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.

CITATION: CCAS v. J.T.,R., M.B., 2012 ONSC 3893

COURT FILE NO.: C1472/10

DATE: 2012-07-12

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton

Applicant

• and –

J.T.

R.B.

M.B.

Respondents.

Office of the Children’s Lawyer

Mona Anis – counsel for the Applicant

Sean Heeley - counsel for J.T. and R.B.

Gary Livesey – counsel for M.B.

Robert Charko

HEARD: April 23,24,25,26,27,28; May 1,2,3,4,9,10,11; and June 19,20, 2012.

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PAZARATZ

Overview

1. Four children were the subject of this lengthy Crown wardship trial:

a. P.P. born […], 2001 – an 11 year old boy.

b. I.T. born […], 2006 – a five year old girl.

c. C.B. born […], 2010 – a two year old boy.

d. S.B. born […], 2011 – a one year old girl.

2. J.T. is the mother of all four children.

3. P.P. was born of J.T.’s unmarried relationship with D.P.. D.P. died in 2003.

4. J.T. then lived with M.B. for four or five years until late 2008/early 2009. M.B. is the biological father of I.T.. He is represented by Gary Livesey.

5. In September 2009 J.T. started living with her current partner R.B.. C.B. and S.B. are their biological children. J.T. and R.B. are both represented by Sean Heeley.

6. In August 2010 the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (“the Society”) apprehended P.P., I.T. and C.B. from J.T. and R.B.. P.P. and I.T. were placed with M.C. and D.C., while C.B. was placed in a separate foster home. The following summer S.B. was apprehended at birth, and placed in the same foster home as C.B..

7. M.C. and D.C. are Society foster parents. But they are also grandparents of these children. M.C. is J.T.’s father. D.C. is J.T.’s step-mother.

8. At the outset of the trial, parents’ counsel consented to protection findings.

9. The Society seeks Crown wardship with respect to all four children. Society Counsel Mona Anis summarized:

a. P.P. would remain with M.C. and D.C. in a long term foster placement. His access to J.T. and R.B. would be in the discretion of the Society, taking his wishes into account.

b. I.T. would remain with M.C. and D.C., with the expectation that they would adopt her. M.B. would have access. J.T. and R.B. would have no access.

c. C.B. and S.B. would be placed for adoption, and have no access to J.T. or R.B..

10. J.T. and R.B. ask that all four children be returned to their care, under Society supervision. They propose that C.B. and S.B. be returned first; followed by I.T.; and eventually P.P.. They propose that M.B. could have access to I.T..

11. M.B. however asks that I.T. be placed in his care, under a supervision order. He agrees that J.T. should have access to I.T..

12. Robert Charko represents only P.P. and I.T. through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”). Charko agrees with almost all of the Society’s request. He agrees I.T. should remain with M.C. and D.C., with generous access to M.B.. However, while the Society says J.T. and R.B. should have no access to I.T., Charko proposes that they should be allowed access – in the discretion of the Society.

13. Thirty three witnesses testified during this 13 day trial, including Dr. Daniel Ashbourne who prepared a lengthy parenting capacity assessment which supports the Society’s position. Notably, R.B. did not testify in relation to his joint plan with J.T.. He walked out of the courtroom on the morning of day 10 (while one of the Society workers was testifying) and he did not return until the 13^th^ day when counsel made submissions.

14. As well, on June 19, 2012 – more than a month after the trial ended – counsel re-attended to provide me with fresh evidence concerning M.B., by way of an agreed statement of facts.

WITNESS #1: MICHAEL DEJONGE (Society Intake Worker)

Witness #1: Michael DeJonge (Society Intake Worker)

15. Society intake worker Michael DeJonge was involved with the family between November 19, 2009 and February 23, 2010 when the file was transferred to family services worker Colleen Richardson.

INITIAL REFERRAL

16. DeJonge testified he responded to a referral to the Society from Doug Hazlett a social worker at Lynnwood Hall. P.P. was attending Lynnwood Hall at the time and Hazlett expressed concerns about:

a. P.P.'s behaviour.

b. P.P. reported that R.B. had used foul language in the home.

c. P.P. said J.T. and R.B. were arguing in the home.

d. P.P. reported that he and R.B. had shared medications.

e. Hazlett had concerns that J.T. was becoming indifferent with respect to her care of I.T..

f. Hazlett had concerns that some of P.P.'s behavioural problems at Lynnwood Hall might have been affected by his home situation.

17. DeJonge testified that when he spoke to then eight year old P.P.:

a. He denied being fearful of R.B..

b. He denied that he had been physically disciplined by R.B..

c. He denied sharing medications with R.B. or that R.B. had ever given him more than a prescribed dose of medication.

d. He said R.B. sometimes used bad language in the home but not very often.

e. P.P. recalled an argument in which R.B. called J.T. a "cock sucker" and told her to "fuck off". However P.P. said the couple did not argue very often.

f. P.P. recalled one time he and I.T. were briefly left alone at home with the family dogs while R.B. went to a grocery store.

18. DeJonge testified when he subsequently spoke to J.T.:

a. She admitted a specific argument in which R.B. used the offensive language quoted by P.P., but she said R.B. didn't say things like that very often.

b. She denied there was any history of domestic violence between herself and R.B..

c. She had no concerns about R.B.’s relationship with P.P..

d. She stated her previous partner M.B. had been violent to her, and as a result she would never allow another man or partner to be violent to her in the future.

e. Despite her insistence that R.B. had not been violent toward her, she stated she would be willing to meet with a transitional support worker at the Society.

MORE REPORTS

19. DeJonge testified that a few weeks later he was again contacted by Lynnwood Hall about P.P. spitting on another child. P.P. expressed fear of going home -- specifically fear of having his mouth washed out with soap. J.T. later admitted to DeJonge that periodically she and R.B. had threatened to wash P.P.'s mouth out with soap. But she said they always told the boy they weren’t really serious about this.

20. P.P. subsequently told DeJonge privately that:

a. He had not been fearful of R.B..

b. He had not been afraid to be sent home following the spitting incident (despite the report from Lynnwood Hall to the contrary).

c. He was not genuinely afraid of having his mouth washed out with soap.

d. There had been no more arguments between J.T. and R.B. since the last time he had spoken to DeJonge.

e. P.P. then said he didn't want to answer any more of DeJonge's questions.

21. DeJonge testified that according to J.T., P.P.'s behaviour within the home was not an issue. She felt her son’s real problems were at Lynnwood Hall. She described P.P.’s misbehaviour as his "choice", and insisted it wasn’t related to anything going on in the home.

22. DeJonge testified that R.B. subsequently stated:

a. P.P. had some behavioural issues, but R.B. felt there was little he could do because he wasn’t the biological father.

b. R.B. speculated the referral to the Society had been malicious.

c. He felt D.C. was making life more difficult for the parties.

d. He said that while he and J.T. argued periodically, it was about financial issues and there was no physical fighting.

e. He suggested a possible solution for tensions in the home would be for Lynnwood Hall to provide either summer respite for P.P., or even a placement for the child.

23. However J.T. told DeJonge she didn't feel she needed a break from caring for P.P., and she would feel "guilty" and "bad" if P.P. went to stay at Lynnwood Hall.

24. DeJonge explained his background check was delayed because R.B. used several different first names. Eventually he learned R.B. had been involved with the non-Catholic Society in Hamilton concerning a previous partner, and there were concerns about domestic violence in that case.

25. DeJonge testified he transferred the file to an ongoing service worker because:

a. He was only involved in short-term intake, and he felt the family needed ongoing assistance.

b. He had concerns about P.P.’s ongoing behavioural problems.

c. He was concerned about the level of conflict within the home and the possibility of domestic violence between J.T. and R.B..

d. He was concerned about the parents’ capacity to provide financially for the children.

e. J.T. was pregnant with her third child.

26. He admitted he had no concern about the state of P.P.’s home, and he understood the boy had made some gains while at Lynnwood Hall.

27. DeJonge’s brief testimony was primarily to establish the background for the Society’s involvement. He was a very straightforward, credible witness, and his evidence was not significantly challenged.

WITNESS #2: COLLEEN RICHARDSON (Society Protection Worker)

Witness #2: Colleen Richardson (Society Protection Worker)

28. Child protection worker Colleen Richardson was cross-examined in relation to her 248 paragraph affidavit sworn March 12, 2012 which was filed by the Society as her evidence in chief. She was the family service worker between March 1, 2010 and January 26, 2011 – which spanned the period when P.P., I.T. and C.B. were apprehended.

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 MEETING

29. Richardson described attending at P.P.’s residence on February 23, 2010 with DeJonge. Initially they spoke to J.T. while R.B. remained elsewhere in the home. J.T. said R.B. was reluctant to talk to the Society because he had previous involvement with another Children's Aid Society which did not go well. J.T. said she hoped her file could be closed before she gave birth to her third child in the summer.

30. Richardson said after a while R.B. stormed into the kitchen and began yelling and swearing at the two Society workers. She said he paced while talking and made grand hand gestures. She said J.T. spoke softly to him and encouraged him to sit down and speak with them. Richardson recalled that despite J.T.'s efforts to calm him, R.B. would not engage in conversation and stormed out of the home while telling J.T. not to talk to the Society.

APRIL 2010

31. Richardson said that in April 2010 Hazlett advised her that he had been working with the family on themes of "safety and consistency". Hazlett reported that he did not have any current safety concerns about R.B., and P.P. had not reported any further incidents in the home. Hazlett said he was working with R.B. to help him understand that P.P. viewed him as a permanent figure, and to encourage R.B. to share parental responsibilities with J.T..

32. In April 2010 D.C. advised Richardson that her main concern was the level of stress J.T. seemed to be under. D.C. also expressed concern:

a. J.T. was experiencing such serious financial difficulties she could not afford to buy medication for P.P..

b. J.T. had cancelled P.P.’s last appointment with paediatrician Dr. William Connor.

c. P.P. complained to her about tooth pain. He had not been seen by a dentist in at least two to three years.

d. P.P. reported his clothes constantly smelled of dog urine because of the dogs in the home.

e. P.P. told her R.B. screamed at J.T.: "If you hadn't quit your fucking job I wouldn't have to fucking support you."

33. J.T. later told Richardson the dogs in the home were causing stress, and one of the dogs repeatedly urinated everywhere.

34. Richardson testified that through the spring of 2010 she had concerns about the state of the home. The residence smelled of dog urine and sometimes dog feces, and there were stains on the carpeting. She also said the house was quite messy and there were fruit flies in the kitchen. She agreed under cross-examination that J.T. and R.B. attempted to respond to her concerns: They removed the carpeting and replaced it with tile. They cleaned up the kitchen.

35. Richardson recalled an April 16, 2010 meeting at the home, where R.B. made it very clear he did not want the Society involved. She said during the meeting he became aggressive, spoke loudly, and walked away from the table while yelling at the child protection worker. He blamed D.C. for most of their problems, and his anger escalated any time the discussion related to her involvement on the file. He warned it wouldn’t be a good idea for him to attend a family conference because he didn’t feel he would be able to control his anger.

36. Richardson said R.B. later explained he had a rough life. He left home after 11 years of watching his father drink and abuse his mother. He was in and out of jail until age 25, for thefts and assaults. He decided to turn his life around, and attended anger management and Alcoholics Anonymous, which he described as helpful. R.B. said he had not been involved with the law for the past eight years.

37. She said Hazlett commented that overall P.P. was doing quite well at Lynnwood Hall and he had noticed drastic improvements since P.P.'s medications were changed earlier in the year. J.T. said P.P. only had two diagnoses at that time: ADHD and separation anxiety.

38. Under cross-examination she agreed that Hazlett had expressed concerns about D.C. being "under responsive" to P.P.'s negative behaviours. She recalled that initially J.T. and R.B. had allowed D.C. to help with the children. When they asked her to stop, D.C. wasn't very happy about being “shut out.”

39. Richardson testified that during that April 16, 2010 home visit with Hazlett, initially P.P. and I.T. were playing outside with other children. But during the meeting she noticed that I.T. was sometimes left alone outside for extended periods while P.P. came into the house. On another occasion P.P. told Richardson that I.T. was often outside unsupervised.

40. Richardson said she attended at the home again on April 29, 2010, initially speaking to J.T.. Half an hour into the discussion R.B. joined them on the front porch. She said he described the Society’s involvement as "bullshit" and reiterated that he believed M.C. and D.C. had caused all their problems. He then disappeared in the house for about five minutes, came back outside with a backpack and stormed off. She said P.P. perceived that R.B. was breaking up with his mother.

P.P.

41. Richardson recalled a discussion she had with P.P. at Lynnwood Hall on April 27, 2010:

a. He was disappointed he had not been allowed to stay at D.C.’s home on the weekend.

b. He said J.T. told him he was not going back to D.C.’s home.

c. He said R.B. "comes home mad every day....yelling and cursing".

d. He said R.B. often engages in fights with J.T. and he sometimes heard dishes breaking. The boy was not sure who broke the dishes.

e. P.P. denied R.B. ever physically hurt him or I.T. but stated "I wish he would hit me, then I would kill him."

42. P.P. stated several times during the meeting that he wanted to live with M.C. and D.C.. Among his reasons:

a. He had mostly lived with M.C. and D.C. and he was happy there.

b. He got more attention at their home.

c. He did not like having to watch I.T. outside all the time.

d. He was more responsible than J.T..

e. He did not like J.T. and R.B. smoking in the home.

