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:

45.-(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.

85.-(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.: C-2256-09

DATE: 2012-03-16

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

B E T W E E N:

The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton

Applicant

• and -

L.M. (Mother)

Respondent

S. James Mountford, for the Applicant

Christopher Etherden, for the Respondent Mother

Robert Charko, Office of the Children’s Lawyer for the children N.G. and R.M.

HEARD at Hamilton, Ontario:

October 13, 14, 17,18, 19, 20, 21, 25 26, 27 & 28, 2011

THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE T. MADDALENA

JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND FACTS

[1] The mother “LM” is currently 28 years of age. The biological father of three of the children, “JG”, is currently 38 years of age. The father JG did not file any materials, did not participate in any of the hearings before the court. He was noted in default by the court on November 1, 2010 and accordingly did not participate in the trial.

[2] The mother LM is the biological mother of the children, “NG” born […], 2003, “RM” born […], 2005, “DG” born […], 2006, and “AM” born […], 2008.

[3] The mother LM is also the biological mother of the child “BM” born […], 2000 from a previous relationship. The Society was first involved with removing BM from the mother’s care in April of 2000, and finally in 2003. In 2004 joint custody of the child BM was given to the paternal grandparents and his father. BM currently resides with his paternal family. BM is not the subject of these proceedings.

[4] JG is not the biological father of RM however he has parented RM from birth. The biological father of RM is not known.

[5] On December 20, 2009 the four children who are the subject of this proceeding were apprehended by the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (hereinafter referred to as “CCAS”) and placed in the Society’s care. They have remained in the care of the Society to date.

[6] There are no extended family members who have come forth and proposed a plan of care for these children.

[7] On March 5, 2010 a temporary care and custody hearing took place before Justice Pazaratz.

[8] In paragraph 7 of the temporary care and custody hearing endorsement the court noted as follows:-

[7] On December 20, 2009 the four children were apprehended and placed in society care as a result of the following concerns:

a. LM had obstructed the society in obtaining access to the children, in order to assess their well-being while they were in her care. When the children were located, they were found in a hazardous and unsanitary environment, with animal feces present. Their clothing was unclean and inappropriate for cold weather.

b. The parents colluded with one another to conceal the children from the Society. The parents and the children were located together at a residence which LM had denied existed for three months.

c. The Society has concerns about JG’s ability to ensure the safety of the children when they are in his care. LM had assured the Society that none of the children are in his sole care at any time, but she was unwilling to provide the Society with contact information concerning JG.

d. The Society received information that two of the children were in JG’s custody, and that NG had travelled to New Brunswick in his sole care, in a vehicle which was in poor condition. NG arrived in New Brunswick without adequate clothing.

e. The Society was concerned JG had concealed the children and instructed them not to answer the door, even when police went to the home.

f. JG had refused to communicate with Society staff in recent months. The Society requested contact with him to assess his involvement in the care of the children, and his willingness to cooperate with the Society in relation to the children.

g. Since coming into foster care the children have been observed to have significant unmet needs requiring medical, speech and developmental assessment. The mother has not previously followed through with assessment and treatment of the children’s needs.

h. The mother has not ensured the children’s regular attendance at school.

i. The Society has concerns the children would not receive prompt and adequate medical treatment if returned to the care of the parents.

j. Relatives report LM refused to have DG seen medically or treated with medication when he had a fever, while in New Brunswick.

k. LM has declined to have AM receive recommended treatment for respiratory congestion, since coming into foster care.

l. The Society has concerns about the emotional and mental state of the parents, and the impact this has on their ability to make judgments, problem solve, and ensure the safety of the children.

m. There were reports of the parents misplacing one of their vehicles in Quebec. There were reports one of the vehicles used to transport the children was without heat. There were reports the family slept in a van overnight in extreme cold weather. There were also reports LM “spun out” a vehicle with the children inside as passengers, while angry.

n. There were reports LM had threatened relatives, stating that she has a gun.

o. There were reports the family arrived and left New Brunswick suddenly, without planning, and with other family members expressing concern the children could be at risk of physical harm from the parents’ impulsive behaviour.

p. The Society also has concerns about the safety of the children, in light of reports that the parents engage in criminal activity with the children present.

q. The Society has concerns the children are at risk of emotional harm while in the care of the parents. They have been exposed to adult conflict between the parents, and also between the parents and other people, on an ongoing basis.

r. NM was falsely told her grandmother was dying of a brain tumour, when the family travelled to New Brunswick.

s. The Society has received several reports of the mother frequently yelling loudly and aggressively at the children.

[9] While the mother LM substantially denied the allegations, the court concluded as follows in paragraphs 18 and 19:-

[18] But cumulatively – the multiple parenting concerns, the expressions of serious concern by third parties, and the serious and inadequately addressed medical and developmental problems – these all make it impossible for the court to dismiss or disregard warnings which go to the fundamental physical and emotional safety of each of these children.

[19] I do not believe the evidence would support simply returning the children to the mother. Similarly, I am not satisfied that returning the children to the mother under terms of supervision is a realistic or appropriate option at this time, given the nature and magnitude of the problems and allegations; the mother’s previous refusal to acknowledge or address the pervasive nature of the problems; and the mother’s emphatic resistance to working with the society in the past.

[10] The children therefore have remained in the care of the Society with access to the parents to be supervised in the discretion of the Society.

The Position of CCAS

[11] The CCAS is seeking findings in accordance with its amended child protection application dated July 5, 2001, namely that the four children are in need of protection pursuant to s.37(2)(b)(i) and s.37(2)(b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 Chapter c.11, as amended.

[12] Secondly, the CCAS requests an order that the four children be made Crown wards without access for the purposes of adoption.

The Position of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer

[13] Mr. Charko, on behalf of the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) and representing the two older children NG and RM, submits that it is in the children’s best interest that they be made Crown wardship with no access. Although he is representing the two older children, the entire position of the OCL is in accordance with the position taken by CCAS for all four of the children.

The Position of the Mother LM

[14] The mother LM is requesting that the four children be returned to her under a supervision order. In the alternative, she states that if a Crown wardship order is granted, that there should be provision for access by the children to her.

THE EVIDENCE OF THE CCAS

Nemesia Fragata

[15] Ms. Fragata is a family services worker and has been employed in the child protection field for 32 years. She has been involved with this family since January 2010 to the time of trial. Ms. Fragata provided evidence by way of a detailed affidavit sworn September 30, 2011 containing 111 paragraphs.

[16] It was her evidence that the parents have always had a stormy eight-year relationship of being on and off again. JG was convicted of assault upon LM and pleaded guilty and placed on probation.

[17] On December 20, 2009 the four children were apprehended by the CCAS.

[18] The affidavit evidence of Ms. Fragata is undisputed, unchallenged, and I accept her evidence as credible and trustworthy.

[19] She expressed a number of concerns in her affidavit regarding the four children which included the following:-

• LM was obstructing the Society in obtaining access to the children to assess their wellbeing;
• The children were in a hazardous, unsanitary environment, with animal feces in the home and numerous animals;
• The CCAS was concerned regarding a collusion of LM and JG to conceal the children from the CCAS;
• The children had significant unmet needs including medical, dental, and speech;
• LM was not following through on the treatment for the children’s needs and the appropriate assessment of the children’s needs;
• Home cleanliness was an issue;
• The children were not receiving prompt medical attention;
• There were concerns regarding the emotional and mental state of the parents as it would impact the children;
• CCAS had concerns for the safety of the children and the children were at risk of emotional harm in the care of LM and JG;
• The children were exposed to adult conflict and domestic violence;
• Neither parent was receptive to make changes recommended by CCAS to assist with the return of the children;
• LM pulled the children out of school due to her concerns that CCAS would talk to them;
• LM was uncooperative and felt that CCAS apprehended unnecessarily;
• The child RM was five years old and LM had not yet registered his birth;
• There were serious noticeable dental and speech issues with respect to the children that ought to have been obvious to anyone;

[20] Ms. Fragata stated that when she first became involved with the family in January 2010 the children RM and DG could not speak. Both children were only pointing and grunting at that time. RM was five years old and DG was four years old. Ms. Fragata noted that over time while in foster care and with the involvement of special programs both children’s speech showed significant improvement.

