistent in what she tells people and reported to the clinician that she does not know anything anymore. The many allegations by the mother have now spanned years in duration. It is not surprising that the child no longer knows the difference between what is true and false. The child must be protected at this time from the mother's influence.
[94] I fear that unless the mother commits to professional help to address her steadfast belief that the father has sexually assaulted the child, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the mother will not be able to alleviate the Society’s protection concerns. This can only result in a long-term requirement for supervised access for the mother.
[95] The least disruptive placement for this child is in the care of her father, subject to terms and conditions with supervised access to the mother.
[96] Finally, it bears mention what I have not considered in arriving at my decision. Affidavits filed by both parents, and one of the affidavits filed by the Society, referred to a polygraph test taken by the father. Polygraph testing is not admissible evidence: see R. v. Beland, [1987] 2 S.C.R. 398. This information should not have been placed before the court. Accordingly, I have not considered the fact that the father underwent such testing or the results in arriving at my decision.
Order
On a temporary basis the following order shall issue:
- The child, S.A.R., born […], 2013, shall be placed in the temporary care and custody of the father, M.D.R., subject to the supervision of the Halton Children's Aid Society.
- Access between the mother, M.A.R., and the child shall take place a minimum of twice per week for two hours per visit, with supervision, the location and duration of visits to be in the discretion of the Society.
- M.A.R. and M.D.R. shall have the following terms and conditions: a. The parties shall cooperate with the Society worker, including signing consents to permit the Society to share and receive information from service providers working with them and/or the child. b. The parties shall permit the Society worker to attend at their home on a scheduled or unscheduled basis and permit the Society worker to view all parts of their home if requested. c. The parties shall permit the Society worker to interview the child privately at their home and/or at her school. d. The parties shall ensure that the child continues with her weekly in-person therapy appointments. e. M.A.R. shall not take the child to a doctor for any medical assessment and/or intervention without advance and written consent by the Society. f. M.A.R. shall not question the child about her parenting time with M.D.R. g. M.A.R. shall not speak negatively about M.D.R. to the child or in the child's presence. h. M.A.R. shall not take any photographs or videos of the child's body following her parenting time with M.D.R. i. M.A.R. shall work with the Society's Family Support Worker, or other support services recommended by the Society.
Justice Cleghorn