43. Richardson said J.T. later clarified that she was the one who broke the dishes, not R.B.. She said it "only happened on three occasions".

44. On May 4, 2010 Hazlett reported to Richardson that P.P. complained J.T. and R.B. accused him of being in their bedroom. He was warned that if this happened again he would be going to Lynnwood Hall for six weeks. P.P. reported being upset by this comment.

MAY 2010

45. Richardson said that on May 5, 2010 -- after police became involved because an officer found I.T. unattended at the townhouse complex – R.B. told her he agreed with the Society’s concerns. He said he had warned J.T. numerous times in the past that I.T. needed to be watched more closely.

46. When Richardson subsequently spoke privately to I.T., the young girl reported:

a. Sometimes her mother hit her on the bum because she peed her pants.

b. She also reported that J.T. sometimes hit her on her back and side, and demonstrated with a big swinging action with her arm.

c. She said R.B. sometimes yelled at J.T. and made J.T. cry. She denied that R.B. yelled at her.

47. J.T. subsequently told Richardson that R.B. sometimes confused her: At times he would be very calm, rational and reasonable. At other times he would fly off the handle and be paranoid that the Society was going to apprehend their baby at hospital.

48. Richardson testified she developed concerns about:

a. R.B.'s inappropriate manner around J.T. and the children.

b. The possibility of domestic violence.

c. Reports that J.T. had not been receiving very much prenatal care in relation to her pregnancy with C.B..

49. On May 18, 2010 J.T. expressed concern to Richardson about R.B.'s moody and erratic behaviour. She said he made derogatory comments about her father M.C. saying he would go to court if necessary to ensure that his child never had any contact with the paternal grandfather.

50. Hazlett told Richardson he was trying to help R.B. manage his behaviours.

JUNE 2010

51. Richardson gave multiple examples of R.B. being very aggressive, angry and uncooperative during the spring and summer of 2010. He would yell loudly, be confrontational, and talk about inappropriate subjects. She also testified about her initial contacts with M.B. in relation to his request for access to his daughter I.T..

52. On June 21, 2010 Richardson attended at J.T. and R.B.'s home unannounced. She gave the following evidence in relation to M.B.:

a. J.T. said when she ran into M.B. at a bus stop the previous day, he insisted he wanted access to I.T.. She said he had last seen I.T. “about a year ago.”

b. J.T. said based on that meeting M.B. was coming to pick up I.T. to take her out for dinner.

c. There was no custody order in place relating to I.T..

d. J.T. said to her knowledge M.B. did not have any current restraining orders outstanding against him.

e. She said she believed M.B. was last in jail for theft related charges.

f. J.T. said she did not feel I.T. would be in danger with M.B. as they were going to spend their time in the community together. However she said she would not be comfortable with M.B. taking I.T. to his residence because she did not know who he was currently living with.

53. Richardson gave the following evidence in relation to other discussions during her June 21, 2010 home visit:

a. R.B. joined Richardson and J.T. outside with the new baby, C.B.. R.B. reverted back and forth between being appropriate – for example handling the baby gently, talking to him softly, and changing his diaper – to yelling loudly and talking about inappropriate subjects on the front lawn.

b. R.B. talked about people in the survey, how some residents were trying to get them evicted, and that a neighbour had called the SPCA.

c. He spoke angrily about J.T. using the system to get emergency housing by stating that P.P. had "special needs" and that she was in danger.

d. He yelled at J.T. about M.B.: "The guy smacks you around, you get housing and then you let him come to your home."

e. While speaking about P.P., R.B. yelled and spoke about him in derogatory terms. J.T. did not intervene and did not disagree or try to stop him from speaking harshly about her son.

f. Richardson recalled R.B. was yelling so loudly that people across the complex could hear him.

g. R.B. said he believed P.P.'s misbehaviour was caused by spending the weekend at D.C.’s home, and not being disciplined properly.

h. Richardson told J.T. and R.B. that P.P.’s school said he was upset earlier in the day because he learned M.B. was going to pick up I.T. and spend time alone with her. P.P. was very protective about I.T. and wanted to keep her away from M.B. who he referred to as "the asshole". He was frustrated J.T. would not allow him to intervene. J.T. downplayed concerns that M.B. resurfacing in their lives would raise P.P.'s anxiety or cause him to misbehave at school.

i. P.P. came outside twice while R.B. was ranting about him and did not seem phased when R.B. directed his anger towards him by yelling about his lack of discipline.

j. When Richardson later spoke to P.P. alone, she asked if R.B. often spoke to him in that manner. P.P. replied that it happened "all the time" and "that was nothing".

k. P.P. stated it was often much worse and he did not understand why J.T. and R.B. could not send him to live with M.C. and D.C. because it was obvious to him that they did not want him.

l. J.T. later joined the discussion about P.P. going to live with M.C. and D.C.. She told P.P. it was a complicated decision and that she would miss him.

m. P.P. insisted he wanted to move to D.C.’s home and asked repeatedly if he could go that night.

54. When Richardson subsequently attempted to speak to R.B. about his derogatory comments concerning P.P., R.B. refused to engage in conversation and started yelling at her while pushing a baby carriage up the sidewalk. R.B. stated angrily he would not work cooperatively with the Society and they should take him to court. She said at one point R.B. advised that some of his family members had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He said friends and family suggested he should be further assessed for a mood disorder.

55. On June 22, 2010 J.T. told Richardson that M.B.had taken I.T. out for a 90 minute visit. J.T. told M.B. that if he wanted more visits, he would have to contact Richardson or work it out through a custody order. She said M.B. replied that he would not call the worker and that Richardson would have to deal with his lawyer.

56. Richardson gave the following evidence in relation to a telephone conversation with M.B. on June 24, 2010:

a. She asked to meet him but he declined because he worked long hours in roofing.

b. He said he didn't understand why he had to talk to Richardson since the Society was only involved with P.P., not him.

c. She told M.B. the Society was involved with the family, and she needed to know more about the people the children would be spending time with.

d. When asked about his criminal record, M.B. advised he spent four months in jail for theft and was on probation for eight months which ended May 25, 2010. "He stated that he had no further criminal history".

e. He said he last saw J.T. in October 2009 when J.T. called police falsely accusing him of harassing her. He said when police looked at his text messages they realized J.T. was lying about the relationship being over, and no charges were laid. He said the police officers suggested that he wait eight months until his probation order was over before attempting to contact J.T. to arrange to see I.T..

f. He said J.T. hid the fact that she had been involved with him up to the summer of 2009. He said they continued their relationship and he had unsupervised access with I.T. even though he was only supposed to be having supervised visits at the Society.

g. M.B. said he had no plans to seek custody of I.T. but wanted to take her out in the community for visits until he had a place of his own, at which time he wanted to have her for weekends.

h. M.B. refused to give his current address because he had no plans to bring I.T. there.

JULY 2010

57. On July 5, 2010 J.T. complained when Richardson brought another Society worker for a home visit. R.B. then joined the discussion and became very angry. Richardson described the scene as escalating on the front yard, with J.T. trying to calm R.B. who finally stormed off. Richardson said R.B. also became angry about D.C.’s involvement. He yelled loudly and became agitated while the children were present. When Richardson asked to speak to P.P. alone, she noticed J.T. give P.P. a stern look. P.P. then told Richardson he didn’t want her coming to the home anymore and he didn’t want to talk to her any further.

58. Richardson testified that on July 6, 2010 a neighbour called the Society to express concern about "crazy" behaviour by R.B. which included cursing, smashing things, throwing things, berating the children, throwing a baby carriage outside off of the porch, etc.

59. Richardson felt P.P. was being scapegoated by R.B., and feared he would direct all of his anger at P.P.. R.B. referred to P.P. as "this kid" and complained he "gets away with everything". He yelled about P.P.'s need for more discipline. He continued to make derogatory statements directly in front of the child.

60. Richardson expressed concern that – as before -- J.T. was present while R.B. was making hurtful statements directly to P.P., and she did nothing to intervene or defend the child. Richardson described R.B. as "ranting" – talking so loudly and quickly, in a nonstop manner, that no one could get him to stop or calm down.

C.B.

61. Richardson agreed that after C.B. was born on […], 2010, for a period of time J.T. and R.B. seemed to be managing well. The house was cleaned up. R.B. seemed to be doing a good job preparing bottles for the baby.

62. She recalled there wasn't always enough food in the house and several times -- at J.T.'s request -- she took her to a food bank.

63. Richardson testified that as the summer progressed J.T. was cooperative and working hard with the Society. But for the most part R.B. was not cooperative and his demeanour was quite unpleasant and volatile.

JULY 12/10 LETTER TO R.B.

64. On July 12, 2010 Richardson sent a letter to R.B. outlining the Society’s views with respect to his strengths -- and also areas which required improvement or correction. Her comments included the following:

a. The children were being negatively impacted by witnessing angry outbursts and adult conflict.

b. The behaviour witnessed by Richardson and others was extremely concerning because children, even very young children, are impacted by witnessing adult arguments, angry outbursts and volatile behaviours.

c. She confirmed she had discussed with J.T. and R.B. the impact their behaviours can have on a child's brain development and emotional well-being -- but she had not noticed any change.

d. She expressed concern P.P. is often singled out as the source of the family's troubles and consequently he is the target for R.B.’s anger.

e. Richardson commented that given P.P.'s history of experiencing emotional abuse by J.T.'s previous partner, and his current emotional and behavioural challenges, it was extremely concerning that P.P. continued to be exposed to a hostile and unpredictable environment.

f. She confirmed R.B. previously admitted it would be useful to explore his impatient and explosive nature with a doctor. However, R.B. never followed up by making an appointment. Richardson confirmed she left a list of doctors with R.B. and invited him to see a doctor and inquire about a full mental health assessment as soon as possible.

g. She confirmed the state of their home – especially the dog urine and feces in the family room and back patio – continued to be a problem. She acknowledged R.B. had been working on this for the past few weeks and it was noticeably cleaner when she attended the home the previous week.

h. She also highlighted family strengths – R.B.'s demonstrated ability to provide appropriate care for C.B. (properly preparing his bottles; changing his diapers; and attending scheduled doctors’ appointments).

i. Richardson confirmed there was a noticeable change to the state of the home during a recent visit and she described this as very positive and highlighting the ability of R.B. to prioritize and get work accomplished.

j. She also acknowledged that occasionally she had observed that R.B. could discuss matters in a calm and appropriate manner.

k. She suggested a meeting with her supervisor on July 16, 2010 to further discuss the matter. She enclosed bus tickets to enable the family to travel to the Society’s office.

65. Richardson testified that early in her involvement she developed concerns about medical care within the family. She gave multiple examples of J.T. failing to make medical or dental appointments for herself or the children. J.T. told her she had missed medical appointments because she was too busy.

66. P.P. missed a total of five appointments with paediatrician Dr. William Connor in March and April 2010. Richardson noted that P.P. needed to see Dr. Connor in order to renew his prescription for certain medications. But the last time P.P. saw the doctor in January 2010, his health card was not valid.

67. On June 21, 2010 D.C. advised Richardson P.P.’s medications had run out and J.T. had yet to refill his prescriptions. D.C. later explained that when P.P. went back on his medications he was initially upset because R.B. described them as “retard pills.”

AUGUST 16, 2010 APPREHENSION

68. Richardson described the events leading to the apprehension of P.P., I.T. and C.B. as follows:

69. On August 16, 2010 she attended the home unannounced to drop off some work boots for R.B.. When she drove into the survey she noticed I.T. playing unattended in a park. There were two other children approximately eight years of age in the park, but I.T. did not appear to be playing with them.

70. Richardson explained the sequence of events:

a. She stayed with I.T. from 3:25 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. during which time no one came to check on the then three year old girl.

b. I.T. did not have any shoes on and at one point she picked up several pieces of glass and handed them to Richardson.

c. The child smelled strongly of urine.

d. She told Richardson she was afraid when R.B. got mad.

e. She said R.B. punched a hole in her bedroom door and also in another door.

f. I.T. said she was worried R.B. would hurt the new baby C.B. because he sometimes stated that he was going to hurt him.

g. I.T. said once R.B. hit C.B.’s head against the wall and it made a red mark.

71. Richardson then went to the home with I.T. where she found J.T. and R.B.. Once inside:

a. I.T. showed the worker a hole in her bedroom door and another hole in the master bedroom door.

b. I.T.’s room smelled strongly of dog urine. J.T. explained the dogs often went upstairs and had accidents in the children's rooms.

c. Richardson met with P.P. alone in I.T.'s room but he refused to speak to her and just sat biting his nails.

d. Richardson felt P.P. had been coached not to talk to her. When he came down the stairs after refusing to speak to Richardson, J.T. gave him a glaring look. P.P. responded: “Why are you looking at me that way?” and then elaborated: “You’re looking at me like you do when you think I told something and I didn’t.”

72. R.B. told Richardson he and J.T. believed I.T. was being watched by a next-door neighbour and they were surprised the protection worker had been with I.T. in the park for 25 minutes.

73. J.T. and R.B. both said I.T.’s fear that R.B. might hurt C.B. was just a misunderstanding: They said they would sometimes pretend to spank C.B. in order to elicit a reaction from I.T. because they found it cute.

74. Richardson testified when she asked the adults to explain the holes in the doors, she got inconsistent answers. J.T. said the master bedroom door was damaged after I.T. locked herself in and they had to smash through the door to get to her. R.B. said the master bedroom door was damaged by P.P. who threw something at it. Neither adult could explain the damage to I.T.’s door.