[21] Ms. Fragata’s evidence included also that three of the children had extensive dental problems. Evidence of these dental problems was also corroborated by other witnesses.

[22] Further, Ms. Fragata expressed concern, as did many others, that LM, who had been seriously sexually abused by her stepfather from age 11 to 15, has now chosen to use him as a support for her, and neither LM nor her stepfather had completed any therapeutic treatment.

[23] The children NG, RM and DG, according to Ms. Fragata, were assessed by dentists who found their dental health had been extremely neglected. In fact, the parents were invited to attend all dental appointments with respect to the children but they rarely did so.

[24] The child NG was scheduled for dental surgery June 24, 2010. The mother LM was advised well in advance but did not attend saying that she needed to be at mediation. It is interesting to note that later CCAS learned that she had not attended the mediation.

[25] With regard to that same dental surgery for the child NG, her father JG first indicated that he would attend. Accordingly, the child was told her father would attend. In fact, he did not attend, with no reason provided. The end result was that the child was understandably upset.

[26] Ms. Fragata noted that the parents’ absence in significant events in the children’s lives is alarming.

[27] Clearly, these parents do not seem to understand or empathize with their children and their needs.

[28] In paragraph 42 of her affidavit sworn September 30, 2011 Ms. Fragata states as follows:-

While the children have been in the care of the Society, the Society has repeatedly attempted to engage the parents into addressing their issues and to participate in their children’s lives. Despite repeated offers and encouragements to become involved, they have declined. Sadly, the mother’s personal issues have overwhelmed her and prevented her from addressing her children’s needs.

[29] The mother LM further, according to Ms. Fragata, did not attend RM’s school to address his significant speech delays and gave no explanation. Instead, when questioned as to why she had not attended, LM described RM’s school as “a school for retards”, showing her complete lack of understanding of the lives of her children.

[30] Ms. Fragata further expressed concern at the mother LM’s lack of follow-through to assist her children. As an example, in October 2008 the child NG’s school identified the child NG as having speech and language difficulties. The school recommended a speech language assessment and the mother LM declined, stating she would “seek a private assessment”. The evidence is that she never did so.

[31] Further, Ms. Fragata described the mother LM’s and the father JG’s supervised visits with the children as largely chaotic, unorganized, nondirective, and initially when the parents were together on visits there was substantial quarrelling. The children were running everywhere and on an occasion the child NG, who was then seven years of age, asked the parents to listen to the CCAS workers and attempted to comfort her younger siblings.

[32] In paragraph 86 of Ms. Fragata’s affidavit she states as follows:-

On January 11, 2011, I attended LM’s home with Society Children’s Service Worker, Ms. Lori Martin. During this meeting, we discussed a number of issues but in particular how LM had not followed through with recommendations made in the past to assist her children, her lack of follow through with medical and dental care of the children, her lack of follow through with recommendations made by the school in regards to speech and language for RM as well as NG and overall neglect of the children and how in the past year that the children had been in the care of the Society, she has had opportunity after opportunity to participate in their lives to assist in correcting the effects of neglect but yet she has not made herself available. LM advised us that she had wanted her relationship with JG to work so much that she had put that relationship above the children. She would not accept responsibilities for the neglect that she had put the children through and she began to blame everyone for the situation.

[33] At trial, it is notable that Ms. Fragata’s evidence was that “the quality of the access visits had not improved” and that LM continues to blame everyone else for her failures. Ms. Fragata clearly stated in her evidence that LM has not addressed the major traumas in her own life and therefore has a long tough road ahead with no understanding or ability to meet the needs of her four children.

[34] The court is impressed with the evidence of Ms. Fragata. The court finds her evidence credible, trustworthy and unchallenged.

[35] I accept the evidence of Ms. Fragata that since the children came into care in December 2009 there has been no significant change by LM to address their needs.

Cindy Key

[36] Cindy Key is a family resource worker employed by the CCAS. She began supervising family visits in January 2010. She provided an affidavit sworn the 30th of September 2011 together with extensive and detailed case notes of supervised visits from September 28, 2011 to January 27, 2010.

[37] I accept the evidence of Ms. Key that there were some positive elements in the visits with mom. These included, as quoted in her affidavit, the following:-

• LM provided healthy meals;
• LM attended her visits and was on time;
• LM showed the children appropriate affection;
• LM brought the children birthday presents and Christmas presents;
• LM bought the children treats after dinner;
• LM loves her children.

[38] However, Ms. Key continued to have substantial concerns as outlined in her affidavit including:-

• LM had difficulty structuring visit times. Mealtimes and the end of visits were chaotic;
• LM struggled to set limits with the children;
• LM was inconsistent in her messaging with the children;
• LM did not consistently do homework with the children;
• LM was not able to understand that using baby talk with the children was not assisting them to say words properly;
• LM had difficulty reading children’s cues;
• LM was unable to manage RM’s challenging behaviours;
• LM struggled to respond to children’s needs;
• At times LM was not willing to accept feedback regarding safety matters;
• LM was not able to follow through with suggestions at mealtimes.

[39] The court accepts the evidence of Ms. Key that largely LM has made very little progress through the visits with her children. While there were some visits that were “okay”, visits remained largely chaotic and disorganized. I further accept Ms. Key’s evidence that overall “there was no improvement in mom’s ability to manage the children.”

Foster Mother for NG and RM

[40] The foster mother of NG and RM is MKA who also provided evidence to the court. NG and RM came into her care on December 21, 2009 and remain in her care. The court finds the evidence of the foster mother very credible and compelling.

[41] MKA stated in her evidence that the child NG’s teeth were in very poor condition. She stated that the child NG had significant holes in all of her teeth, and one tooth had a complete open part of the tooth decayed. MKA described NG’s teeth as “shocking”. The child needed dental assistance forthwith.

[42] More alarmingly, MKA stated that NG could not chew her food. She would tear up her food, such as a sandwich, and poke it in her mouth and suck on it since her teeth were so rotten that she could not chew. On one occasion the foster mother stated in her evidence that she handed the child NG a toothbrush. The child stated that she did not have one at home and asked the foster mother what it was to be used for.

[43] The foster mother stated that the child NG required eight fillings, three root canals and a permanent tooth pulled.

[44] She further stated that when NG came to her home she, i.e. the child NG, was crying and clinging to RM. The child NG needed a bath and clean clothes. It was apparent her hair had not been combed and she had not eaten in a long time. The foster mother also stated that she had to teach NG and the other children basic sanitation. She further stated that it was very apparent that the children had speech impairments.

[45] The foster mother stated in her evidence that NG’s speech problems were corrected quickly and at the end of grade one, NG was age appropriate in her speech. In her initial testing at grade one the child NG tested at the zero level, which was way below the other children. With the commencement of appropriate programs NG is now on target. The foster mother also stated that NG’s first school report card was D’s. By the end of the year it had moved to C’s, and in the last year NG was attaining A’s and B’s. Further, the child NG has a tutor who has worked with her and the last mark that the child received was a 92 in mathematics.

[46] With respect to the child RM, the foster mother MKA indicated that he had black decay in the bottom of his mouth. The family dentist reported that this was beyond his area of expertise and the child RM was referred to a specialist. RM, when he first arrived, could not eat ice cream due to extensive tooth decay. RM has had, upon entering into care, four root canals and the insertion of four stainless steel crowns. In fact, the foster mother indicates “RM has a mouth of metal now”.

[47] Further, it was clear that RM needed speech therapy at school. He has obtained this speech therapy and the foster mother has reported that he is much better, not yet age appropriate but very close. RM is on target for his reading.

[48] Further, the foster mother reported that both NG and RM are doing very well. They have routines that are consistent. The children are very happy in foster care.

[49] The evidence of the foster mother is clear and uncontroverted. The court accepts her evidence unequivocally that the children have made significant gains and are doing well in foster care. Her evidence is uncontradicted and reliable, and accepted by the court.

Sandra Saczkowski

[50] Sandra Saczkowski was the family services worker who worked with the family from July 2009 through to January 2010. She testified that her intent was to work with the family via a voluntary services agreement and was to prepare a plan so that the mother LM could eventually have the children back in her home if she made and sustained progress.

[51] The concerns expressed by Ms. Saczkowski were expressed as well by others at the CCAS.

