WARNING
The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file:
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 deal with the consequences of failure to comply with subsection 45(8), read as follows:
– (8) No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.
– (3) A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)( c ) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
DATE: 20120618
DOCKET: FS-12-17837
RE: CAST, Applicant/Respondent in Appeal
AND:
L.C. (mother) and D.H.G.C. (Father) Respondents/Appellants in Appeal
BEFORE: Czutrin J.
COUNSEL:
Estee Garfin , for the Applicant/Respondent
Michael Weissenborn , for the Respondent/Appellant (Mother)
HEARD: June 4, 2012
ENDORSEMENT
[ 1 ] The Appellant, mother L.C., appeals the judgment of Madam Justice Curtis ( “motions’ judge”) of the Ontario Court of Justice (O.C.J.) dated December 30, 2011, where she made the children L., born […], 2004 and B., born […]
[ 2 ] , 2006 ( “the children”) Crown Wards. The children were found to be in need of protection under ss. 37(2) (b) and (g) of the Child and Family Services Act ( CFSA ). The parents did not oppose the finding.
[ 3 ] The motions’ judge heard the Children’s Aid Society’s (“Society”) motion for Summary Judgment on August 3, 2011. The finding was made on August 3, 2011.
[ 4 ] While making the protection finding and granting the Summary Judgment for Crown Wardship, the motions’ judge ordered a trial of the issue of access.
[ 5 ] I read the motions’ judge’s reasons and since the motion proceeded on affidavit material, I had the same evidence that she did.
[ 6 ] Without opposition, I also received fresh evidence on the Appeal from the mother and the Society.
[ 7 ] The mother’s proposed disposition was that she would care for the children and continues to live with her mother (the maternal grandmother) and that her mother “would provide some assistance … as may be required to ensure the safety of the children and that their needs would be met”.
[ 8 ] Sadly for the mother, the fresh evidence is consistent with mother having continued issues with substance abuse, failing to follow through with Family Services Toronto and that she did not continue to live with her mother. The mother advised on April 12, 2012 that she was now planning for the children with a man who has a history of drug issue.
[ 9 ] In mother’s affidavit, providing fresh evidence, she deposed that she commenced living with this man as of November 2011 and separated May 22, 2012.
[ 10 ] She returned to her mother.
[ 11 ] The mother’s Appeal focused on the motions’ judge’s failure to follow the CFSA pathway and thereby submitted that the motions’ judge committed an error of law. In particular, she submitted the motions’ judge failed to consider the mother’s plan with her mother’s assistance.
[ 12 ] The children have been in care since December 2009. (In excess of two years at the time of the reason of the motions’ judge and my hearing of the Appeal.)
[ 13 ] I find no error of fact or in law by the motions’ judge.
[ 14 ] She followed the correct pathway and applied the correct legal test when consider a child protection motion for Summary Judgment.
[ 15 ] The mother was not in any position to have these children return to her care and no amount of supervision, unless round the clock, would have protected her children given the mother’s history of drug use and admitted failure to follow through services and ability remain free of drug use for very long.
[ 16 ] At para. 49 of her reasons, the motions’ judge correctly outlined the options available to her for these children and also considered the Society’s efforts (para. 50) and at para. 51 considered “less disruptive alternatives”. More specifically, she referred to “Family members” in para. 52. Paragraph 59 specifically refers to the mother’s plan to live with her mother.
[ 17 ] I am satisfied that she considered the mother’s proposed plan.
[ 18 ] The motions’ judge’s conclusions about the mother’s poor judgment are unfortunately again confirmed by the fresh evidence.
[ 19 ] The motions’ judge’s conclusion in paras. 83, 84 and 85 support the disposition. In reviewing the evidence, had I been asked to rule in the first instance, would have resulted in the same disposition.
[ 20 ] The Appeal is therefore dismissed.
Czutrin J.
Released: June 18, 2012