75. Richardson left the residence but later in the day the Society decided to apprehend the children. She returned with a Society worker and two police officers. She said J.T. approached and called her several vulgar names and stated angrily that she was not taking her kids. When the police officers entered the home J.T. continued to curse and yell, and smashing could be heard while the officers tried to calm her down.

76. Notably, Richardson testified that on this occasion R.B. was the parent she found easier to deal with. He appeared to understand the severity of the problems:

a. He remained under control and also tried to calm J.T. down.

b. He said he didn’t think J.T. adequately supervised I.T..

c. He said he and J.T. had problems they needed to work out.

d. He admitted they both had anger issues and it was not healthy for the children to witness or hear their angry outbursts.

e. He said the atmosphere in the home was unhealthy due to the degree of conflict the children had been exposed to.

f. He said he knew that neighbours thought it was him banging and breaking things in the home, but really it was J.T. who “goes completely off” and destroys things. He gave examples of J.T. breaking an aquarium and a steam cleaner vacuum.

g. He recalled he once had to throw a glass of cold water on J.T. when she would not calm down during one of their arguments.

h. He did not feel P.P. could continue to reside in the home due to the boy’s behaviours, and the fact that M.C. and D.C. were so involved. He felt D.C. had "ruined" P.P., and the boy misbehaved because D.C. did not discipline him appropriately.

77. While J.T. was saying goodbye to the children she made several inappropriate remarks such as "I hope (Richardson) gets cancer and dies", "CAS is evil", and she continued to use vulgar language. The officers urged J.T. not to speak that way in front of the children but she disregarded them.

78. P.P. and I.T. were placed with M.C. and D.C. – who are not only their grandparents, but they are also Society foster parents with 22 years experience. C.B. was placed in a separate foster home due to the animosity which R.B. directed towards M.C. and D.C.. R.B. had stated on several occasions that he did not want them to have any contact with his son C.B..

79. Richardson testified when she was able to reach M.B. three days later to notify him that I.T. had been apprehended, he disapproved of her placement in foster care with M.C. and D.C.. He expressed concern they would “ruin her too”.

80. When M.B. subsequently asked why I.T. had not been placed in his care, Richardson reminded him she had previously requested information and a meeting to discuss his circumstances since he had just gotten out of jail. He had not provided consents regarding his criminal charges and he did not want to provide his current address.

C.B.’S HEALTH

81. Richardson said after the apprehension C.B. was examined medically because he appeared to be underweight. She summarized the medical evidence as follows:

a. He was a very small baby.

b. On June 23, 2010 he was in the 17^th^ percentile for weight.

c. On July 8, 2010 C.B. was weighed and measured by a team assistant at Dr. Bielecki’s office, but the doctor didn’t get to see the baby because R.B. got “really, really mad that he had to wait” and stormed out of the office. The parents did not schedule another appointment after that date.

d. On August 17, 2010 – the day after apprehension – C.B. had regressed; he was in the 4.5^th^ percentile for weight.

e. On September 9, 2010 – after a few weeks in foster care – C.B. had made progress: he was up to the 23^rd^ percentile.

J.T. & R.B. ISSUES

82. Richardson testified about many problems and concerns relating to J.T. and R.B. after the apprehension

83. Sometimes their supervised visits went well. At times R.B. was calm, and on those occasions he appeared to show insight into how the problems of the family were affecting the children. For example, he said he realized that angry outbursts by adults were not good for the children.

84. But many of the visits entailed problems. There was lots of anger and inappropriate discussion. Sometimes that anger was directed at the children. There was a continuing problem with R.B.'s mood which was "up-and-down". For example:

a. During a September 14, 2010 supervised visit between J.T., R.B. and I.T., R.B. became very angry and impatient with the child, lectured her, and then stood up and left. R.B. later complained that I.T. had developed a pattern of ignoring him after she returned from visits with D.C. and this upset him.

b. Paediatrician Dr. William Connor reported that on September 15, 2010 J.T. and R.B. attended his office. They complained about information he had given the Society. R.B. complained that P.P.'s treatment had been terrible and that R.B. would drag the doctor into court. R.B. made a big scene: shouting, cursing and threatening staff. The doctor told Richardson he considered calling the police. R.B. finally left the office while swearing at staff. He was told not to come back.

c. Dr. Connor described J.T. as “very attentive and reasonable” and said she had always done her best looking after P.P.. He stated that J.T. subsequently acknowledged that R.B. needed a mental health follow-up. Dr. Connor said he thought R.B. was dangerous and a negative influence on both J.T. and P.P..

d. On several occasions P.P. returned from visits with messages from R.B. to D.C..

e. In September 2010 P.P. conveyed a message that if he and I.T. were not returned to R.B. and J.T., R.B. was going to “get” D.C..

f. P.P. also conveyed that R.B. hates D.C. and that it was her fault that all this was happening. When D.C. tried to reassure P.P. that they were not afraid of R.B. and that P.P. should not worry, P.P. replied "he can snap poppa’s neck just like that" (referring to M.C.).

g. On September 27, 2010 when Richardson tried to introduce J.T. and R.B. to their new visit supervisor, J.T. started swearing, calling Richardson crude names, and interrupted throughout. R.B. tried to calm J.T. down.

h. On September 30, 2010 Richardson spoke to J.T. and R.B. about police attending at their home the previous day for a 911 call. They both minimized the incident and stated the glass in a screen door had broken because it was fragile and the door got slammed. Richardson said their version was inconsistent with the report the Society received from the investigating officer Stuart Hunt, who testified at the trial.

i. On October 4, 2010 a Society visit supervisor summoned Richardson to the family visiting area at the agency, because R.B. was acting inappropriately. Richardson testified she heard R.B. swearing; raising his voice; and speaking negatively about staff, foster parents, and M.C. and D.C.. Before leaving, R.B. wrote an inappropriate message to the foster mother in C.B.’s communication book. He threatened that if she allowed "that bitch" (referring to D.C.) to have contact with C.B. there "will be hell to pay".

j. On October 5, 2010 D.C. reported P.P. came home very upset and crying after a visit. He said he did not want to have contact with R.B. and did not want to attend any more visits if he was going to be there.

k. On October 8, 2010 J.T. and R.B. attended without an appointment at the Society offices. They anxiously advised that they planned to parent only two of the children. Initially they only wanted I.T. and C.B.. R.B. strongly advised that he was not interested in visiting with any of the children including C.B. until M.C. and D.C. were no longer involved. There appeared to be a great deal of conflict between J.T. and R.B. and they each mentioned the possibility of separating. A few days later however they patched things up.

l. On October 26, 2010 J.T. again expressed interest in leaving P.P. with M.C. and D.C. because she could not give him what he needed.

m. In November 2010 J.T. expressed frustration with R.B. about not understanding the need to remain positive during visits.

n. On November 3, 2010 Richardson advised R.B. by telephone that his visits would be suspended as a result of his inability to control his anger and behave appropriately. R.B. denied needing any help and again blamed M.C. and D.C. for P.P.'s problems and his own problems. The Society had been urging R.B. to deal with his anger and outbursts, but he questioned the purpose of attending for mental health assessment. He also requested DNA tests to ensure that C.B. was his, given all the problems he and J.T. had been experiencing.

o. On November 19, 2010 R.B. left a voicemail message for a Society employee in which he stated he was "calling my lawyer and I'm signing full fucking custody of C.B. to (J.T.). Do not darken my fucking doorstep ever again."

p. On November 22, 2010 J.T. asked Richardson for help to set up a separate residence because she believed the Society would return the children to her if she was living away from R.B.. She said she was not sure if R.B. would follow through with what the Society was requesting.

q. On December 10, 2010 Richardson observed part of J.T.'s visit with P.P.. J.T. seemed agitated and was discussing inappropriate matters with P.P.. She argued with P.P. and told him he was a foster child living in a foster home. P.P. argued back that he was not a foster child but that he was living with his grandparents. J.T. argued with him that R.B.'s temper did not negatively affect their family and that he never hurt the children physically. P.P. mentioned the time that R.B. threw a boot at I.T. and "chucked” her on the bed. J.T. seemed very agitated and was throwing the ball very hard at P.P., and yet he was throwing it back very appropriately to her.

r. On January 13, 2011 Richardson sent a letter to R.B. advising him that he was not to attend at the Society’s premises because he had made threatening remarks outside the agency.

85. Richardson testified it was clear J.T. loves the children very much. She certainly tried to meet their needs, but struggled with basic responsibilities such as making appointments and planning for them.

86. The child protection worker acknowledged at times R.B. would be calm and showed insight. He would be good at one meeting and then at the next meeting he would revert to volatile behaviour in which he would not make any sense as to what he was angry about. Periodically he left her irrational voicemails in which he swore and called her vulgar names. Richardson said his volatility continued up to January 2011 when she concluded her involvement on the file.

M.B. ISSUES

87. Richardson gave the following additional information about M.B.:

a. After the children were apprehended, M.B.'s visits to I.T. were initially supervised at the Society offices and they went quite well.

b. On November 11, 2010 M.B. advised he wanted visits transferred to his own home as quickly as possible.

c. Richardson told him she could assess his home the following week but she required police records checks from him and his two male housemates before unsupervised visits could be considered.

d. M.B. became angry and re-stated his frustration that the Society shouldn’t be focussing on his life when really the file was open in relation to J.T. and R.B..

e. Richardson explained the Society had concerns about M.B.'s criminal background given the fact that he had just been released from jail and he had still not supplied a vulnerable sector screening.

f. M.B. agreed to sign consents for Richardson to speak to his probation officer.

g. Both of Richardson's housemates were cooperative.

h. On November 25, 2010 Richardson and another Society worker met with M.B. to ask him to participate in a parenting capacity assessment. The Society was concerned when it discovered M.B. had a lengthy criminal history, with past domestic violence with J.T..

i. On several occasions M.B. repeated his position: he refused to cooperate with a parenting capacity assessment.

j. While M.B. insisted he had successfully raised two other children, the Society could not verify this since his ex-partner was unwilling to speak to the Society about his parenting skills.

k. M.B. was advised that since his visits with I.T. had been going well, the Society would be moving visits to his home starting the following week, but they would continue to be fully supervised.

l. Richardson said she recommended to M.B. that he participate in a parenting program but he refused, explaining that he didn't think he needed it.

m. M.B. described his use of alcohol as minimal, and said he would not submit to a hair strand test.

88. Under cross-examination Richardson acknowledged that eventually M.B. agreed to many of the things requested of him. However she described his attitude throughout as being hostile, resistant, angry, overbearing and uncooperative. At the end of her involvement he accused her of being against him, and said he wanted a new worker.

RICHARDSON CREDIBILITY

89. J.T., R.B. and M.B. all complained that Richardson was unfair and unreasonable. The child protection worker was cross-examined at length by parents’ counsel, and she was able to consistently explain her observations and justify her conclusions and concerns.

90. I found Richardson to be a very credible and reliable witness who provided a balanced recollection of events. Her affidavit was thorough. Her case notes appeared to be comprehensive and well prepared. During her involvement on the file she dealt with some very difficult situations, and parents who were at times hostile and verbally abusive. I saw no evidence of any lack of professionalism on her part.

91. I accept her evidence.

WITNESS #3: PETER HANNON (Hamilton Police Constable)

Witness #3: Peter Hannon (Hamilton Police Constable)

92. Constable Peter Hannon of the Hamilton Police Service testified that on October 8, 2009 he took a report from J.T.. She expressed concern about two telephone messages M.B. had left for her. In the second message he mentioned that he would be coming to her residence. J.T. told the officer M.B. was a former partner and she feared he intended to come to assault her current partner R.B.. She said M.B.’s terms of probation prohibited him from having contact with her.

93. Hannon testified he perceived J.T. was filing a complaint because she wanted M.B. charged with breaching the terms of his probation. He said J.T. told him she had not initiated any contact with M.B. which would have justified or led to his telephone messages.

94. Hannon followed up by attending at M.B.’s residence later in the day, with another officer. He testified that M.B. showed them his Blackberry cell phone which had 77 messages from J.T. to M.B. during the period between September 17 and October 6, 2009. The messages generally appeared to relate to I.T.. In one of the messages J.T. asked M.B. to bring her some marijuana when they next met.

95. Hannon decided against laying a breach of probation charge because M.B. was participating in an ongoing series of communications in which J.T. was freely and regularly initiating contact and requesting that he respond.

96. The officer testified he did not recall seeing any safety concerns at J.T.'s residence.

97. Hannon’s evidence was consistent with M.B.’s complaint to Richardson that in October 2009 J.T. made false allegations of harassment. M.B. said after that incident he decided to forgo any further requests for access to I.T. until his probation order ended.

WITNESS #4: IOANA CARMAZIN (CCAS Family Service Worker)

Witness #4: Ioana Carmazin (CCAS Family Service Worker)

98. Family service worker Ioana Carmazin testified about her involvement between January 2011 (when she took over from Colleen Richardson) and July 2011 (when she took some time away from the agency).

M.B. - INITIAL CONTACT

99. Carmazin recalled that in her first conversation with M.B., by telephone on January 27, 2011, he was quite angry and complained about the parenting capacity assessment (“PCA”) which had just been ordered. He felt he was being forced to participate in the PCA and he expressed anger toward Society workers. He felt the Society was stealing children. He did not want the Society having any contact with his 12-year-old daughter S. of a previous relationship, or S.'s mother.