[52] Ms. Saczkowski’s concerns included:-

• When she went to the home of the mother, none of the children could communicate;
• The two older children had no language capacity when they clearly should have had language capacity;
• The child RM had no speech at all;
• LM said she was not open to the Early Words speech therapy as recommended because she (LM) had a bad experience with BM (her very first son) and “they ask too many questions”;
• Following through for mom was a challenge;
• She did not feel LM and JG were being forthright and honest with her;
• RM was registered for school one month late;
• LM did not wish to work with CCAS;
• The state of the home was a constant concern with debris all over, trash not put out, dirty dishes everywhere, and strong and foul odour throughout the house;
• Lots of information that she was receiving was discrepant with the information given by LM;
• She was unable to obtain signed consent for information from NG’s school when the CCAS had concerns;
• The children were not to be with their father JG, yet there was some evidence that they in fact were;
• LM did not follow through on a number of issues dealing with the children.

[53] The court accepts the evidence of Ms. Saczkowski. Again, this is evidence which is unchallenged and is further supported in the evidence raised by others at the CCAS.

Stefania Martelli

[54] Stefania Martelli provided evidence as a child protection worker employed by CCAS. She was the family services worker for LM from January 15, 2009 to July 15, 2009. She provided affidavit evidence by way of an affidavit sworn September 23, 2011, which affidavit contains 101 paragraphs.

[55] Her evidence is accepted by the court and uncontroverted.

[56] She expressed concerns regarding the state of the home that the four children were residing in, the adult conflict in the home, and the mother’s refusal of services for the family.

[57] As an example, paragraph 30 of Ms. Martelli’s affidavit states as follows:-

On March 18, 2009, LM’s neighbour, Ms. S, called police regarding conflict. When police attended the home, they were concerned about the state of the home. AM did not have diapers on and the children were sleeping on the floor. They hallway was cluttered so it was blocking access to the stairway. There were pots stacked up with old food in them, food wrappers and cans stacked up. There was old food all over the table and dirty clothes everywhere. Police called After Hours Emergency Service (“AHES”) workers for assistance. AHES attended the home and advised that LM and the children could not remain at the home due to the condition of the home. AHES drove LM and the children to LM’s friend …

[58] It was the evidence of Ms. Martelli that the mother LM blamed the neighbour and justified not looking after the home as a result of difficulties with the neighbour. Ms. Martelli advised LM that even though there were difficulties with the neighbour, she still had to maintain a proper home for the children. I accept her evidence that she advised the mother that her home needed to be safe and clean for the children.

[59] LM made excuses indicating that ordinarily the cleanup of the home was not a problem and that it was only because she had been stressed out as a result of the actions of JG and the neighbour.

[60] Ms. Martelli’s evidence deposed that on another occasion, approximately April 22, 2009, four police officers and a fire truck attended at the home of LM. On that occasion LM had called the police to report mischief with the neighbour. When police called back they could not obtain an answer from an adult as the children had answered the phone and therefore the police and fire truck attended personally. On that occasion the police reported that JG was outside and three of the children were alone inside the house. One of the officers noticed a strong smell of gas from inside the home and asked the father JG to open the door to air out the house. JG initially refused. He later consented when officers advised him that they were prepared to knock the door down. According to Ms. Martelli’s affidavit, when the officers went into the home they found three of the children, RM, DG and AM, not dressed, and the younger child was lethargic due to gas exposure. DG had contusions and scratches on his back. The fire captain had to shut the gas off and air the house out. When Ms. Martelli entered the home with the officer she described the home as “filthy and unkempt to the point of being hazardous and unhealthy”.

[61] Ms. Martelli advised the father JG that the state of the home was unacceptable and hazardous. When the mother LM returned to the home she stated that she (i.e. LM) did not believe the home was hazardous. Ms. Martelli stated in her evidence that it was apparent that LM did not understand why the home was hazardous when she spoke to her.

[62] Ms. Martelli further advised that on May 21, 2009 when she attended at the home unannounced, she again found the home in an unclean state, with dishes everywhere in the kitchen, living room with food and crumbs on the floor and everywhere.

[63] At times, Ms. Martelli stated, LM could do some tidying up but she could not maintain it on a week to week or consistent basis. Further, Ms. Martelli stated in her evidence that LM was unable to deal with RM’s speech issues. LM had made some attempts to deal with RM’s speech issues but did not follow through and at the end it always seemed that other issues interfered with her being able to address RM’s speech issues.

[64] Ms. Martelli stated in her evidence that the child NG disclosed seeing her parents fighting. She saw her mother with scratches on her face and her father with a bleeding nose.

[65] The court accepts Ms. Martelli’s evidence that from her observations the mother LM is simply not able to do what she needs to do to maintain a safe and proper environment for her children.

Lori Martin

[66] Ms. Lori Martin has been the child services worker since February 1, 2010 for the four children. Her evidence is provided in an affidavit sworn by her dated September 30, 2011 containing 309 paragraphs and a substantial number of attached exhibits. Ms. Martin, as well, expressed concerns regarding the children’s severe dental neglect, severe and significant speech delays, and the mother not following recommendations regarding obtaining services for the children. Further, Ms. Martin noted the mother did not follow the advice of medical professionals regarding the care and nutrition of the children.

[67] Ms. Martin’s evidence is uncontroverted that the children all made significant gains since being admitted into care.

[68] Ms. Martin stated in her evidence that the dentist treating NG recommended oral sedation due to the number of sites requiring treatment. She further stated that the child NG did not know what a toothbrush was when taken into care or know how to use a toothbrush. She stated that the child NG reported that she did not have a toothbrush at her mother’s home. NG’s dental surgery cost approximately $3,000.

[69] The court notes that the affidavit of Lori Martin included photographs taken by NG’s foster mom when she was admitted into care. The photos are very alarming and concerning as the extent and severity of the dental neglect would have been very obvious to anyone, yet the mother LM did nothing. This is of serious concern to the court. Ms. Martin also noted that the child had to push her food to the back of her mouth to eat as she was unable to use her rotten teeth.

[70] Further, Ms. Martin confirmed, as had also been stated by the foster mother, that the child NG started in the Early Words program and by June 2010 NG’s speech was “up to par”.

[71] Further, it was discovered that the child NG was behind in her immunizations, but the mother LM was not sure what was outstanding.

[72] The evidence supports that in May 2006 medical records produced for the court noted that the child NG was not speaking clearly and it was suggested to the mother that she attend to the Early Words program, but the mother LM was not interested. It is further in the evidence of Ms. Martin that the mother LM had great difficulties taking care of NG even when she was an only child. It is reported in the evidence, which the court accepts, that the child NG asked one of the workers, “Why can’t two persons (parents) take care of one kid?”

[73] Ms. Martin also reported that the child RM had three root canals, three fillings, and three steel crowns. Further, after the child RM attended the Early Words speech therapy he has substantially improved. Further, the evidence confirms that medical records show that the mother LM did not follow medical advice regarding RM’s weight and his weight dropped to the 10th percentile.

[74] The worker’s evidence is that when she first met the child DG in February she could not decipher any words he attempted to communicate. However, since then he has made substantial gains in his speech and currently more than one-half of DG’s speech can be understood. Furthermore, by July 2011 DG had made significant gains in his speech.

[75] The child AM was placed in their current foster home with his brother DG on the 22nd of December 2009. The child AM was seen by Early Words on February 17, 2010 for evaluation and Early Words reported that the child presented with “delay in expressive language and speech”.

[76] I accept the evidence of Ms. Martin that the child AM has made significant gains since being in care and is now in the average range for language comprehension. Further, Ms. Martin states that the child AM, along with the other siblings, has been exposed to chronic neglect and has had significant exposure to domestic violence.

[77] Ms. Martin notes that in her contacts with LM, LM seemed unable to understand what staff had to say and felt that she had never purposely hurt her children. Ms. Martin noted that when staff approached LM to give her direction, LM does not seem able to change her behaviour to accommodate her children.

[78] More importantly, Ms. Martin stated in the evidence that the reasons why the children were apprehended were discussed with LM, but “not much has since changed”. LM blamed JG’s family, however she was advised that dental and speech neglect was not JG’s family’s doing. This was something she did not follow up on. LM was advised she was the primary caregiver at the time and that she did not correct the issue while the children were in her care.

