This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to subsections 45(8) of the Act. This subsection and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act , which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with subsection 45(8), read as follows:
-(8) 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.
-(3) A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)( c ) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
COURT FILE NO.: 688/08
DATE: 2012/02/15
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE (FAMILY COURT)
BETWEE N:
The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region
Kim Hertwig
Applicant
- and -
V.B.1 and L.H. Respondents
Edward Kravcik, for V.B.1
HEARD: December 12, 13, 14 and 15, 2011
THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE J.W. SCOTT
R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T
[ 1 ] The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region is requesting that B.V.T., who was born on […] , 2006, be made a ward of the Crown, without access, so that he may be adopted by D.B.2 and S.B.2, his current kin placement. The mother of the child, V.B.1 opposes that application and requests that B.T. be placed with her, or alternatively that a custody order be made in favour of Mr. and Mrs. B.2, with access to her, so that she potentially can apply for variation of that order at some appropriate point. B.T.’s father, L.H., has not filed any materials in this proceeding, nor participated in any other way; consequently, he is noted to be in default.
Historical Background
[ 2 ] The evidence indicates that the Society’s involvement with Ms. B.1 and her family began in 2007 due to concerns regarding the mother’s parenting abilities, the mother’s verbal aggression towards the children, domestic violence in the home, unrealistic expectations of the children and chronic neglect of the home. (See paragraph eight in the affidavit of Juliet Campbell.)
[ 3 ] Aside from B.T., Ms. B.1 is the mother of four other children: J.2, born […], 1998; N., born […], 2001; C.2 , born […], 2004; and E., born […], 2009. None of these children currently reside with Ms. B.1. J.2, N., C.2 and B.T. were removed from Ms. B.1 by the Society in October of 2008. Immediately following his birth, E. went to reside with his paternal grandmother, where he remains. S.B.1, the father of N. and C.2, now has custody of these two children, pursuant to a court order. Following a number of placements, J.2 is currently living with his paternal step-grandmother pursuant to a 12 month supervision order.
[ 4 ] Following the apprehension of B.T. in October of 2008, he spent some brief time in care prior to being placed with S.C., a maternal aunt, in January of 2009. B.T. remained with Ms. S.C., subject to supervision, until around June or July of 2010, when, as a result of her personal plans, this placement was unable to continue, and at that point he was transitioned into the home of D.B.2, his paternal aunt, and her husband, S.. A supervision order confirming this placement was made on July 19, 2010 and it is that order that is being reviewed at this time.
[ 5 ] There is no doubt that at the time of apprehension Ms. B.1 was having serious difficulties. She was depressed and not focusing on her children because of her own problems. She herself acknowledges in her testimony that she needed help and was being neglectful of the children. According to Alexander Lich, Ms. B.1’s worker from March of 2007 until August of 2011, at the time of apprehension her home was in a state of disarray and dirty, a problem that had been re-occurring for quite a period of time despite reminders from Mr. Lich concerning the need to clean it up. On the day of apprehension Mr. Lich was at the home as a result of a complaint received that the mother had struck J.2. According to the worker, the mother admitted striking J.2 and also to calling her children profane names. While there has been some concern by the Society with respect to the mother’s drug use, Ms. B.1 testified that it was after the apprehension that her problem with drugs and alcohol arose. She attributes that to the extreme depression she was experiencing. She also added that this was prior to her receiving her diagnosis of being bi-polar in 2009. By the time of this trial, according to Ms. B.1, she had not used any drugs since June of 2011 and was limiting her alcohol consumption to special occasions such as Christmas and birthdays. The Society offered no evidence contrary to those assertions.
Events since the order of July 19, 2010
[ 6 ] This current application is a review of the order of July 19, 2010 which, as previously noted, placed B.T. with his paternal aunt, subject to supervision for a period of 12 months. B.T. appears to have had success in that placement and clearly from the evidence much credit for that needs to go to D.B.2 and her husband S.B.2. They have sought out many services for B.T. in order to address his serious difficulties. While it seems they received some help in this regard from the Kitchener-Waterloo Children’s Aid Society, it also appears from the evidence that much of the effort to locate the necessary services for B.T. has come directly from the personal efforts of Mr. and Mrs. B.2. The evidence suggests that they have devoted much time and energy in attempting to ensure his needs are met and to assist in his development.
[ ...continued exactly as provided in the source text...]
DATE: February 15, 2012
J. W. Scott