CAS Niagara v. J.M. and R.E.

CITATION : 2012 ONSC 2779
COURT FILE NO.: 224/11
DATE: 2012-05-08

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: Children’s Aid Society of Niagara

AND: J.M and R.E.

BEFORE: Mr Justice Ramsay

COUNSEL:
Ms Kim Hertwig for the Society

Mr Edward Kravcik for the mother

Mr Keith R. Newell for the father

HEARD: May 7, 2012 at St Catharines

ENDORSEMENT

[ 1 ] These are my reasons for suspending access by the parents pending the disposition of the status review.

[ 2 ] The child, born […], 2011, has been in foster care since March 29, 2011. She was apprehended because she was malnourished. On May 16, 2011, Caroline Brown J. made a final order making the child a ward of the society for five months. The idea was to give the parents time to become fit to take care of the child. According to the evidence of the Society, they did not.

[ 3 ] The child continues to thrive in care, despite serious special physical needs. The Society now seeks Crown wardship without access, for adoption.

[ 4 ] The mother has not filed an answer or plan of care. I have given her 7 days to do this.

[ 5 ] The father's plan of care is simply to take the child home to care for her with the mother, who herself has special needs and a history of inability to take care of this child. He says that he stopped smoking marijuana in October 2011, the better part of a year after the child’s apprehension. He has taken couples counselling and no drug counselling has been recommended. He gives various excuses for missing access meetings. Nothing is said to address the mother’s demonstrated deficits.

[ 6 ] Neither party has pointed to any prospective evidence that addresses the very serious needs of the situation. Unless this changes, the prospect of an order for Crown wardship without access is highly probable.

[ 7 ] In the mean time, the child is in limbo. She needs a permanent family, whether adoptive or biological. If the parents continue to stall, her best interests will not be served. She will become less and less adoptable while they hang on to her, only to visit her when it suits them. Suspension of access at this point will serve two purposes. It will minimize the disruption in taking the child, a toddler, away from what, to her, is her home and parents, and it will encourage the parties to get on with defending the application. The parents will suffer no disadvantage if they act with dispatch.

J.A. Ramsay J.

Date: 2012-05-08