100. Under cross-examination Carmazin was asked why a father under investigation would ever consent to the Society speaking to his ex-spouse. She responded that M.B. had raised the topic of how well he was doing having access to his daughter S.. She interpreted his comments as meaning that he had a good relationship with S.'s mother – at least in relation to access – and that S.'s mother would comment favourably on his parenting skills.

101. Initially M.B. told her he would not consent to a blood/alcohol screen. Carmazin testified that with the passage of time her relationship with M.B. improved. Eventually he was more cooperative and said he would consent to a urine screen or breathalyzer. He did not however consent to hair testing. He explained that he understood that hair contains a history of drug use and he acknowledged that earlier in his life he had been involved in illegal drug use. He did not trust the Society to analyze his hair strands and make the proper determinations about how historical his drug use was.

102. At the time M.B. was having supervised access to I.T.. He told Carmazin he wanted to expand his access and eventually he wanted I.T. to remain in his care.

103. On January 31, 2011 Carmazin went to M.B.'s rented home where she met his two housemates P.J. and P.N.. She described the home as clean, bright, warm, well furnished, with no safety concerns. She said M.B. and his housemates were cooperative.

J.T. & R.B. - INITIAL CONTACT

104. Carmazin testified that on February 8, 2011 she received a telephone message from the office of Dr. Bielecki. The doctor’s office was trying to book an appointment for J.T. to attend for a prenatal appointment in relation to her fourth pregnancy, with S.B.. They were having trouble reaching J.T. and requested updated contact information.

105. She described a February 11, 2011 meeting where J.T. and R.B. were introduced to the new team that would be working with the family. She recalled during the meeting R.B. became agitated. He became very fixated with the view that M.C. and D.C. were the core of their problems. He said he was having M.C. and D.C. investigated and he was suing the Society. He also said as soon as the children were returned to their care, he and J.T. would be leaving Hamilton and they would not allow M.C. and D.C. to have any contact with the children.

106. She said after R.B. made his statement, he then stormed out. She described his demeanour as loud, speaking very quickly in an agitated state, gesticulating and moving his arms, yelling and screaming. She recalled after he left, Carmazin told J.T. that R.B.’s visits could not be reinstated because he didn't seem to be stable.

107. When Carmazin told J.T. that R.B. needed a referral to a community psychiatric outpatient program, J.T. replied she knew how to arrange it. Carmazin also advised J.T. a doctor had been arranged for R.B. – Dr. K.B. – and she gave J.T. three possible appointment times in writing. R.B. could choose which appointment he wanted to attend.

108. Under cross-examination by M.B.’s lawyer Livesey, Carmazin admitted she made no similar effort to arrange medical care for M.B.. She said M.B. told her he hadn’t seen his doctor for eight years. She felt he’d made a choice not to keep in touch with his doctor, and he knew how to go back to his doctor if he wanted to.

FEBRUARY 2011

109. Carmazin summarized her view of the file as of February 11, 2011:

a. R.B. needed to attend a walk-in clinic for a referral to psychiatric services.

b. J.T. needed to book an appointment with Dr. Bielecki for prenatal care. She didn't know when her due date was and the prenatal appointment might help confirm the stage of her pregnancy.

c. J.T. had been having supervised access three days per week but sometimes her employment schedule at Tim Horton's made it difficult for her to attend. With J.T. having recently been fired from that employment, there should have been no further scheduling conflicts to interfere with access. .

d. Carmazin reassured J.T. the team would be willing to meet with R.B., but a police officer would have to be present in the Society building, because of concern about R.B.'s volatile behaviour.

e. She and J.T. discussed the status of the PCA.

f. Family finances continued to be a problem. J.T. said she was on Ontario Works. J.T. and R.B. needed to find new housing but J.T. already owed money to a subsidized housing program and this was an impediment to obtaining further subsidized housing. J.T. said they could get emergency status and qualify for better housing if the children were returned to her.

g. Carmazin offered food vouchers occasionally and also bus tickets so J.T. and R.B. could attend for Society and other appointments. As well Carmazin offered to write a letter to Ontario Works to help them get a bus pass.

110. She testified that on February 13, 2011 she received two telephone messages from R.B.. His language was incoherent. He was raising his voice, swearing, and using inappropriate language. He said his lawyer would set up times for him and J.T. to meet with the Society. He also mentioned his lawyer was going to sue the Society.

111. In February 2011 M.B. had an unsupervised visit with I.T. for Family Day. Carmazin said it went very well.

112. She said M.B. told her he had pleaded guilty to domestic violence against his former partner because he wanted to avoid six months in jail. He said he had taken an anger management course but didn't find it helpful. He felt there was no need to take another anger management course because he was not in a spousal relationship.

DOG BITE

113. Carmazin gave evidence about a dog bite incident which was the focus of a great deal of attention during the trial:

a. On February 17, 2011 she met J.T. at the Society office following an incident on February 16, 2011 in which J.T. had been bitten by the family dog and sustained an injury requiring 12 stitches. This followed an altercation with R.B.. J.T. stated she wanted to leave R.B. and Carmazin took her to a local women's shelter. Shelter staff were to help J.T. find second stage housing so she could live away from R.B..

b. J.T. was supposed to meet with Carmazin the following day but failed to attend. She left a message saying she was going to her cousin’s. When Carmazin checked, shelter staff disclosed that according to J.T., R.B. had been physically abusive with her and was choking her and pulling her hair when the dog bit her.

MARCH 2011

114. When Carmazin spoke to J.T. again on March 4, 2011:

a. J.T. admitted on a previous occasion R.B. had attempted to choke her, but she denied that there was any choking on February 16, 2011 when she sustained the dog bite. Carmazin observed J.T. had a fat lip.

b. J.T. told Carmazin she had gone to her doctor's office to seek help regarding anger issues. She said compared to R.B., she was actually the louder one, throwing things and making holes in walls.

c. She told Carmazin she wasn't sure whether she wanted P.P. to return to her care, and speculated it might be better for him to remain with D.C..

d. J.T. said she was back living with R.B.; she was not fearful of him; and she did not need protection from him. She told Carmazin she was torn between staying with R.B. and possibly losing her children, or leaving the relationship and hopefully regaining her children. She said her wish was to have both R.B. and the children.

e. She said her housing situation was uncertain, and her current home was unsafe even for a dog.

f. She said she planned to return to a shelter in the hope that this would force R.B. to get some help from a physician and a psychiatrist.

115. Carmazin testified that on March 5 and 6^th^, 2011 she received two telephone messages from R.B.:

a. In the first message he advised that he was filing a complaint against the Society.

b. He said he was on medication and expressed upset with both the Society and M.C. and D.C..

c. He complained that since M.C. and D.C. are foster parents for the Society, there is a conspiracy going on against J.T. and himself.

d. He alleged the children are being abused in M.C. and D.C.’s home, but the Society was covering up the abuse and failing to investigate.

e. In the second telephone message on March 6, 2011 he said J.T. had moved back in with him.

f. He made more complaints about the Society, City Hall and the police.

116. Under cross-examination by OCL lawyer Charko, Carmazin acknowledged that R.B. and J.T. perceived there was a conflict of interest which was not properly being addressed, because M.C. and D.C. were not only grandparents but they were also foster parents for the Society. Carmazin testified the Society considered the issue but decided not to remove P.P. and I.T. from the grandparents’ home because the children were doing so well and they needed stability.

117. Carmazin said generally R.B. was not calm when he left voice messages. She only recalled one calm voicemail: when R.B. left a message thanking the Society for agreeing to pay a debt which he and J.T. owed to subsidized housing. Ironically, his gratitude was based upon a misunderstanding: the Society had never agreed to pay that debt.

118. On March 10, 2011 Carmazin attended M.B.'s home. She advised him parenting issues were going well for him but there was still significant concern about his lifestyle. M.B. insisted he last used drugs long ago and he had turned his life around. As of March 2011 M.B. was still refusing to participate in hair screening.

119. Carmazin gave evidence of repeated meetings with M.B. in which he was hostile and aggressive, refusing to acknowledge any need for drug testing, and refusing to sign consents for release of information. It was only at the end of many discussions that M.B. begrudgingly agreed to some of the Society’s requests.

120. Carmazin testified R.B. had not been having any access since before she became involved, and he did not have access while she was on the file except for some brief visits for purposes of the PCA. She said at times he said he didn't want any contact with the children and he was relinquishing parental rights. She described his statements as erratic.

121. On March 28, 2011 Carmazin met with J.T. who showed her pictures of their home taken on her cell phone. The pictures depicted many defects and dangerous conditions including exposed wiring, mould, a gap between a wall and the floor, a vent not properly installed, etc. Carmazin agreed with J.T.’s lawyer Heeley that J.T. was trying to demonstrate how deplorable her housing conditions were so the Society would help her secure suitable housing.

APRIL 2011

122. On April 1, 2011 R.B. asked (unsuccessfully) that his file be transferred to the non-Catholic Society in Hamilton. He told Carmazin his doctor had diagnosed him with panic attacks, ADHD, anger issues, and that he had another appointment pending regarding medications to control his anger. He said when he was on medication he felt better. He said they had applied for subsidized housing but didn't qualify because they owed money to a previous subsidized housing authority.

123. On April 4, 2011 J.T. brought her biological mother C.M. to a meeting with Carmazin. J.T. and C.M. complained M.C. and D.C. were alienating the children against J.T.. They also blamed M.C. and D.C. for the fact that C.M. had not been part of J.T.'s life for a long time. J.T. admitted to being angry and recently leaving a message that she was going to punch D.C.. However she insisted she was not planning to follow through on that threat.

124. Carmazin said that as of April 7, 2011 M.B. was still refusing to consent to the Society talking to his doctor or his former partner. He was refusing to participate in hair testing even though the Society told him this information was required before expanded access could be considered.

125. On April 8, 2011 Carmazin met with J.T. and R.B. at the agency. They said they hadn’t found better housing so they planned to paint their current residence. R.B. said they had 32 complaints against them in their current townhouse, and he felt this was largely because of the dogs. He said the SPCA had also been to their home on numerous occasions, and police had raided his home about a complaint he had a gun. He said it was a toy gun although J.T. told Carmazin the gun looked real.

126. R.B. said he was on two medications for depression and feeling better. He said Dr. K.B. had diagnosed six different things and he was waiting for an appointment with a psychiatrist. He told Carmazin he had witnessed domestic violence as a child and he had been physically abused and institutionalized for 10 years.

127. R.B. described the February 16, 2011 dog bite incident to Carmazin:

a. He and J.T. were arguing after J.T. had been on the phone with P.P.’s school principal.

b. J.T. smacked him twice on the face.

c. R.B. got scared.

d. The commotion agitated the dog, who in turn bit J.T..

e. She ended up going to a hospital and then a shelter.

128. Carmazin asked about J.T.'s previous explanation: that R.B. had once tried to choke her, but it was a different occasion than the dog bite. J.T. responded that she had actually been referring to M.B. once choking her.

129. During the meeting R.B. again spoke extensively and angrily about M.C. and D.C. and the Society’s involvement with them. Carmazin said she urged R.B. to focus on the children rather than M.C. and D.C.. She said R.B. became angry and refused to stop talking about them. He again accused the Society of covering up for M.C. and D.C., and insisted everything had been going well until D.C. butted in. He said after that everything spiralled downward.

130. When R.B. asked for access to I.T. and C.B., Carmazin told him the Society would first have to speak to his doctor to see how stable he was and how he was doing. She said he got upset, insisted he didn't want any further interference with his access, and he didn't want to discuss what the Society’s expectations would be concerning his access.

131. When Carmazin recommended that R.B. not speak negatively of anyone during visits, she said he became angry, stormed out, swore, yelled, smashed the door, and said he would tell the children the truth. J.T. remained behind. Carmazin testified that when both parties finally left the Society building on April 8, 2011, R.B. continued to swear and yell at the top of his lungs.

132. Carmazin testified that on April 12, 2011 she attended at M.B.'s home and found it to be clean, properly equipped and suitable. She gave the following evidence about drug testing:

a. M.B. again became verbally aggressive with her when she suggested drug tests.

b. After some discussion, he agreed to attend for drug testing.

c. In April 2011 M.B. was supposed to start weekly overnight visits with I.T.. However expanded access was suspended after only two overnights, because M.B.’s drug tests came back positive for cocaine and marijuana.

d. When Carmazin reviewed the initial on-site test results with M.B., he was argumentative and insisted the test results were wrong.

e. He refused to consent to a hair test.

f. When he was subsequently shown lab tests confirming the positive results, he reacted by being intimidating, raising his voice, using profane language, throwing a pen, and tossing a letter around.

g. He accused Carmazin of looking for excuses to take I.T. away from him

h. He finally agreed to hair testing only after the Society threatened that otherwise his weekend access would be suspended.

133. In April 2011 J.T. said I.T. had head lice. Carmazin recalled that head lice had been a recurring problem in relation to I.T. – but not P.P.. She said all the adults appeared to be making diligent efforts to deal with it.

MAY 2011

134. On May 10, 2011 Carmazin met with J.T.’s biological mother C.M. who wanted to know the Society’s plans in relation to the pending birth of J.T.'s new baby (S.B.). She also wanted P.P. and I.T. moved from M.C. and D.C.’s home.

135. J.T. told Carmazin she was separating from R.B.. She had hoped medications would help R.B., but said unfortunately the medication hadn't helped at all. She said R.B. was still calling her names like ”tramp” and “whore”, and accusing her of infidelity. J.T. said she and R.B. had hit each other during her current pregnancy. She said R.B. believed the whole world was against him. She reported R.B. was aggressive and confrontational not just with the Society workers, but with others as well.