[79] Ms. Martin further stated the visits that took place with the children were considerably chaotic. Often the children were running around the townhouse complex with no supervision and crossing the streets alone. The child DG was running to the Dickie Dee truck unsupervised. LM allowed the child NG to go unsupervised at an unlocked public washroom in the park.

[80] Ms. Martin described the child NG as “parentified”, meaning that the child takes on the role of a parent because the child feels the parents cannot do their job properly. This was also noted in the report of Dr. Niec and the CAAP assessment.

[81] Ms. Martin noted that by August 4, 2011 the children had been in care for approximately 18 months and the visits were still supervised and full of significant ongoing problems with little correction by LM.

[82] The court does note that Ms. Martin did state in her evidence that “LM made some nice meals but not consistent”. The court further notes that the child NG wrote a note asking her mother LM for more food for herself and for her brother RM.

[83] The evidence of the CCAS child services worker Lori Martin is uncontroverted and undisputed, and the evidence is accepted by the court as credible, reliable, and trustworthy.

Alice Kneebone

[84] Alice Kneebone is a family resource worker employed by the CCAS and filed an affidavit sworn October 3, 2011. Her affidavit also included detailed notes of supervised visits with respect to the children from January 26, 2010 through to September 28, 2011.

[85] She advised that she supervised approximately 70 visits between the mother LM and the four children. Some 16 visits were with JG and LM and the children.

[86] Her duties included observing and documenting interactions between the parents and the children or parent and children during supervised visits. Ms. Kneebone, as with other service workers, also stated in her evidence that the mother LM was not able to follow through on suggestions or advice to assist her children. Ms. Kneebone stated that she would give LM techniques to help her children but LM simply did not follow through. She stated the mother LM “cannot do this consistently and has to be constantly reminded. The children do not know what the visits will be like each time they come.” It was Ms. Kneebone’s evidence that while at times one can point to good visits, there are still numerous concerns.

[87] Notably, when asked whether Ms. Kneebone saw improvements in LM over a period of time, she stated, “LM did not improve without direction”.

[88] The concerns of Ms. Kneebone included:-

• LM did not recognize that the children left the visits with dirty hands, faces and clothes;
• LM did not recognize the importance of sanitation after bathroom use, playing outside or before eating;
• Seldom able to fit doing homework during visits;
• Unable to enforce mealtimes at the table;
• Unable to structure routine so the visits were chaotic;
• LM unable to discipline the children;
• LM did not discourage the children from being rude to adults and encouraged rudeness;
• LM unable to control the children’s behaviour;
• LM struggled to maintain a positive relationship between friends and family;
• When direction and suggestions were offered, LM stated she would not comply.

[89] The court accepts the evidence of Ms. Kneebone. It stands as largely undisputed evidence.

Sandra Eckersley

[90] Ms. Eckersley was the child protection worker from CCAS who attended with four police officers on December 20, 2009 to apprehend the children.

[91] She stated in her evidence that she was the after-hours worker who went to LM’s home with the police officers to apprehend the children and found the home very dirty, unkempt, and uninhabitable. She stated that the floors were filthy, both the upstairs and downstairs, and that the house was one of the worst that she has seen. Clothing was mounded all over with nowhere to sit.

[92] Ms. Eckersley stated that at the time she apprehended the children, there was an overwhelming smell of feces and urine in the house. At that time, Ms. Eckersley stated that the mother LM said that they didn’t live there. However, Ms. Eckersley stated that what she saw clearly suggested that the family lived there. She saw a room that could be clearly identified as a girl’s room and was the room of NG. She stated that she saw a boy’s room that had two beds, one of which had no mattress, the other one a bed frame only. She stated clearly the children had told her these were their rooms and they had slept here the night before.

[93] Ms. Eckersley stated that the “filth” in the house could not have just happened, but had to be an accumulation over an excessive period of time.

[94] The evidence of Ms. Eckersley is accepted by the court as truthful and reliable.

Beata Flic

[95] Ms. Flic was tendered as an expert on adoption and provided an adoption feasibility report. She stated that she met all four children, as well as the foster parents. She described the children as attractive, engaging, interesting, and children who were curious. She stated that it would be very rewarding for someone to parent these children.

[96] Ms. Flic stated that she is very confident that the CCAS will be able to provide a family for adoption for all of the children. Her first choice would be all four children together. However, she did acknowledge that if one family cannot adopt all four of the children, then the CCAS would be looking to two families so that NG and RM would be together with one family, and DG and AM would be together with another family. She further testified that at the time of trial currently on their waiting list there are three families interested in sibling groups. I accept her evidence that, while there can be no guarantees, it is likely that all four of the children will be adopted if such an order is made by the court.

THE EXPERTS

Dr. Anne Niec

[97] Dr. Anne Niec is an expert qualified to give opinion evidence on child maltreatment, parenting, and pediatrics. Dr. Niec is a member of the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program at McMaster Children’s Hospital. A report was prepared by the Child Advocacy and Assessment Program (hereinafter referred to as the “CAAP report”) at McMaster Children’s Hospital dated April 1, 2011. Dr. Niec is one of the five experts and team members who assisted in the completion and preparation of the report.

[98] The court clearly accepts the expert evidence of Dr. Niec as credible, trustworthy, and completely uncontradicted by any other evidence. The report of Dr. Niec and her team is alarming to the court insofar as it describes the maltreatment suffered by these four children at the hands of their parents.

[99] The CAAP assessment states at page 26 as follows:-

Given the information obtained from the children, the collateral informants and documentation provided by CCAS, it is CAAP’s opinion that all four children have been significantly impacted by their exposure to maltreatment in the parents’ care. Specifically, the children were exposed to a neglectful parenting environment that at times failed to meet their basic needs (food, shelter, hygiene, health) and also failed to meet their emotional, cognitive and social needs. In addition to neglect, the children were exposed to intimate partner violence between LM and JG.

Children exposed to intimate partner violence are at increased risk of physical harm given their proximity to the aggression between the adult caregivers. However even when children are not directly physically harmed, exposure to intimate partner violence through witnessing aggression directly or experiencing the aggression indirectly (hearing or witnessing injuries and chaos afterward) has negative consequences for children. Specifically, children exposed to intimate partner violence are more likely to experience interpersonal violence in their future intimate partner violence. Additionally, the trauma associated with exposure to intimate partner violence can undermine the child’s attachment relationship with their adult caregivers such that the child is no longer able to trust that their parent, the person responsible for keeping them, can keep them safe. The impact of exposure to intimate partner on children is mediated by variables including age of the child, developmental functioning, and the quality of the parenting in the home and the parental response. It is erroneous to believe that young children are not impacted by exposure to family violence because of their cognitive immaturity and resiliency factors. In fact, younger children and infants may have some of the most negative outcomes with repeated exposure to violence. DG and AM were not able to share their experiences of family violence given their age and limited verbal ability, nevertheless they would have experienced the same sensory information associated with the violence as their siblings and experienced these events as dangerous.

In addition to exposure to violence, the children’s needs were severely neglected in all developmental domains (physical, emotional, cognitive and social) while in their parents care. Neither LM, nor JG followed up on appointments for the children to address their delays nor did they address their physical care issues in a proactive way. The collateral documentation reviewed by CAAP suggests that the children’s exposure to inconsistent, neglectful parenting environment has been long standing. The CCAS affidavit material (Affidavit of Ms. Saczkowski, December 23, 2009) identified that NG was found in need of protection (2005). NG was placed in the care of her father for a period of time. During CCAS subsequent involvement, there were repeated concerns regarding the state of the mother’s home. When the children were apprehended, they were found to be dirty and living in a home that was “hazardous and unsanitary.”

All of the children were noted to have made gains since coming into care. This has been particularly evident with their language skills and cognitive development. In addition for the three oldest children, their dental health was addressed aggressively once in care thus the children no longer suffered from the pain and discomfort of rotting teeth. The gains the children have made suggest that their delays were at least in part a result of the parenting environment in their parents’ care.

It is CAAP’s opinion that all four children require parenting by caregivers who can provide a nurturing and stable parenting environment free from violence and caregivers who can address the children’s needs in all domains (physical, emotional, social and academic) in a timely manner. Given the children’s needs, their caregivers will need to be able to work cooperatively with health and service providers to address the developmental and academic needs.

