Court File and Parties

Citation: CAS Niagara v. M.U., 2012 ONSC 2797

Court File No.: 498/11

Date: 2012-05-08

Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: The Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region

And: M.U.

Before: Mr Justice Ramsay

Counsel: Mr T. Hanrahan for the Society Ms L. McKenzie for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer Ms Foluke Ololade for the mother

Heard: 2012-05-08 at St Catharines

Endorsement

[1] The Society moves for summary judgment on an application for Crown wardship with access. The child has been found to be in need of protection. The remaining issue is which, if any, of the dispositions in s.57 of the Child and Family Services Act to make. The mother wants the child to come home to her, without supervision. She would accept supervision if necessary. Counsel for the Children’s Lawyer supports the Society’s motion.

[2] The child is 12 years old. She was taken care of by her mother until the age of 10 and a half. At that point, the mother gave her care over to the Society temporarily because of “[the child’s] behaviour and [the mother’s] own health issues.” The mother was suffering from oral health problems, headaches and fatigue. The child was completely out of control.

[3] The child was admitted to the care of the Society by agreement on October 19, 2010. She remains in care yet. The agreement was extended once. When the mother refused a second extension, the Society apprehended the child. At first the child resided in foster care. From June 27, 2011 she has resided at a group home in Waterloo. In June the Society proposes to move her to a similar group home in Grimsby, which will make for less travel on weekends, when she goes home to her mother and maternal relatives for an overnight visit. The Society proposes to continue access as well.

[4] The Society has been involved with the family for two generations. They have had involvement with the child on 15 occasions since she was three months old. Many of the incidents were not serious. Some give rise to concerns about neglect. None of them resulted in apprehension.

[5] The child has very high needs. She has been diagnosed with a developmental disability, visual impairment, mild autism and a possible tic disorder or Tourette syndrome. Her developmental age is behind her chronological age by a significant margin. She has trouble controlling her bowels. She presents challenging behaviours of an aggressive nature. Obviously, she needs to be raised in a setting where highly knowledgeable caregivers are able to impose structure and take care of her needs in an understanding way.

[6] The mother has her own special needs, which include cognitive setbacks. She has a brain tumour that gives rise to physical consequences. The tumour is shrinking, but it does not impair her ability to be take care of a child, so its improvement will not increase her ability. The mother’s limitations are related to intellectual deficits and lack of insight into the level of care that is required for this child’s particularly high needs, together with lack of external supports.

[7] The Society investigated kinship placement with the grandmother and her husband. Their conclusion, that it would not be apt, was obvious. The grandmother displays insufficient insight into the child’s condition and how to cope with her behaviours. The grandmother has her own history of involvement with the Society that reveals that she has had difficulty raising her own children. She did not succeed in protecting three of them from sexual abuse during childhood. Finally, the grandmother has little by way of support or family resources to deal with this child’s particular needs. The same can be said of the mother.

[8] The initial foster placement broke down in June 2011. In the early stages of her residence in the group home, the child expressed the wish to go home to her mother. She tried unsuccessfully to run away from the group home. She has had incidents of conflict with other girls. All of the incidents were investigated and handled appropriately by the authorities. I do not accept the mother’s contention that the group home is not a safe environment. I think that it is quite safe and that the child has contributed to what conflict there has been. This child is difficult to manage. I cannot imagine any setting in which there would be no problems at all. I note the Sunday School teacher’s report of the child’s improving behaviour in the last three years. Some of that must be credited to the care that the Society has provided in the last year and a half.

[9] The child told he lawyer, “I want to go home.” She did not say why, although asked. The child had just returned from a visit to her mother. Her true wishes cannot be determined. While relevant, they would not be decisive given her own understandable lack of insight into what it will take to raise her properly.

[10] I think that on any view of the evidence the conclusion is inevitable that the mother cannot take care of the child herself. She lacks the intrinsic and external resources to take care of this particularly needy child. No sufficient placement short of permanent foster care appears to me to be available on the evidence, including placement with her mother with supervision by the Society.

[11] At the same time, the child has a meaningful relationship with her mother and her maternal family. The Society’s proposal for Crown wardship with access strikes me as a reasonable and restrained proposal to give the child the help she needs without depriving her of her family.

[12] The Society’s written plan of care does not involve adoption. The Society plans to assign a child care worker to see that the child’s needs are met in foster care, and to maintain the relationship with the biological family through regular access. The plan involves access to community resources for the child, and for the opportunity to pursue her identified religion. It seems inescapable to me on the record as a whole that this child will continue to require the extensive support that only the Society can provide until she achieves the age of majority. There is no genuine issue for trial. An order will go as asked.

J.A. Ramsay J.

Date: 2012-05-08