136. J.T. told Carmazin she was planning on leaving R.B. that night and moving into C.M.'s apartment. However, her due date with S.B. was supposed to be July 13, 2011, and J.T. realized C.M.’s accommodation would not be big enough for J.T. to bring her new baby with her.

137. During that same meeting J.T. said she wanted to place P.P. with D.C..

138. Under cross-examination, Carmazin acknowledged that with three children already apprehended and with the Society discussing apprehending her fourth child at birth, J.T. may well have perceived a lot of pressure to leave R.B. if she had any hope of getting her children back.

139. Carmazin also said she had some concerns about whether J.T. had received adequate prenatal care. She recalled J.T. had been on medication but discontinued it. Carmazin had suggested to her that she discuss medications with her doctor. As well, J.T. said she was smoking marijuana instead of taking medications because it helped her more. Carmazin suggested she also discuss this with her doctor. J.T. mentioned she had been discharged by her physician because she had missed three visits. She was trying to arrange maternity care through a maternity center. The Society worker did not know the extent to which J.T. had followed up on her recommendations.

JUNE 2011

140. Carmazin said she spoke to R.B.’s new physician Dr. K.B. on June 10, 2011. He said he’d send a letter, but she only received a verbal summary about his observations of R.B.:

a. He is highly intelligent.

b. He has severe ADD.

c. He has attention problems.

d. He suffers from impulsivity and distractibility.

e. He is easily frustrated and has a low frustration tolerance.

f. He has multiple legal problems.

g. He has generalized anxiety.

h. He suffers OCD traits.

i. He gets panic attacks.

j. He has anger issues.

k. He cannot earn a living and is unemployable.

l. The doctor expects him to attend for follow-up regularly and to take medications as prescribed.

m. The doctor has seen him a couple of times. R.B. has just started taking his medications. He has missed some appointments.

n. The doctor feels he has a supportive relationship with R.B..

141. Carmazin said Dr. K.B. told her by telephone he had spoken to housing authorities and R.B. and J.T. had been placed on a priority list. Dr. K.B. stated an apartment building would not be suitable for R.B. because of his psychiatric conditions – social phobias, emotions out of control, and a terrible temper. Dr. K.B. said he had seen improvement in R.B. in the last month or so. The doctor was helping him with paperwork to get a disability pension.

142. On June 13, 2011 Carmazin spoke to M.B. who wanted Father's Day access to I.T.. She said M.B. complained I.T. was getting stubborn, mouthy, and displaying an inappropriate attitude during visits. M.B. felt P.P.'s behaviour was rubbing off on I.T., and that M.C. and D.C. were not addressing the problem.

143. Carmazin said when she made suggestions to deal with I.T.'s behaviour, M.B. was resistant and spoke negatively about M.C. and D.C.. He was aggressive toward Carmazin. He told her he had previously cooperated with her but that he wouldn't be cooperating anymore. He said he would go out of his way to make Carmazin’s life miserable and "hex" her. She said M.B. was upset and asked for details about her supervisor.

144. Under cross-examination Carmazin acknowledged M.B. had asked how I.T. was doing in school. She told him he was entitled to get that information directly from the school.

145. Carmazin said she attempted to assist J.T. and R.B. in getting subsidized housing. On March 25, 2011 she had sent a letter to a housing authority. On June 14, 2011 she called that agency to follow up, only to be told that J.T. and R.B. had never actually filed an application. Carmazin then encouraged J.T. and R.B. to at least file an application so their request for subsidized housing could be considered.

146. She said R.B. told her that he was on Ontario Works and he was eligible for ODSP. R.B. told her he had been banned from the Ontario Works office and was not allowed to go to the premises because he had gotten into an argument with a worker. He insisted that he was right and the worker was wrong. He said there are young workers who don't know what they are doing. She said R.B.'s presentation during discussions about the housing problem was calm.

147. Carmazin summarized her June 21, 2011 home visit at J.T. and R.B.’s basement apartment:

a. Home conditions were deplorable.

b. The front door was broken and would not close properly.

c. The stairs were uneven.

d. There was a visible break line in the stairs.

e. There was no railing and the stairs were unstable and unsafe.

f. There were large and small holes in the apartment walls.

g. There was a big hole in the wall in the bedroom and R.B. said he fell through that wall.

h. There was mould visible in the bathroom.

i. The floor was wet around the base of the walls in the bathroom.

j. The sink was rusted.

k. The kitchen window could not be closed.

l. The parties said they had been flooded three times.

m. R.B. complained there was an odour of human waste coming up from a pipe in a bedroom.

148. She agreed with their lawyer Heeley that J.T. and R.B. were in "dire straits". Their housing was deplorable. They were having difficulty qualifying for new subsidized housing because they owed rent on a previous subsidized unit. Carmazin testified she never promised the Society would pay anything toward that debt, but she did undertake to make inquiries to see if the Society could come up with any amount of money to help. As it happens she was not able to secure any contribution toward that debt.

149. Carmazin testified that on June 25, 2011 R.B. left a long, rambling, incoherent telephone message for her at 3:06 AM. On June 27, 2011 he left another long, incoherent message for her. In the second message he stated that if necessary he and J.T. would be leaving to another jurisdiction so she would be able to have her baby elsewhere.

JULY 2011

150. Carmazin testified shortly prior to S.B.'s birth on […], 2011, J.T. said her short term plan was to either go to a shelter after the child was born or to place the child with Maria Trayna, the mother of a close friend. Unfortunately Trayna was in Italy and not scheduled to return until July 14. With Carmazin completing her involvement on the file on July 6, 2011, she was never able to investigate this possible placement, and wasn’t aware whether anyone at the Society spoke to Trayna.

151. J.T. told Carmazin she and R.B. had now been approved for subsidized housing and they were waiting to get new accommodation.

152. S.B. was apprehended at birth on […], 2011. Carmazin summarized the Society’s main protection concerns at that time as follows:

a. The parents’ lack of housing.

b. The conflictual relationship between J.T. and R.B..

c. The lack of planning for the baby.

d. Concerns about J.T.'s drug use.

e. The parents’ lack of supports.

f. Possible mental health issues.

153. Under cross-examination Carmazin acknowledged:

a. The Society had considered the possibility of returning S.B. to J.T.'s care if she moved into a shelter.

b. M.B.'s parenting skills in relation to I.T. were always good, from her own observation and also from the information she received from others on the file.

c. Her real concerns about M.B. related to his drug use, his problems with anger management, and "his lack of a relationship with people in general".

d. When R.B., M.B., and J.T. at various times became loud or aggressive with her, she would also raise her voice in order to have an opportunity to interject or be heard – sometimes merely for the purpose of advising that the conversation would have to end.

e. There were times when J.T., R.B., and M.B. started out being resistant and aggressive, and then they would calm down a bit.

f. However, at the end of her involvement on the file in July 2011, there was still a high level of conflict with each of the parents.

CARMAZIN CREDIBILITY

154. Carmazin had a good recollection of events and discussions. Her observations were substantiated by her notes. She answered questions clearly, and was responsive and fair under cross-examination. I found her to be credible and reliable.

WITNESS #5: IDA DEJONG (Women’s Shelter Counsellor)

Witness #5: Ida DeJong (Women’s Shelter Counsellor)

155. Ida DeJong was a counsellor employed at Inasmuch House, a women's shelter, when J.T. attended on February 17, 2011 disclosing domestic violence and seeking assistance and protection.

156. DeJong testified that when she met J.T. to complete the shelter intake forms, she noticed that J.T. was walking with a noticeable limp. She soon discovered J.T. had received medical attention for a dog bite on her leg.

157. J.T. told the counsellor the injury had been sustained the previous day while her partner was assaulting her. She said her partner had pulled her hair and choked her, and during this time a family dog bit her. She had a gauze bandage over the dog bite injury.

158. DeJong testified there was no discussion of any previous event involving choking and no discussion of a previous partner.

159. The counsellor explained it would have been the shelter's intention to assist J.T. in setting goals, finding housing, accessing legal services, providing a referral for financial services if necessary, and assisting in any way they could. However J.T. left the shelter shortly afterward and never returned. She called to say she was safe but did not say where. By March 6, 2011 the shelter closed its file.

160. Under cross-examination DeJong said J.T. didn't refer to the partner who had assaulted her by name: she simply referred to "her partner" and also described him as "my baby’s father". DeJong did not recall noticing any redness around J.T.’s neck or a fat lip. The only injury she noticed was the obvious injury from the dog bite.

161. DeJong's evidence was clear, concise, and consistent with the Society’s initial understanding – i.e. that the dog bite arose while R.B. was assaulting J.T.. DeJong's evidence was inconsistent with J.T.'s several subsequent explanations:

a. The dog bit her while she was assaulting R.B..

b. The dog bit her during a verbal argument when she slipped and accidently kicked the dog.

c. The “choking” referred to an occasion years earlier when M.B. choked her.

WITNESS #6: JULIE BEATTIE (School Principal)

Witness #6: Julie Beattie (School Principal)

162. Julie Beattie is the principal at Holbrook school where P.P. has attended since September 2010, and where he is currently in grade five. She testified about his educational program and progress:

a. When P.P. came to Holbrook school from Lynnwood Hall, he was placed in a special class to deal with both behavioural problems and a diagnosed learning disability.

b. P.P.’s progress during almost two full school years at Holbrook has been encouraging.

c. Initially he was a very angry boy and spent a lot of time out of class.

d. The school developed a special program for him. By Christmas 2010 he appeared to be settling in. He started spending less time in the alternate classroom, and more time in the regular class.

e. By the time the second term started in January 2011 P.P. was seeing himself as part of the classroom (a special class for students with learning disabilities).

f. His behaviour improved significantly in the second term.

g. He was able to remain in the classroom for the most part and he was able to participate without creating problems or getting angry.

h. He had more success socializing with other children.

i. P.P.'s June 28, 2011 report card summarized significant improvement between the first and second terms of his first year at Holbrook.

j. His November 15, 2011 report card confirmed he was making more progress. The frequency of outbursts was far less than a year earlier.

k. In the fall of 2010 – just after apprehension -- P.P. was experiencing daily problems. By the fall of 2011 he was generally able to control his emotions and calm himself at his desk.

l. His most recent report card dated February 15, 2012 indicated even more progress has been made.

m. His learning skills are all satisfactory except in the area of collaboration.

n. Beattie said he can still be a very impatient child.

163. On balance, Beattie spoke with great encouragement, describing P.P. as a happy boy who has made significant progress. He appears to be much more settled emotionally.

164. Beattie testified about a troubling telephone call with J.T. on February 15, 2012:

a. P.P. had been in Society care (living with M.C. and D.C.) for the whole of that school year, and J.T. wanted to know how he was doing.

b. J.T. also expressed concern that the school was letting P.P. get away with too much. She felt her son could use more discipline.

c. During the conversation Beattie could hear over the telephone in the background that a male person was talking to J.T. and distracting her.

d. She could not identify the voice but clearly the male was upset. His voice kept getting louder during the course of the conversation.

e. Beattie described the interruptions by the male voice as so distracting that J.T. had difficulty continuing with the thread of the conversation.

f. Nonetheless, she described J.T. as remaining calm as she appeared to try to engage in simultaneous conversations with Beattie and also the male who was with her.

g. At one point she heard the male shout to J.T. “it's the home the child is living in, what do you expect?”

h. She said J.T. broke away from the telephone conversation and a few moment moments later the telephone line went dead.

i. Beattie said she was so concerned about the phone call, the tone of the male voice, and the way the phone suddenly went dead, that she called back to try to re-establish contact with J.T., but there was no answer.

j. She left a message on J.T.'s answering system offering to set up a meeting.

165. Beattie explained she was due to give Society Children’s Services Worker Joel Thompson a call anyway, so she decided to call him immediately to express her concern about the yelling and anger of the male voice; to express her concern about J.T. -- and any children who might be in that household.

166. Beattie's evidence was reassuring in describing the significant improvement P.P. has made, particularly during this last school year when he is been placed with M.C. and D.C..

WITNESS #7: DOUGLAS HAZLETT (Lynwood Hall Social Worker)

Witness #7: Douglas Hazlett (Lynwood Hall Social Worker)

167. Douglas Hazlett is a registered social worker at Lynnwood Hall Child and Family Centre, a residential treatment center which includes a day treatment program for students having difficulties in community-based schools.

168. He testified that on September 8, 2008 P.P. was admitted to the day treatment program as a result of behavioural difficulties complicated by learning struggles. Hazlett worked intensively with him in the on-site classroom and also off-site, until June 2010.

169. Hazlett explained when he first met P.P. in the fall of 2008 he understood J.T. was not in a relationship with a male partner. Hazlett heard from both J.T. and P.P. there had been a great deal of turbulence in her relationship with her former partner (M.B., although Hazlett only knew his first name). P.P. told Hazlett that M.B. didn't treat his mother very well. There was lots of yelling and fighting.