[100] With respect to NG, CAAP’s assessment and findings are very alarming. The findings include, as found on page 29 of the report, as follows:-

It is CAAP’s opinion that NG’s early life experiences and exposure to child maltreatment, while in the care of her parents, negatively impacted her emotional functioning, physical health, and her academic functioning and ability to be successful at school.

NG was exposed, along with her siblings, to an inconsistent and unpredictable parenting environment, which included ongoing adult conflict. NG often assumed responsibility for shielding her younger siblings from verbal conflict and physical violence between her parents. She described that she had to take her brothers upstairs when her parents were fighting. She described at least one situation whereby both her parents were bleeding due to a physical altercation between them.

In addition to the trauma associated with exposure to intimate partner violence, NG’s basic needs were neglected. Upon admission to care, NG significant tooth decay that required dental surgery. It appears that NG was not taught basic self-care strategies. For instance, she was unaware of how to use a tooth brush. There were also concerns reported with respect to lack of supervision, in that NG disclosed to other sources that she had been left at home alone at night. During her interviews with CAAP, NG denied that her parents ever left her and her siblings alone; however this theme was repeatedly expressed as part of her discourses with CAAP.

With respect to NG’s physical health and development she seems to be on par at this point. However, as mentioned above, the dental concerns have greatly impacted her physical health. So much so, that when she was brought into care she had to push her food to the back of her mouth to eat it as she was unable to use her rotten teeth. The foster parents noted that since having dental surgery NG fills her mouth full of food such that her cheeks are expanded and asks for seconds at every meal. Currently, NG still requires pull-ups at night and the foster parent reported that she was wet most mornings. Additionally, she had two soiling accidents shortly after being placed in the foster home. Although some children NG’s age experience night time enuresis, NG’s difficulties should continue to be monitored. It is possible, given the timing of NG’s soiling accidents that her toileting difficulties are related to emotional dysregulation and anxiety. CAAP recommends that NG attend for further pediatric assessment and follow up with regard to her difficulties with enuresis.

CAAP has concerns regarding NG’s emotional/behavioural development specifically with respect to her self-esteem and sense of self-worth. CAAP has concerns that NG has assumed a parentified role with her siblings. NG is affectionate with RM and when they first entered care, NG reportedly assumed responsibility for comforting RM when he cried at night. She also tended to speak on RM’s behalf and was very protective of him. During the observation session between LM and the children, NG was also very protective of her other siblings and regularly expressed concerns about their safety. Collaterals have reported that NG was often required to act as a caregiver in the parents home, and would regularly change her siblings’ diapers on her own. Although older children often help care for younger children, the responsibility that NG assumed for her younger siblings during the time that they resided with the parents was beyond what should be expected developmentally for her. When children are given too much adult responsibility it can distort their world view and their capacity to trust that their adult caregivers will take care of them. It is CAAP’s opinion that NG assumed responsibility for her younger siblings because she did not trust that the adult caregivers were able or available to provide the care that the children needed. This lack of trust in the ability of the adult caregivers to appropriately take care of them was further complicated by NG’s exposure to intimate partner violence and conflict. Placing children in this position increases risk for future emotional/psychological difficulties. It was noted that NG did express some animosity towards RM, likely because she was often responsible for his care.

CAAP did not formally assess NG’s cognitive functioning however there is evidence from the collateral documentation and interviews that support that NG’s academic functioning has been significantly compromised due to the neglect that she experienced in her parents’ care. The CCAS records support that NG missed a great deal of school. When she first entered foster care, NG’s speech, language and reading skills were delayed. She was unable to read however, since her placement in care, NG has made significant gains. It is CAAP’s opinion that NG’s academic lags were due to lack of school attendance, school readiness skills, and support in her academic achievement while she was in her parents’ care rather than an underlying learning disability. The fact that NG enjoys school, is bright, and hardworking are protective factors. NG currently receives academic support at school and would likely benefit from this ongoing support future academic success. Previously there were concerns about NG struggled with speech difficulties; however, when she presented at CAAP she was easy to understand and converse with.

[101] With respect to the child RM, the CAAP report at page 32 states:-

RM described enjoying foster care and feeling comfortable with his foster mother, but having less time with his foster father. RM talked about learning an approach to dealing with frustration from his foster mother. He consistently described exposure to fighting between his parents and referred to this as “really hard fighting.” Although he denied being physically hurt as a result of his parents fighting, it is of note that he described his feelings as being hurt. According to RM, he witnessed his father hit his mother “lots” of times and his mother hit his father, however it was clearly his mother about whom he expressed concern about being hurt. RM defined being hurt as “hitting, punching, kicking.” RM referred to this exposure as “awful” and stated clearly that he did not want his parents to fight.

In summary, RM has an expressive language disorder, a phonological disorder and oppositional symptoms. He does not appear to meet the criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder at this time, however, he clearly has vivid memories of the violence between his parents and the police involvement in the apprehension. At least some and perhaps all of his symptoms are related to a history of neglect, exposure to intimate partner violence and possible physical abuse. It is encouraging that RM appears to respond well to caregivers who understand his needs and can set appropriate limits in the context of affective and supportive interactions

[102] Regarding the child DG, the CAAP report states:-

In addition to his physical health, DG was identified with significant delays in all domains upon his admission to foster care. DG functioned below his chronological age of four years and more like a two to three year old. DG was not able to dress himself, nor was he toilet trained. His speech was profoundly delayed. In August 2010, Early Words (Hamilton Preschool Speech and Language Service) assessed DG with a severe articulation disorder. Additionally, there were concerns regarding expressive and receptive language skills. DG was using fewer words and shorter sentences than would be expected for a child of his age and his speech difficulties e.g. pronunciation errors were not typical for his age. Since his placement in foster care, DG has received ongoing speech and language services.

Socially, DG has reportedly demonstrated limited social skills. He was not able to appropriately interact with peers. DG’s emotional/behavioral functioning also appeared compromised. He reportedly “screeched” a lot and often appeared frustrated. DG’s frustration and emotional/behavioural dysregulation may be in part due to his language delays and his inability to communicate. Children who have difficulties expressing themselves tend to show their frustrations with negative behaviors such as aggression with peer and less interactive and cooperative play with peers.

Children exposed to intimate partner violence often experience constant fear in their environment. DG was exposed from before a year of age to this chaotic unpredictable environment. As a result, these children often have difficulty establishing nurturing bonds with the parental figures in the home. These children tend to show more anxiety, low self-esteem, depression, and anger and temperament problems than children who do not experience maltreatment in their home. These issues will only continue to escalate and become more serious if not addressed with appropriate resources and most importantly, a structured, stable, and consistent care giving environment that recognizes his needs and is able to appropriately address them with nurturing, patient, non-reactive parenting.

Since his placement in foster care, DG has made significant gains. His speech and language skills have improved, he is currently almost fully toilet trained, he has more energy and is starting to show affection and asking for hugs. Despite the gains that DG has made, DG remains vulnerable for future difficulties.

[103] With respect to the child AM, the CAAP report notes as follows:-

Even though AM was the youngest of the siblings in his birth home, he has been negatively impacted by the environment in his parents’ care, most obviously in his development. Young children exposed to intimate partner violence can be affected and display dysregulation in their mood, can experience feeding issues and difficulty in relationships (as noted above when discussing this in DG’s impression). AM will require care taking that can attend to his needs and support his developmental gains, anticipate potential health issues and address them in a timely manner. He would benefit from socialization in a daycare setting in order to learn appropriate rules and terms of engagement with other children rather than being influenced by DG’s limitations.

[104] The recommendations of the CAAP team are noted on page 36 and include recommendations as follows:-

It is CAAP’s opinion that all four children require parenting by caregivers who can provide a nurturing and stable parenting environment free from violence and caregivers who can address the children’s needs in all domains (physical, emotional, social and academic) in a timely manner. Given the children’s needs, their caregivers will need to be able to work cooperatively with health and service providers to address the developmental and academic needs.

Given the ages of the children, they require stability and permanency in a long term stable parenting environment.