170. Hazlett described why he contacted the Society on November 19, 2009:

a. P.P. came to school saying that there was a lot of yelling and fighting going on in the home, and expressing concern for his safety.

b. Hazlett recalled when P.P. first started at the school in the fall of 2008, P.P. had strong recollections of the turbulent times which existed in his household when M.B. lived there.

c. With the passage of time P.P. seemed to settle down and he spoke less frequently about problems or danger in his home.

d. Hazlett recalled P.P. had a great summer in 2009, when J.T. wasn't living with anyone. He was happy. His behaviour was good.

e. However, in the fall of 2009 – after R.B. moved into their household – P.P. again started expressing unhappiness and worry about fighting and turbulence in the home.

f. Hazlett felt P.P.'s descriptions of aggressive behaviour by R.B. were rekindling painful memories of how frightened and unhappy P.P. was as a result of the aggressive behaviour by M.B..

g. P.P. mentioned to Hazlett on one occasion he had missed his medication and there was a possibility he was sharing medication with R.B.. Hazlett said he had always known J.T. to be very attentive to medication for P.P. and it was uncharacteristic for her to allow any sort of mixup in relation medication.

h. Hazlett also recalled a telephone conversation he had with J.T.. She appeared to be holding I.T. as she spoke, and Hazlett said he couldn't help but notice J.T. appeared distracted and less attentive to the child's cues that she wasn't feeling well.

171. For all of these reasons he felt the Society should be notified.

172. Hazlett recalled more concerns arose in February 2010 when he was advised by a staff assistant in P.P.'s classroom that R.B. had sent a note criticizing staff for the school’s inadequate response to P.P. spitting. R.B.’s note suggested that if the problem persisted P.P. should have his mouth rinsed out with soap. The note also indicated R.B. had advised P.P. that "with his bullshit of what he keeps doing he will be in Lynwood permanently."

173. Hazlett testified that he tried to explain to the parents that while P.P.'s problem with spitting and being verbally abusive to staff members needed to be addressed, rinsing a child's mouth out with soap was simply not acceptable. Under cross-examination by J.T. and R.B.’s lawyer Heeley, Hazlett said he felt the reference to rinsing P.P.'s mouth out with soap was not just a colloquial expression, but R.B. and J.T. were seriously considering doing it.

174. Hazlett also gave evidence about a May 2010 note R.B. wrote in P.P.'s agenda in which he expressed frustration about the boy’s behaviour at home. The note included the statement: "last night P.P. was asked to take a shower by his mother and he replied you can suck my cock you mother fucker cock sucker. I'm getting tired of this with this kid.… If P.P. keeps up his shit I will put in for him to be placed somewhere if he keeps threatening I or his mother with his stabbing bullshit" Hazlett expressed concern about P.P. being able to read this handwritten note in his agenda.

175. Similarly, Hazlett expressed concern about a June 24, 2010 "incident report" prepared by Susan Blackett, a teacher at Lynnwood Hall Child and Family Center. P.P. had approached a teacher to discuss comments his family members were making. P.P. said at home he was told:

a. He had to stay in his room last night because he has a "boom buster mouth".

b. He tells bad things about his family to others.

c. He talks about his family and gets them into trouble.

d. R.B. wants P.P. to do something that he doesn't want to do – he wants P.P. to punch his grandpa if he takes him to church, so that he will be able to go back to his mother.

e. P.P. said R.B. calls God a "… Fucking God, a God that fucks you up."

f. The family are planning on moving and P.P. has been told he will be living with his grandmother.

g. They're moving because of all the bad things P.P. has been telling people.

176. Hazlett explained as a result of these various concerns, and in response to an inquiry by the Society, he prepared a "to whom it may concern" letter concerning P.P. dated August 12, 2010. P.P. had been discharged from Lynnwood Hall in June 2010, and he would be starting a community school in September. Hazlett wanted to provide an overview and summary of P.P.'s two years at Lynnwood Hall. The letter was quite insightful and included the following comments by Hazlett:

a. He described J.T. as attempting to "liberate herself from a story of being perceived as a mother who could not provide her children with a sense of predictability and safety from harm’s way."

b. He referred to J.T.'s pattern of "selecting partners like (M.B.) and, most recently (R.B.) – both of whom keep company with volatile tempers".

c. He said P.P.'s memories of M.B.’s aggressiveness toward J.T. have "certainly flavoured his perception of the world and of his mother's ability to keep him safe".

d. He described M.C. and D.C. as providing a safe haven for P.P. and I.T. to reside during more tumultuous times.

e. He described J.T.'s "incompetence in meeting the needs of her children".

f. He described J.T. going through a good period of time – after separating from M.B. and before becoming involved with R.B. – when she was doing well with her children, holding down a part-time job, and contemplating returning to school. He said during this period of time P.P. did well within the Lynnwood Hall program, "leading J.T. to realize that both she and the kids were benefiting from her more focused lifestyle".

g. He stated that while P.P. initially greeted R.B.'s arrival with a sense of optimism and hope, the many stressors within the home soon led to turbulent, heated arguments between J.T. and R.B. "which invited P.P. to experience significant distress".

h. He noted that P.P.’s school performance deteriorated after R.B. joined the family. P.P. appeared to worry for his family’s safety.

i. He said P.P. made statements causing Lynnwood Hall staff to be concerned that he was not being adequately supervised while at home.

j. Hazlett referred in his letter to R.B. being "very passionately opposed to the Society’s involvement". The social worker acknowledged under questioning that he was trying to gently redirect R.B.'s visceral anger toward the Society, but without success.

k. He warned that R.B.'s angry responses to Society involvement "only served to reinforce the rationale for the Society’s association with the family".

l. He stated "uncertainty about safety has always been P.P.'s visit biggest challenge. It will remain important for J.T. and R.B. to remain aware of how central a role this factor plays in how P.P. interacts with those in the world.”

m. He urged the parents to be more aware of how unsettled and insecure their behaviour and decisions made P.P..

n. He commended D.C. for her awareness and understanding of how important security and safety are for P.P..

o. He said near the end of June 2010 J.T. was seriously considering having D.C. care for P.P. on a permanent basis so that the remainder of the family could move to Milton, Ontario for a "fresh start". He said P.P. was aware of this discussion and experienced both a sense of rejection and also worry about the safety of his mother and sister if he was not there with them.

p. Hazlett concluded: "P.P.’s needs aren't unique. He needs to experience his mother routinely prioritizing the safety of her children over everything else, which includes ensuring that [R.B.] represents and models a parental figure that supports rather than compromises this objective.”

177. Hazlett testified apart from descriptions provided by P.P. and J.T., the social worker personally witnessed R.B.'s volatile temperament – and that R.B. admitted he has problems with anger control.

178. He expressed concern about J.T. and R.B.’s attitude toward P.P.. He said they came to view P.P. as the reason or source of all of their troubles, and that P.P. was definitely aware of this perception. He said sometimes P.P. would come to Lynnwood Hall and say "my mom and [R.B.] don't want me to talk to anyone anymore. Every time I do I get everyone in trouble."

179. Hazlett stated that even though P.P. was discharged from the school program at Lynnwood Hall in June 2010, P.P. has still been working with an outreach worker. In that context P.P. was at Lynnwood Hall about a month prior to the trial and asked to meet with Hazlett to say hello.

180. Hazlett testified P.P. said things were going well for him. The boy volunteered he doesn't want to have any more contact with J.T.. Hazlett noted that P.P. seemed quite sure of that statement. He recalled that in the past, if P.P. made comments like that it would usually be accompanied by the onset of some emotional response. However this time P.P. was very calm and sure of himself.

181. Under cross-examination Hazlett agreed during the period 2008 and 2009 J.T. was quite active in P.P.'s life and provided a very positive and beneficial influence. She worked positively with Lynnwood Hall and was open to advice. She was cooperative. He said this changed however in about August 2009 when R.B. moved into the home.

182. He described D.C. as being "typical of grandmothers". He agreed at times J.T. felt D.C. was too intrusive. He admitted in the spring or summer of 2009 he suggested to D.C. she should give credit to J.T. for the progress she was making.

183. Under cross-examination Hazlett agreed he saw no sign of any physical assaults by R.B. on J.T.. But he said P.P. would come to school very upset with worry that R.B. might assault his mother.

184. Under cross-examination by M.B.’s lawyer Livesey, Hazlett said he couldn't recall ever having met M.B.. He recalled however that P.P. used to refer to M.B.'s aggressiveness; he spoke of yelling and fighting and M.B. being hurtful to his mother.

185. Hazlett agreed with OCL counsel Charko that P.P. perceived himself as being a protector of his mother and his younger sister I.T.. P.P. had told him when the baby [C.B.] was born P.P. wouldn't go to school. Instead he would stay home to take care of the baby and to provide for the baby’s safety.

186. Hazlett was a very helpful and credible witness. Throughout his testimony he demonstrated a remarkable level of sensitivity, insight and dedication. P.P. is a very lucky boy that Hazlett was there to help him through some very difficult times.

WITNESS #8: CHRIS ELLIOTT (Hamilton Police Constable)

Witness #8: Chris Elliott (Hamilton Police Constable)

187. Constable Chris Elliott of the Hamilton Police Service testified that on March 7, 2003 R.B.'s wife B.B. attended at the mountain police station to report a domestic incident. After interviewing her he prepared a three page written statement which she reviewed and signed. R.B. was then charged. She told police:

a. "I want to get away from him. To get away from him because he beats me up and abuses me, that he is threatening my life and that I have a six-year-old to think about. He is destroying my house. I'm afraid of him. He has threatened my life, to put it in a body bag."

b. She said on the previous Saturday "he was having some beers, accused me of having sex with his cousin, called me a pig, I went into the bathroom, and that is when he pushed me into the bathtub."

c. Referring to another occasion she said "one morning he strangled me when I was speaking with my mom on the phone." She said she didn't report that incident.

d. She said on another occasion "he pushed me once in the living room when we were drinking. And then I left the house and he followed me and pushed me in the ribs in the front yard of my neighbour’s house." She also didn't report that incident.

e. She said the night they were married "he booted the front door in."

f. She referred to another incident in which "he kicked in my bedroom door, broke the coffee table leg, and a couple of holes in the bedroom."

g. She said R.B. drinks a lot of alcohol and it makes him worse. She said about a month earlier he threatened her, saying that "if I rat him out to police, the only way I will get out of here is in a body bag."

188. Elliott acknowledged under cross-examination by R.B.’s lawyer Heeley that B.B. did not make the statement under oath. Elliott said he cautioned her about the consequences for making false statements.

WITNESS #9: DANIEL SORBARA (Hamilton Police Constable)

Witness #9: Daniel Sorbara (Hamilton Police Constable)

189. Constable Daniel Sorbara of the Hamilton Police Service testified briefly that on October 27, 2011 at 6:04 p.m. he responded to a disturbance call at the residence of J.T. and R.B.. Upon arrival he met R.B. who was sitting on the sidewalk. R.B. advised he had been involved in a verbal argument with J.T., after she came across an e-mail and accused him of being unfaithful. He said the argument became heated so J.T. left to cool down.

190. While the officer was on the scene J.T. returned to the residence and confirmed there had only been a verbal argument with no physical conflict. Both parties appeared to calm down. Sorbara satisfied himself there had been no physical injuries or assault, and there was no concern about J.T.’s safety. Both parties promised to behave themselves, and the police officer left.

WITNESS #10: B.B. (R.B.’s former partner)

Witness #10: B.B. (R.B.’s former partner)

191. R.B.'s estranged wife B.B. gave the following evidence:

a. She is 42 years old. She married R.B. on October 5, 2002 after knowing him approximately 4 months. Her now 15-year-old son J. was about seven at time.

b. She and R.B. went through a cycle of separating and reconciling.

c. The separations occurred as a result of R.B.'s abusive behaviour. "He would beat me up and stuff like that".

d. R.B. had a long-standing problem with alcohol abuse. Initially he was physically abusive when he drank. By the end of the relationship he was being physically abusive even when he wasn’t drinking.

e. They separated permanently in approximately 2007.

192. She testified she ended up losing custody of her son because of how badly R.B. treated them. She explained:

a. Whenever problems arose she would immediately send her son to stay with her parents.

b. She said her son hated the way R.B. treated her.

c. Her son only witnessed the conflict one time – when R.B. put a knife to her throat. She said she wasn't really worried about J. witnessing that incident -- because she was more worried about her own immediate safety.

d. She said R.B. would call her son names like "fat bastard" or "gay".

e. R.B. also complained that her parents were running her life, and that they shouldn't be telling her what to do.

f. Her parents didn't like R.B. and didn't approve of the turbulent home environment that B.B. and her son were exposed to.

g. Eventually the parents contacted the Children's Aid Society out of concern about what J. was being exposed to.

h. Her parents now have full custody of the boy.

193. Under questioning, she recalled attending at the Hamilton mountain police station in 2003 and giving a statement about assaults by R.B.. Society counsel Anis asked her about each allegation. B.B. confirmed everything she told Constable Elliott was true.

194. She stated that after she made that complaint to police:

a. R.B. was charged and jailed.

b. R.B. then called her from jail and wanted her to help him get released.

c. She obtained permission to go visit R.B. in jail.

d. She agreed to sign an affidavit saying that all of the complaints she made to police were "bullshit".

e. She said she signed the affidavit because she was afraid of R.B..

f. She commented under cross-examination: “I shouldn’t have done that but I had his sister write it for me...because I can’t spell”

g. Despite signing that affidavit recanting her allegations -- in this trial she swore that each of those allegations was true.

195. She denied Heeley’s suggestion she had made more recent efforts to contact R.B. since separation.

196. B.B. was clearly a reluctant witness giving evidence pursuant to a summons to attend. She appeared apprehensive and nervous testifying in the presence of R.B., but answered all questions in a spontaneous and direct manner. If she didn't remember something she had no hesitation admitting it. Her candid aside -- "I try not to remember, you know what I mean?” – had a ring of truth.