NG’s academic functioning has been compromised due to neglect. Although she has made significant gains since her placement in foster care and appears to be achieving at her grade level currently, CAAP recommends that NG receive ongoing academic support at school to ensure ongoing academic achievement.

It is important that RM’s school has some understanding of the violence that he was exposed to in his parents’ care in order to assist him with any aggression or anger that might arise at school.

DM requires ongoing pediatric monitoring and follow up given his developmental delays.

AM will require ongoing pediatric monitoring and follow-up given his developmental delays and his medical issues.

[105] It is clear from the evidence of Dr. Niec, which is accepted by the court, that the delays, for example with respect to the child NG, were environmental and not brain related or related to a brain dysfunction.

[106] Dr. Niec stated in her evidence with respect to the child RM that he clearly exhibited aggression in interactions and this is the outcome of children who witness domestic violence. RM’s behaviour is consistent with having witnessed domestic violence and there was a concern regarding his aggression and his development.

[107] DG had significant speech delays in all areas. He had significantly improved in foster care.

[108] The child AM also had speech and language issues as well as emotional and behavioural functioning issues. Dr. Niec noted that he huddled around the foster mother who constantly had to reassure him that he would get his food and snacks.

[109] The court finds it notable that in the face of all this evidence, the mother LM stated that, although there was fighting between herself and JG, the children did not see violence. The mother was adamant in this position in the face of evidence clearly from the children that they did view actual domestic violence.

[110] Dr. Niec noted that victims of domestic violence such as LM require assistance and understanding. More particularly, mental health issues take literally years to resolve. This can only be done with therapeutic support. However, Dr. Niec noted, and the court agrees, this cannot be an excuse on the part of LM for the severe maltreatment of children.

[111] The report of the CAAP team, together with the other evidence, creates significant concerns for the court about the ability of the mother to meet the needs of these four children.

Dr. Kimberly Harris

[112] Dr. Kimberly Harris, a psychologist and mental health expert with the London Family Court Clinic, prepared a report dated September 23, 2011 for the purposes of assessing the mental health of LM under s.54 of the Child and Family Services Act. The assessment was prepared with the consent of all parties including LM and the Hamilton Children’s Aid Society.

[113] The question for the report was essentially what is the mental health of LM as it pertains to her ability to parent her four children.

[114] The report prepared by Dr. Harris, as well as her evidence, stands as credible, trustworthy, and uncontradicted. The report is a stark reality of untreated complex post traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) suffered by LM. Dr. Harris notes that she (i.e. LM) “is at risk of victimization until her issues are resolved”. She further noted that this level of abuse can impact others. The abuse suffered by LM affects self-esteem, level of fear, and makes it difficult to leave an abusive situation and trust others.

[115] Regarding LM’s relationship with her stepfather who sexually abused her as a young child, Dr. Harris states that after a period of trauma, one’s normal alarm bells are depressed so LM would not recognize serious alarm bells because her experiences are far worse. This leaves her vulnerable with all sorts of risk.

[116] Dr. Harris further stated that LM is seeking counselling regarding the trauma associated with the CCAS apprehension of her children but she is not seeking counselling for other traumas. LM feels that she is recovered from her childhood and adolescent traumas, but Dr. Harris stated nonetheless in her evidence that much more work is required to be done.

[117] Dr. Harris described LM as paranoid, exhibiting lack of trust, a person who finds it difficult to take suggestions from CCAS and who is crisis driven and runs to people less healthy for comfort. It was noted by Dr. Harris that LM burned her prior mental health assessment “as a healing ritual” and a copy was not provided to anyone.

[118] Dr. Harris further stated that LM does not see the children’s interests as the primary focus in her life. The primary focus in her life is to protect herself. Dr. Harris in her report further described LM as having “cognitive-executive dysfunction”. Dr. Harris stated that this is significant since it indicates LM has difficulties with the executive part of the brain that deals with planning, solving problems, so problems that arise in everyday life would be extremely difficult for her. Further Dr. Harris described LM as more easily overwhelmed than a normal person. Yet Dr. Harris also noted that LM “believes that the only thing she has ever done wrong is stay with JG.” This is an important statement as it shows, according to Dr. Harris, that LM has a complete lack of understanding as to how an individual becomes trapped and how to get out.

[119] Dr. Harris states that LM has a distorted perception of what has gone on with her historically and this is not yet resolved for LM. Dr. Harris further stated in her evidence that to keep the psychological trauma deep down takes resources, so LM has less resources and ability to deal with day to day issues. An important part of Dr. Harris’s evidence is that the symptoms or concerns of complex post traumatic stress disorder do not go away with the passage of time without therapeutic intervention.

[120] Dr. Harris described in her evidence several stages of intervention with the first stage attempting to stabilize the person by ensuring safety and building trust as a groundwork to confront the trauma. The first stage alone could take as little as one year or decades depending on the person and how much courage they have to face the trauma. Dr. Harris noted that the trauma of LM is on the extreme, therefore this could possibly increase the length of time.

[121] According to Dr. Harris, the second stage of treatment is to confront the trauma. This process is difficult and emotionally stressful. Dr. Harris noted that adding children is more stressful.

[122] Dr. Harris noted in her evidence that an aggravating factor for LM is her belief that she is healed from historical trauma, which will require additional work. Dr. Harris further noted in her evidence that added difficulties for LM are that she has no real positive support network and the presence of her stepfather in her life is a concern, as well as the lack of her own relationship with her mother. Further, young children raised by a parent with complex post traumatic stress disorder have attachment difficulties and it is difficult for the children to feel secure. A child raised by such a parent, according to Dr. Harris, has no secure base to explore the world and thus no coping skills.

[123] Dr. Harris’s evidence was clear that a person suffering from complex post traumatic stress disorder needs to resolve their trauma before they can parent children. It is clear, according to Dr. Harris, that LM needs heavy duty long term therapy which could take years. The therapy is difficult because it is confronting horrible repressed actions and emotions.

[124] Progress is made through therapy only and LM has not yet made much progress. That is why it is still recommended and largely unresolved.

[125] Dr. Harris noted clearly in her evidence that one cannot overcome the trauma of complex post traumatic stress disorder without heavy duty long term therapy. This complex trauma does not resolve on its own. In fact, Dr. Harris stated in her evidence, “She could never overcome this on her own”. Dr. Harris further stated, “The therapy at some point will become horrible. Four children in her care would be very difficult.”

[126] On page 22 under “Summary and Conclusions” a portion of the report of Dr. Harris reads as follows:-

LM is a woman with a prolonged trauma history extending back to her childhood and includes familial sexual abuse, non-familial sexual abuse, domestic violence, and the apprehension of her children. In light of her history, LM impressed as a strong and resilient woman. However, abused individuals typically don’t outgrow the problems of their past and the impact of the traumas to her mental health and functioning has been significant. Currently, LM’s presentation is consistent with Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (also called Disorders of Extreme Stress Not Otherwise Specified; van der Kolk, 2002). This diagnosis applies to individuals exposed to trauma over a variety of time spans and developmental periods, such as with child abuse and domestic violence. Traumatic experiences of this sort tend to compound, such that if you experience one type, you are more likely to have suffered multiple traumas over the years. This is the case with LM.

Perhaps the most concerning problem area has been LM’s pervasive problems with self-regulation over the years. She has engaged in numerous maladaptive methods for emotion regulation and self-soothing including drug and alcohol use, self-harm (suicide attempts), and high risk behaviour (prostitution). LM has had difficulty modulating her anger at times as well. Individuals with Complex PTSD often experience even minor distress as overwhelming. Moreover, people who have been traumatized in their own families may have difficulty taking care of their own basic needs including hygiene, rest, and protection, even though they may be able to do this for others. LM acknowledged feeling very tired and having difficulty with home management in the past, particularly during periods of stress. In the context of parenting, although there may be food in the cupboards and clothes in the closets, the parent’s safety, level of fatigue, and ability to take care of their own needs has a direct impact on the well-being of the children. For example, the physical safety of a toddler and emotional safety of a child at any age would be in jeopardy by exposure to a parent’s suicide attempt.

… Although LM was able to recount, in factual terms, her trauma history with the assessor, she repeatedly insisted that it had been dealt with and did not need to be processed on a deeper level, such as in a therapeutic setting. There was also some evidence that LM can be avoidant at times, for example, she didn’t tell the assessors about some important traumatic events in her last mental health assessment (2004).

Unresolved trauma results in a lack of insight into the various triggers that can affect a person’s functioning. Moreover, poor memory for events (or accurate sequencing of events) can lead to further confusion and distress. People interacting with LM, including the assessor, have inadvertently touched on sensitive topics that become a source of conflict. When this has occurred, LM is quick to blame the other person for “making assumptions” or not “ask[ing] better questions.” The assessor discussed with LM the importance of recognizing her own triggers but this is clearly an area of growth for her. With regard to parenting, poor insight can result in a parent misinterpreting information from the children or about the children; injuries sustained might be interpreted as having a traumatic/abuse origin; rambunctious peer interaction might be interpreted as menacing.

Distortions in LM’s self-perceptions emerged over time. She presents a tough shell and initially feelings of guilt, responsibility, and shame were only evident on testing. She has no doubt incorporated the lessons of abuse into her sense of self-worth. For example, it was concerning that LM talked about her only mistake being that she stayed with JG. To the assessor, this suggests a lack of understanding about domestic violence, how one becomes trapped, and that she had more control than she did to escape the situation, and thus she attributes more responsibility to herself than is warranted or healthy. LM also talked about wanting her children to know that she tried everything to make her relationship with their father work, so that they would grow up in an intact family. It was only when the assessor challenged LM about the value of imparting a message that one must try to make relationships work at all costs that LM reflected on how she wouldn’t want her children to experience or perpetrate domestic violence. A parent’s perception of themselves and the world are passed on to their children, whether directly or inadvertently. Similarly, distortions in thinking, left unchecked, can be passed on to children and impact their functioning in important ways.

A hallmark problem area in Complex PTSD is disrupted relationships with others. LM’s family relationships impressed as complicated with unresolved feelings of anger and resentment toward her mother and reconciliation with her abusive step-father. LM described her step-father as remorseful and that she had forgiven him. She explained that there is little physical affection and that she could never trust him to care for her children but that he is a major support to her. The assessor wonders the extent to which her renewed relationship with her step-father is healthy, constrained by appropriate boundaries, and does not prolong the power and control dynamic that would have existed over the years that he was sexually abusing her. This would be a question to be teased out over the course of therapy. Related to this is LM’s belief that she can spot the red flags and “read people like a book”. This represents an exaggerated sense of competence that can impact parenting in a number of ways; by reducing the parent’s promotion of their child’s independence out of fear, by ignoring contextual factors that can impact a person’s trustworthiness over the course of a relationship; or by an overreliance on one’s gut feeling (a feeling that perpetrators are experts at circumventing).

One of LM’s most significant challenges is her lack of trust in others. Individuals with Complex PTSD typically believe that people are self-serving and out to get whatever they can by whatever means possible. LM’s lack of trust has affected her ability to make use of services offered to her and to build an effective circle of support and accountability. …

[127] Dr. Harris’s conclusion is, “there is little doubt that LM is in need of individual psychotherapy from a skilled and experienced therapist who understands her presentation and is versed in best practice intervention for Complex PTSD”.

[128] The report is most concerning to the court as it clearly reveals that the mother LM has serious unresolved trauma issues which, by the time of trial, she had barely begun to deal with. The stark reality presented in Dr. Harris’s report is that it could take decades for LM to resolve the issues or indeed they may never actually resolve. This is concerning for the court since it leads to the inevitable conclusion that children placed in her care would remain again at serious risk of maltreatment.

EVIDENCE OF THE MOTHER (LM)

[129] The evidence of the mother LM was evasive, less than truthful, and sadly at times clearly exemplified the characteristics of a diagnosis of complex PTSD as outlined in the report of Dr. Harris.

[130] The mother states that she has made progress and now proposes that she could parent the four children under a CCAS supervision order.

[131] The mother in her evidence has blamed everyone else including JG and CCAS for her particular predicament but does not address the maltreatment and the neglect of the children while the four children were principally in her care.

[132] The mother believes that reconnecting to a step-father who sexually abused her as a child poses no risk to her or her children. She states he is a major financial support for her. She states the children will never be put at risk, according to her evidence. This is a troubling issue for the court and exemplifies the extreme lack of judgment on her part.

[133] On the issues dealing with her home and the cleanliness in the home, the mother blames JG stating he helped to destroy the home, he threw food around, smashed bowls, etcetera.

[134] With respect to the children’s speech issues, the evidence is clear that the Early Words intervention program was clearly suggested to the mother on many occasions by various persons. However, it is clear in the evidence that she did not follow through. However, the mother stated she did not take NG to a speech therapist, but she did it through a parenting class which she “thought was good enough”.

[135] The evidence is full of scenarios where suggestions were made to the mother to deal with, for example, speech issues with the children, and the mother LM simply did not follow through. On one occasion the mother LM stated that she did telephone the Early Words program but they did not call her back. She attempted to use this as a justification for her children’s nonparticipation in this very important program to assist with their speech. It was only after much prodding that the mother LM finally admitted that she did not take the child NG to speech therapy and did not follow through.

[136] On another instance LM was asked why the child NG who was three years old did not have her 18-month immunization. LM responded that she “had difficulty getting files from the doctor”.

[137] At times during her evidence, when medical reports did not accord with LM’s version of events, LM simply dismissed the reports as being mistaken or the person making the report was not telling the truth.

[138] It is very clear in the evidence that the mother LM has not followed through on numerous recommendations made to assist her with the children. For example, she has not followed through on matters dealing with the speech, dental care, or the organization of the access visits. When asked why she failed to do so, LM stated, “It’s too complex to answer”.

[139] Sadly, this mother’s inability to comprehend the children’s needs and her lack of ability to follow through has clearly put the children at great risk and in grave danger.

[140] It is very clear that the mother LM is a victim of complex trauma, a victim of abuse and neglect; however, the diagnosis of complex PTSD and the abuse that she has suffered as a young person cannot be justification for the maltreatment of four children.

[141] The children are in critical stages in their lives and the issues of the mother may resolve way down the road or, sadly, not at all.

[142] The evidence supports that the children have been making progress since they were brought into care and that progress must not be interrupted.

[143] Sadly, it is very clear to the court that if these children were again placed in the care of their mother, severe maltreatment would continue.

[144] Further, it is clear to the court that, based on the evidence, which the court accepts, this mother should focus on therapeutic intervention to resolve her multiple traumas.

Mona Aziz-Zamisa

[145] Ms. Mona Aziz-Zamisa is the case manager in the mental health program at the Aboriginal Health Centre in Hamilton since March 2010. Her evidence is that in July of 2010 she started assisting LM and was still assisting her at the time of trial.

[146] She stated that the focus from July 2010 to the present was on LM’s trauma and coping strategies for trauma survivors. She stated in her evidence that she also had a meeting which included Dr. Harris. She stated that she did not focus on parenting issues with LM.

[147] In cross-examination she stated that although she had been involved with LM since July 2010, there had been only six face-to-face meetings by the time she was presenting her evidence at trial. Further, LM did not provide her with the previous 2005 mental health assessment, and further, LM did not provide this counsellor with the CAAP team assessment. In fact, Ms. Aziz-Zamisa was not aware of the CAAP team assessment.

[148] Ms. Aziz-Zamisa stated in her evidence that in the first stage of trauma treatment the process could be two to three years. She further stated that the length of time for the second stage depends on many factors, but she would normally not deal with the second stage.

[149] She has historically dealt with individuals with complex PTSD but works only through the first stage and passes the second stage on to others.

[150] The court accepts the evidence of Ms. Aziz-Zamisa as clear, trustworthy, and credible. Her evidence confirms, as well, that the mother LM is only in the very beginning stages of therapeutic intervention. There is no doubt she has a long way to go.

[151] It is clear that the mother has just barely begun to scratch the surface regarding the counselling and assistance she requires to deal with the trauma and stressors in her life and the results of the complex PTSD.

Friends of LM

[152] A number of LM’s friends gave evidence at trial. Her friends collectively have given evidence that they did not observe inappropriate behaviour of the mother with the children. Two of LM’s friends stated in their evidence that the children were always happy, that they never witnessed unsafe play, and the mother’s home was clean with lots of toys. They testified that they never saw situations of concern and did not recall any problems with LM.