197. R.B. did not testify at this trial. He presented no denial of her allegations. I accept B.B.’s evidence in its entirety, and note the similarities with R.B.’s alleged mistreatment of J.T. and P.P..

WITNESS #11: TERRI SOUTHERN (CCAS Family Resource Worker)

Witness #11: Terri Southern (CCAS Family Resource Worker)

198. Family resource worker Terri Southern supervised approximately 34 visits between M.B. and I.T. from December 2010 until June 2011.

199. She testified the visits were initially fully supervised in the home and progressed to semi-supervised in the home, twice per week. Semi-supervised meant she would be present at the beginning of the visit to observe that M.B. was preparing a meal for I.T., and later she would return to the home to see how things were going.

200. Southern’s observations of M.B.'s interactions with I.T. were entirely favourable:

a. M.B. was always loving and appropriate with the child.

b. Home conditions were good, "always clean and tidy".

c. M.B. would always prepare nutritious meals.

d. There was a predictable and well-organized routine to each visit; a structure which was beneficial for I.T..

e. There appeared to be "a really nice attachment" between father and daughter.

f. M.B. engaged in appropriate conversation and interaction with the child.

g. She observed mutual expressions of love.

h. I.T. always enjoyed her time.

i. M.B. repeatedly expressed his desire to have longer visits and ultimately he wanted I.T. to live with him.

j. Similarly, I.T. told Southern she wanted visits to last longer, and she wanted more visits.

k. M.B. was responsive to Southern's suggestions about helping I.T. learn her alphabet. He would use the flashcards she provided.

l. M.B. did not miss any visits.

201. Southern recalled the only times there were problems would be when M.B. would become frustrated by the Society’s involvement. She said occasionally he would lose his temper, but rarely in the presence of the child.

202. She said at times he was intimidating. But she also noted that if M.B. became angry about something, he would blow off steam and then calm down very quickly. She said she found it "easy to de-escalate him" by reminding him that I.T. was the focus of attention.

203. She said she never saw any sign of marijuana or drugs in his home.

WITNESS #12: JOEL THOMPSON (CCAS Child Protection Worker)

Witness #12: Joel Thompson (CCAS Child Protection Worker)

204. Society child protection worker Joel Thompson updated the evidence set out in his 52 page affidavit sworn March 21, 2012. He has been the children's service worker for P.P. and C.B. since August 17, 2010; for S.B. since July 8, 2011; and for I.T. during the period August 17, 2010 until March 21, 2011.

205. His evidence about parent-child interactions was consistent with the testimony of other Society witnesses. His observations concerning P.P. were particularly relevant:

P.P.

206. Thompson described a situation involving P.P. on September 28, 2010, a month after apprehension:

a. He had to pick P.P. up from Holbrook Elementary because the boy was acting out and had run away from the school onto a side field. The school was worried and called police.

b. P.P. was angry and said he wanted to see J.T. more often.

c. When Thompson tried to reassure P.P. the Society was working with J.T., P.P. called him a liar, adding that his mother said “you guys are fuckin’ idiots” and are keeping him away from his mother.

d. When Thompson tried to explain the Society was working on getting him back home when it was safe, P.P. replied that his mom does not lie and “all workers can fuckin’ burn in hell.”

207. On a subsequent occasion November 10, 2010 P.P. created such a commotion at school the police had to be called because he was throwing things and running in and out of the school. When police arrived they put P.P. in handcuffs to keep him safe and calm him down.

208. Thompson described a November 2, 2010 visit which he supervised between P.P. and J.T.:

a. From the start of the visit P.P. started asking questions about R.B.. “Why are you with him?” “When are you leaving him?”

b. J.T. responded by saying R.B. loved P.P. and their family.

c. Thompson entered the room and explained to P.P. he had not seen his mother in two weeks and suggested they could discuss R.B. another time.

d. P.P. immediately started asking about R.B. again.

e. When J.T. reminded P.P. that “Joel (Thompson) said that we are not to talk about this”, P.P. replied “I don’t give a fuck about what Joel says.”

f. P.P. asked: if he ever came home to live with J.T., would he still be able to see M.C. and D.C.? J.T. said yes, and added she never said that he couldn’t.

209. Thompson recalled as he and P.P. were driving away from a November 9, 2010 visit with J.T., P.P. saw J.T. and R.B. on the street. He yelled bye to his mom, but said nothing to R.B.. For the remainder of the car ride, P.P. was agitated, rolling down his window and yelling and swearing at people on the street.

210. Thompson said during a November 12, 2010 visit with J.T., P.P. "talked about people filling his head with too much information and how he was just a kid." He reaffirmed however that he did not like R.B..

211. Thompson described a December 10, 2010 visit he supervised between P.P. and J.T. (when she was pregnant with S.B.):

a. P.P. asked what if the Society takes that child.

b. J.T. told P.P. she would run first.

c. She told him not to worry -- they would all be home soon.

d. P.P. asked about her having another baby and the Society would take that baby away because of R.B.’s temper.

e. J.T. replied R.B.’s temper never hurt him.

f. J.T. said R.B. would yell at P.P. to play outside until she got home, and then she would “tear a hole” into R.B. for doing that.

g. P.P. argued that R.B. did have a temper and asked about the time I.T. got hit in the head with a boot that R.B. threw at her.

h. J.T. said the boot missed her head, but admitted it really scared everyone in the house when R.B. did this.

i. P.P. said I.T. once cried because R.B. threw her on her bed.

j. P.P. and J.T. then argued about whether R.B. threw or put I.T. to bed.

212. Thompson explained that while sometimes the visits between P.P. and J.T. went well, with the passage of time they became more problematic. For example, he described a March 3, 2011 visit he supervised:

a. Before the visit started, Thompson mentioned to J.T. that P.P. wasn’t having a good day. He was very anxious and upset.

b. When J.T. asked if it was because of the baby, Thompson told her P.P. was saying it was because of R.B..

c. J.T. expressed surprise and stated P.P. had no right to be upset about R.B..

d. Thompson reminded her P.P. didn’t want her with R.B..

e. He reminded her that last week she told the children she had left R.B., but this week she was saying they were back together and were going to be a family.

f. He stressed that the children needed to hear consistent messages from her.

g. She agreed to tell the children she was not living with R.B. right now; she was on her own getting the help and support she needed; but she hoped that R.B. would get the help that he needed.

h. As soon as the visit started, P.P. confronted J.T.: “I thought you left (R.B.)”.

i. Thompson took them aside, explaining to P.P. that his mom wanted to explain what was going on.

j. When J.T. explained she was on her own but talking to R.B., P.P. asked why she would even want to talk to that “fucking idiot.”

k. When Thompson assisted in explaining that J.T. cared about R.B. and wanted to see him do well, P.P. predicted J.T. would get back with R.B. anyway, and once she reconciled with him, P.P. would never live with her again. He would stay with D.C..

l. J.T. said she couldn’t understand why P.P. was so angry at R.B.. P.P. replied because he’s a “fucking asshole”.

m. J.T. asked why P.P. didn’t remember the good times with R.B.. P.P. asked what good times?

n. J.T. said they had fun at the park. P.P. said they did have fun until R.B. would “flip out”. J.T. agreed saying “yeah”.

o. J.T. said they had fun camping. P.P. said it was fun until R.B. “flipped out.” Again, J.T. agreed saying “yeah”.

p. J.T. thought about another time for a short while and sat in silence.

q. P.P. said he would not live with his mom if that “fucking idiot” was there.

r. After P.P. had some private time with J.T., Thompson heard P.P. call her a “fucking retard”. Thompson intervened and ended the visit. As they were leaving, P.P. continued to call his mother names and swear at her. J.T. was on the floor playing with I.T. and C.B.. P.P. walked by them and told I.T. to have fun with that “fucking retard.”

s. Back at the foster home, P.P. was upset that J.T. had lied last week about leaving R.B. and was lying now when she said they were not together.

t. P.P. said he wanted to kill J.T. and R.B. so he could live at D.C.’s.

213. There were more problematic visits, and access between J.T. and P.P. broke down completely in April 2011.

214. However, on January 20, 2012 there was one further visit instigated by P.P.. Thompson explained P.P. had a lot of very strong feelings that he wanted to convey to J.T.. P.P. had been unable to express those feelings. He asked a worker at Lynnwood Hall to type up a letter which P.P. then delivered to J.T. during a supervised visit on January 20, 2012. P.P.'s letter included the following statements to his mother:

a. When he used to visit with J.T. "you never paid attention to me. It was like you never loved us."

b. "If you really loved us you would've dumped (R.B.)."

c. He said that if he had to choose where I.T. should go to live, other than M.C. and D.C.’ house, he would pick M.B..

d. He said that "even when [M.B.] was doing bad stuff a couple of years ago he was still a better dad than a mom like you."

e. He felt things were better before I.T. was born because J.T. had more time for him and they used to have fun.

f. He complained that J.T. doesn't seem to have any time for him, "not even a second".

215. Thompson testified that since giving J.T. that letter on January 20, 2012 P.P. has not seen J.T..

216. During cross-examination Heeley suggested it was a bad idea to have P.P. present such a hurtful letter because it extinguished what little relationship existed between P.P. and J.T.. Thompson disagreed, explaining:

a. It was very important for P.P. to be able to convey how strongly he felt about things.

b. Afterward P.P. was "glad he got it out".

c. P.P. has very strong feelings toward his mother.

d. He struggles. He loves her. He wants to please her. But he does not feel a connection with J.T. and that's where his anger comes from.

e. P.P. is a very intelligent child, and at times he makes deliberately provocative statements to J.T. because he is smart enough to know how to get a response from her. "It's almost like he knows how to poke the bear." He is so starved for an emotional response from J.T. that he will at times seek attention in a negative fashion by making provocative statements.

f. During supervised visits, when he was around his mother he so desperately wanted her affection he was willing to say what she wanted to hear – even to the point of periodically being open minded about R.B.. But privately, when he was not worried about seeking J.T.'s approval, P.P. was adamant he didn’t want anything to do with R.B..

217. Thompson said he spoke to J.T. about getting counselling to improve the bond between her and P.P.. However Thompson felt P.P. was not at the point where it would be of benefit to try to arrange such counselling.

218. He noted P.P.'s behaviour started to improve in the spring of 2011 after he stopped one-on-one visits with J.T.. His behaviour continued to improve after the January 2012 letter/final visit.

219. Thompson said P.P. has been consistent and unequivocal in stating he wants to live with M.C. and D.C.. In contrast he said J.T. has wavered about where she thought P.P. should live.

220. He said P.P. very much requires permanence – a sense that he is going to be settling in.

221. Thompson said when P.P. saw Dr. Connor on April 3, 2012, the paediatrician was pleased with his progress; his medication will remain unchanged; and he will be seen again in six months.

I.T.

222. Thompson agreed with M.B.’s lawyer Livesey that of the two visits he observed between M.B. and I.T., both visits went quite well. He agreed I.T. never expressed any negative feelings or concerns about M.B..

223. During cross-examination Livesey questioned the wisdom of leaving P.P. and I.T. in the same home with M.C. and D.C.. He suggested the Society was well aware of P.P.’s extreme behavioural problems but did nothing to protect I.T. from her older brother’s inappropriate and aggressive behaviour – including hitting. Thompson responded:

a. The Society periodically monitored how P.P. and I.T. were doing in the care of M.C. and D.C..

b. They had confidence D.C. was protecting I.T.

c. With the passage of time P.P.'s behavioural problems were slowly improving.

224. Under questioning by OCL lawyer Charko, Thompson said he was aware of the controversy about whether the M.C. and D.C. could be considered both as maternal grandparents and also foster parents. He saw a lot of benefit to placing P.P. and I.T. with M.C. and D.C.. Placing the children with family in a familiar environment was much preferable to placing the children with strangers. He said both P.P. and I.T. were comfortable when placed in M.C. and D.C.’ home. They had questions about why they had been removed from J.T.'s home. Being placed in a familiar environment with family eased the transition.

225. I accept Thompson’s evidence. His affidavit was detailed and thorough. He testified in a clear and informative manner; was responsive to questions; and easily stood up to cross-examination. His evidence included a notable balance of favourable and less favourable comments, particularly relating to J.T. and R.B.. He had excellent recollection, supported by notes. He conveyed empathy for all parties concerned. At all times he was child-focussed.

WITNESS #13: ERIN KNOKE (CCAS Child Protection Worker)

Witness #13: Erin Knoke (CCAS Child Protection Worker)

226. Society child protection worker Erin Knoke testified briefly that on the afternoon of September 15, 2011 she was installing car seats in her vehicle parked in front of the Society building in east Hamilton. She saw R.B. outside the front door of the building with J.T.. She said he appeared to be agitated and was yelling. She heard him say that he could not wait until someone "nukes this place."

227. She went inside to tell staff members. When she went back outside to her car R.B. walked past her with J.T.. She heard him say: "I'm going to torch this place. I'm going to come back tonight and do it, they don't know what I am capable of."

228. She returned to the building to report his additional comments.

229. Although R.B.’s lawyer Heeley suggested in cross-examination that she might not have been in a position to hear R.B. properly, I found Knoke's evidence to be straightforward and credible. I accept her description that she heard R.B.’s words so clearly and found them so alarming and memorable that she made a point of writing down the exact quote.