[153] Another friend stated that the mother’s home was “lived in” but tidier than hers. She further stated she never heard the mother LM raising her voice to the children.

[154] Further, a fourth friend stated that the condition of the mother’s house was “amazing”. She stated it was clean and the decorations and pictures are “all amazing”. She stated there were no issues with odours or smells and no safety concerns.

[155] Simply put, the court prefers the evidence of the experts, such as Dr. Harris and Dr. Niec as well as the CCAS witnesses, over the evidence of the friends of LM who state in their evidence that they see no issues between the mother and the children.

Juanita Peters

[156] Juanita Peters presented prenatal classes at the Living Rock Ministry. Ms. Peters met the mother LM approximately six years ago. She stated that during the time that the mother attended the prenatal classes at the Living Rock Ministry she had no problems with LM. She stated LM would participate in classes and have her children there and that she saw no problems with LM multitasking.

Rhea Wilson

[157] Ms. Wilson was a facilitator at the prenatal program at the Living Rock Ministry. Ms. Wilson advised that she met the mother LM four years ago while the mother was pregnant.

[158] Rhea Wilson is a registered midwife. She stated that LM was very appropriate with her children to the best of her recollection. Ms. Wilson stated that LM could manage multiple children at a time and could not recall any safety concerns or lack of supervision concerns.

[159] It is clear that Ms. Peters and Ms. Wilson had minimal exposure to the mother for a very short period of time and are not aware of the evidence disclosed in both of the experts’ reports and further in the evidence presented by the CCAS.

Sherri Case

[160] Ms. Sherri Case is employed as a child development worker at the Hamilton Urban Core Community Health Centre.

[161] Ms. Case stated that she first became involved with the mother LM in November of 2008 when she came to the Early Steps program. This program was in a group setting and it was assisting children to become involved and taught articulation and pronunciation. She worked with the mother from November 2008 until October 2009.

[162] It was the evidence of Ms. Case that her program was not to treat language problems. And it is clear that she was not a speech therapist and clearly stated that to LM. Ms. Case clearly stated in her evidence that she never advised the mother LM that she was addressing speech delays. Her program is simply meant to encourage the children’s speech.

[163] In fact, on an occasion the witness, Ms. Case, stated that she suggested the Early Words program to LM but LM stated that other parents did not have good experiences with the program.

[164] Based on the evidence of Ms. Case, it ought to have been very clear to LM that this was not the speech therapy that had been recommended to the mother.

LEGAL ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

[165] There is a two-part process in a protection application. Firstly, the court must ascertain if the four children who are the subject of this protection application are in need of protection according to s.37(2)(b)(i) and s.37(2)(b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act as outlined in the amended application of the CCAS dated July 5, 2011.

[166] Sections 37(2)(b)(i) and 37(2)(b)(ii) of the CFSA state as follows:-

(2) CHILD IN NEED OF PROTECTION - A child is in need of protection where,

(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,

(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or

(ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child.

[167] Based on all of the evidence which the court has accepted, there is a finding that all four children are in need of protection. The court in coming to this conclusion relies on the evidence of the experts, particularly the report of Dr. Niec, the inescapable conclusions and observations of the CAAP assessment, and the evidence of the various CCAS workers who interacted with the children and LM and JG.

[168] The second phase of the process is governed by s.57(1) of the CFSA, where having found that the children are in need of protection, the court is required to determine the order which is in the children’s best interests.

[169] In determining this, the court is to consider s.70 of the CFSA which sets out the total length of time that the children can remain Society wards. In the circumstances of these four children, all statutory time limits have now expired. Thus, the court has only two options pursuant to the CFSA and that is either Crown wardship or the return of the four children to their mother LM.

[170] The court must decide based on the children’s best interests. The criterion to be considered for the best interests of the children is outlined in s.37(3) of the CFSA.

[171] The mother LM requests that the children be returned to her, and the CCAS and the OCL request an order for Crown wardship.

[172] I have considered all of the relevant factors as set out in s.37(3) of the CFSA.

[173] I have considered all of the evidence as it pertains to the children’s best interests and the available options to the court.

[174] It is abundantly clear to this court, based on all the evidence, that the return of these children to LM cannot be an option. I have no hesitation in concluding that it is clearly in each child’s best interests that he or she be made a Crown ward.

[175] Crown wardship would provide these four children the stability and consistency which they require in their lives. It will ensure ongoing treatment and follow up to address all of their needs. It will ensure that progress continues to be made to address the effects of their past severe maltreatment at the hands of their mother LM.

[176] It is abundantly clear that the mother LM cannot parent these children. She has only barely just commenced to obtain the therapy required to deal with her multiple levels of trauma.

[177] These children cannot, and must not, be subjected to maltreatment again. Clearly the issues for LM are not resolved. Crown wardship will provide permanency and a nurturing parenting environment which all four children require.

ACCESS

[178] Section 58 of the CFSA permits the court to make an access order under these circumstances.

[179] Further, s.59(2.1) of the CFSA provides as follows:-

(2.1) ACCESS: CROWN WARD – A court shall not make or vary an access order made under section 58 with respect to a Crown ward unless the court is satisfied that,

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

(b) the ordered access will not impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption.

[180] Thus, once an order for Crown wardship is made, the CFSA then places the onus on LM to show that an access order is appropriate. Here, the mother LM must satisfy both elements in s.59(2.1) before access will be ordered, that is, that the relationship is beneficial and meaningful to the children and an access order would not impair future opportunities for adoption.

[181] Firstly, in determining whether the relationship is beneficial and meaningful to the children, the court must consider the evidence of the severe maltreatment of these children at the hands of LM. Further, the mother’s trauma issues are largely unresolved and, indeed, it may be decades before they are resolved if at all.

[182] I conclude that there can be no beneficial and meaningful relationship that these children can have with LM.

[183] I adopt the reasoning of the court in Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. M.J., K.S. and S.S. (2004), 2004 CanLII 2667 (ON SC), O.J. No. 2872, where the court stated as follows:-

… Using standard dictionary sources a “beneficial” relationship is one that is “advantageous”. A “meaningful” relationship is one that is “significant”. Consequently, even if there are some positive aspects to the relationship between parent and child, that is not enough – it must be significantly advantageous to the child.

[184] I further adopt the reasoning of the court in Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. J.C. (2007), 2007 CanLII 8919 (ON SCDC), O.J. No. 1058, where the court stated as follows:-

… The only positive factors which the trial judge identified in regard to the mother’s relationship with the children at the time of trial was that she loved the children, the children loved her, and through her access she conveyed to the children that she loved them and wanted to be part of their lives. Standing alone, these findings were inadequate to satisfy the requirement that the relationship between the children and their mother was “beneficial” within the meaning of s.59(2)(a). More is required than love, the display, the fact that the mother had cared for the children in the past, the fact that the mother was the biological parent, and the fact that some visits were pleasant especially when various negative factors impacting on the children’s emotional health were identified.

[185] I have no doubt that LM loves her children, and they love her. This however cannot avoid the sad reality of the mother’s life and past experiences of these children. The mother’s untreated complex PTSD prevents a meaningful and beneficial relationship for these children with their mother.

[186] Thus, the mother LM has not met the onus required in s.59(2.1), that is, that her access with the children is beneficial and meaningful.

[187] Further, s.59(2.1) of the CFSA places the onus on LM to show that an access order would not impair the children’s future adoption opportunities.

[188] Ms. Flic, on behalf of the CCSA, stated in her evidence that any access order may have the effect of dissuading potential adoptive parents. Thus, this could impair the permanent placement of these children, and the evidence as presented by Ms. Flic is accepted by the court.

CONCLUSIONS

[189] The only inevitable conclusion with respect to these four children is an order for Crown wardship with no access.

ORDERS MADE

[190] Findings made:

I. The four children NG born […], 2003; RM born […], 2005; DG born […], 2006; and AM born […], 2008 are found to be,

(a) not having or eligible for Native or Indian status;

(b) of the Roman Catholic faith;

(c) in need of protection pursuant to s.37(2)(b)(i) and s.37(2)(b)(ii) of the CFSA.

II. The four children NG, RM, DG and AM shall be made Crown wards without access for the purposes of adoption.

Maddalena, J.

Released: March 16, 2012