230. R.B. was charged criminally in relation to the threat against the Society. That criminal charge is still before the court.

WITNESS #14: JESSICA BARNES (CCAS Child Protection Worker)

Witness #14: Jessica Barnes (CCAS Child Protection Worker)

231. Jessica Barnes has been involved with this family since July 4, 2011. She became the family services worker on August 15, 2011. She was questioned extensively in relation to her 459 paragraph affidavit sworn March 21, 2012.

J.T. & R.B. - STRENGTHS

232. Barnes confirmed J.T. and R.B. have strengths and have made some progress – both individually and as a couple:

a. R.B.’s behaviour has been less volatile in recent months. But she was careful to put this in context: Throughout her involvement on this file R.B. has maintained a fairly steady pattern of leaving long, rambling, confusing, aggressive, and largely incoherent voicemail messages for her – sometimes several per day. The "improvement": At times the voicemails have been somewhat less frequent. At times they have been calmer, and less vulgar and offensive. He has also, with the passage of time, shown the ability to be "more calm" in his direct dealings with her. However, there have been many occasions when his presentation and behaviour have been out of control.

b. J.T. and R.B. have consistently maintained contact with the Society and provided updated information regarding their address and telephone number.

c. They are sometimes open and forthcoming about what they are struggling with, and what support would be helpful from the Society.

d. They are strong advocates for themselves and for their children.

e. They clearly love their children and have a strong desire to parent I.T., C.B. and S.B. on a full-time basis.

f. There have been times when R.B. has demonstrated some insight recently into the concerns that the Society has concerning his past behaviour.

g. J.T. has demonstrated some ability to follow through with suggestions to improve access, such as limiting the amount of texting she does during visits.

h. Despite considerable controversy about the extent to which the maternal grandparents should be involved in the children’s lives, J.T. spoke very positively about her father M.C.

M.B. – STRENGTHS

233. Similarly, Barnes acknowledged M.B.'s cooperation and follow-through with Society recommendations has improved since her initial involvement:

a. M.B. has exercised regular access with I.T., and has advocated strongly for placement of this child in his care.

b. There have been no reports of concerns during M.B.'s access to I.T., which currently includes alternate weekends Friday after school to Monday morning, together with two midweek non-overnight visits.

c. M.B. has attended I.T.'s school meetings and other functions, doctors’ appointments, arranged eye care, taken her to school, attended swimming lessons and enrolled I.T. in dance lessons.

d. M.B.'s home is appropriate, although there is presently no separate bedroom for I.T.. Barnes said M.B. has undertaken to construct a partition so I.T. can have more privacy if she is placed in his care.

e. Barnes agreed all of the parents have recently engaged in some services recommended by the Society.

J.T. & R.B. – UNSTABLE RELATIONSHIP

234. Barnes gave evidence of numerous interactions she had with J.T. and R.B. and the many inconsistent statements she has received from them (individually and jointly) concerning the status of their relationship; whether they would be proposing to parent the children jointly or individually; and indeed which children they would want in their care.

235. Since she became involved in July 2011:

a. J.T. and R.B. have separated and then reconciled on eight separate occasions.

b. Most of these separations have lasted a day or perhaps several days.

c. Both parents have reported mutual emotional and physical abuse.

d. During separations each has expressed serious concerns about the other party’s stability, temperament and ability to parent.

e. As soon as they reconcile, they are adamant that they want to parent together.

f. Barnes was receiving so many inconsistent and contradictory messages from the parties that at one point recently J.T. basically said: disregard messages to the contrary; no matter what either of them says, presume they plan to parent together.

236. The family services worker testified that in addition to the Feb 16, 2011 dog bite incident, there were other situations which caused her to be concerned about domestic violence between the parties:

a. P.P. and I.T. have stated they witnessed domestic conflict in the home between J.T. and R.B., including yelling and throwing dishes.

b. In July 2011 R.B. left voicemail messages for Barnes in which he was yelling, verbally abusive, and complaining about J.T.’s parenting abilities.

c. Barnes then told J.T. her concern about J.T.’s safety in light of R.B.’s escalating behaviour.

d. J.T. advised that she had hit R.B. in the past but that R.B. had never hit her.

e. On the same day however she expressed concern about her friend's safety. J.T. explained R.B. had told her if he ever saw her with any man, even if they were separated, he would "kick the fuck out of him".

f. She said R.B. had threatened her friend’s boyfriend on more than one occasion.

g. J.T. requested Society assistance in relocating out of Hamilton. She said eventually she'd like to return to her family in Alberta, but in the meantime she felt moving somewhere like Burlington would be helpful because R.B. had no money and he would not be able to get to her outside of the City of Hamilton.

h. A few days later J.T. changed her position and said she and R.B. could parent together.

237. On September 12, 2011 R.B. contacted Barnes and stated:

a. His plan of care would not involve J.T..

b. He reported there was an incident over the weekend where J.T. "beat" him with a chair and "smashed it" over his head. He said police attended.

c. R.B. said he and J.T. got into an argument over who J.T. was spending time with at the shelter.

d. Later in the day R.B. left another voicemail stating he did not want C.B. in J.T.’s care. He expressed concerns about who she was spending time with.

e. On the same day Barnes met with J.T. and noticed she had a large bruise above her elbow on her right arm. J.T. said she sustained the injury when she hit a door corner.

238. There was another occasion in October 2011 when police were also called to their home. On October 13, 2011 R.B. sent the Society a letter in which he stated of J.T.: “I see her falling apart and getting worse...”

239. On November 17, 2011 Barnes spoke to R.B. who expressed concern J.T. was not eating, not going to work, and not cleaning the house. Financially they were struggling. The Society gave them food vouchers and bus tickets. Barnes said otherwise things appeared to be going okay

240. Barnes testified that in December 2011 she learned that J.T. had been hospitalized because she had broken her elbow. J.T. has consistently explained that the injury was caused when she accidentally fell in the home. Under cross-examination, Barnes outlined why she suspected J.T. had actually been the victim of domestic violence: Shortly prior to J.T. breaking her elbow, R.B. had left one or two telephone messages for Barnes and her supervisor, advising:

a. J.T. was using drugs.

b. He was concerned the children were not his.

c. He was concerned about who J.T. was associating with.

d. He did not want to attend his access visits with J.T..

241. When Barnes reached R.B. by telephone after hearing those messages, R.B. said J.T. would not be attending a visit that day, but he would not explain why because he felt his statements had previously been misconstrued.

242. Barnes said she called the police to report her concerns that J.T. might have been victim of domestic violence. She agreed J.T. told police the same story about the broken elbow being the result of an accident, and that J.T. expressed disapproval and embarrassment that Barnes had contacted the police.

243. Barnes gave a more recent example:

a. After hearing J.T. and R.B. had engaged in a verbal argument prior to a legal aid meeting -- and that R.B. said J.T. had smashed the house -- Barnes and a co-worker attended at their home unannounced.

b. No one answered the door. The windows were covered over with sheets, but through small openings Barnes was able to peer inside.

c. She said the floor was covered in clothing, papers, and other things which had been thrown around.

d. From what she could see, the floor was a mess and it appeared there had been some sort of commotion inside.

244. Barnes also testified:

a. Although she had never seen any direct evidence of domestic violence between the parties, J.T. previously complained that R.B. had restrained her.

b. On numerous occasions the parties separated acrimoniously.

c. When they would separate R.B. would often make serious and angry complaints about J.T., calling her lazy, questioning her parenting skills, expressing concern about her lifestyle, etc.

d. She considered R.B.'s behaviours toward J.T. constitute abuse because domestic violence includes not just physical acts but also emotional and mental abuse.

e. She acknowledged she was not aware of any police calls relating to J.T. and R.B. since October 27, 2011.

245. Barnes testified R.B. recently informed her:

a. He hadn’t been honest with Dr. K.B. with respect to the problems he was having with J.T..

b. R.B. was concerned J.T. had been off her medications for three days and that she was depressed.

c. He said when J.T. goes off her medications she can go into a “daze” which can last for days at a time, during which she cannot handle children.

246. Barnes concluded the relationship between J.T. and R.B. continues to be unstable and volatile, and poses a risk to the emotional well-being of the children.

J.T. & R.B. – MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

247. Barnes testified J.T. and R.B. continue to have unresolved mental health issues which cause the Society to fear the children would be at significant risk of emotional and possibly physical harm if they were placed in their care. While they have – to some extent -- improved their behaviour during supervised visits, their lifestyle and personal issues during the majority of the time when they are away from the agency remain concerning.

248. She gave numerous examples of impulsive behaviour by R.B. which included cancelling visits, and leaving many abusive and incoherent voicemails which included statements such like:

a. “You can take my daughter’s and my son’s visits and stick them up your ass.”

b. (at the end of a voicemail) “Have a good day assholes.”

c. “Keep doing what you’re doing and I’ll end everything. I’ll end it for a lot of people man.”

d. “Don’t try to darken my doorstep because you’re not welcome.”

e. “I am seriously sick and tired of your mouth....You can only ignore me for so long....I’ll be there with bells on.”

f. “I’m supposed to listen to some 21 year old?...I’ll see you in court.”

249. In person or by telephone R.B. made other troubling statements such as:

a. Threatening that if the children were not removed from D.C.’s home, “I will go through the house like a hurricane”.

b. “I don’t care if I have to go to jail to get the kids removed from the home.”

c. “One of my friends or acquaintances will be responsible for what happens to M.C. and D.C.”

d. “If you don’t get the kids out of there I’m going to take care of it” and “I’m not responsible for what my friends are going to do.”

250. At times police intervention at the Society was required because of R.B.’s behaviours which included being verbally aggressive and physically intimidating toward community members and Society workers.

251. She agreed under cross-examination that in October 2011 she commended R.B. for being calm in his dealings with her for about three or four weeks. This was the longest period of calm she had ever witnessed. She explained he was still at times volatile – but for a period of time he was calmer than she had previously seen him, and she wanted to acknowledge and encourage his progress.

252. However, Barnes testified that on December 13, 2011 she started getting angry voice mails from R.B. again. She said he was agitated and very difficult to understand, but he appeared to be blaming M.C. and D.C. for his problems and the Society’s involvement.

253. For his part R.B. recently told Barnes his new medication was helping and making a big difference regarding his anxiety. He now felt able to go on buses and out in public. Under cross-examination she agreed while R.B. was interacting with the Society in a slightly less angry and vulgar way than had previously been the case, the Society is still concerned about his instability and unpredictable nature.

254. It is clear from Barnes’ evidence – combined with the evidence of other Society employees – that R.B. was on many occasions a particularly difficult, challenging and intimidating parent to work with. He challenged Barnes’ experience and qualifications. He constantly made complaints of unfair or incompetent treatment. On at least one occasion he asked that his file be transferred to the non-Catholic CAS, because he said he was going to be suing the Catholic agency. At times, if he didn’t get his way, he would make provocative statements such as “I’ll see you fuckers in court.”

255. Barnes said neither parent has demonstrated long-lasting stability in their mental health; their presentation to the Society; or their relationship.

J.T. & R.B. – HOUSING & FINANCES

256. Barnes testified J.T. and R.B. have not demonstrated the ability to maintain adequate housing on a long-term basis, or manage their finances so that they are able to meet their own basic needs.

257. She said during her involvement the parties have been evicted from their residence on two occasions. J.T. has resided in shelters. R.B. has lived homeless on the streets. They only secured their current bachelor apartment in October 2011, and they still haven’t let Barnes know when she can inspect the apartment.

258. Barnes testified between July 2011 and the trial J.T. and R.B. were given more than $150 in food vouchers and at least 175 bus tickets, worth more than $440. They were also given household items such as utensils, blankets, a microwave, sheets, clothing, a sleeping bag, pictures, pots, pans, and a Christmas tree.

259. Barnes expressed concern they repeatedly asked for financial assistance – sometimes within weeks of receiving a monthly government check – but they appeared unable to budget. They were spending money on questionable priorities such as telephones, internet, expensive cable TV (including children's channels even though they had no children living with them], and reported ongoing use of marijuana.

260. Barnes acknowledged under cross-examination by Heeley that she has not seen R.B. smoking marijuana and she has never had any concerns that either J.T. or R.B. were "high" while attending Society offices. She noted however R.B. recently told her that one of his concerns about J.T. was that she continues to smoke marijuana.

261. Barnes said she explained to J.T. and R.B. that if they didn't have food or money the Society would give them food vouchers and bus tickets. But she also warned them that these ongoing requests for financial assistance simply reinforced the Society’s concern that they can’t even manage their own daily needs, let alone the needs of children.

J.T. & R.B. -- LACK OF FOLLOW-THROUGH WITH PROGRAMS

262. Barnes testified J.T. and R.B. have not followed through with programs and resources suggested to them by both the Society and the parenting capacity assessment. They have not engaged in the long-term and extensive treatment that Dr. Ashbourne stated would be required to address their significant mental health concerns. They have not engaged in budget counselling. Neither has engaged in anger management counselling.

263. They have only obtained very limited couples’ counselling through Dr. K.B.. They have not participated in a formal program.

264. J.T. and R.B. only recently engaged in a parenting program, which R.B. has stopped attending. He started the Beyond the Basics program with J.T. but he said his anxiety made him unable to participate in a group format. R.B. asked the Society if they could provide a one-on-one parenting program for him. Barnes said she was unaware of any one-on-one programs, but she referred him to the Public Health Department. She said in January and February 2012 R.B. said he was also willing to access programs through Catholic Family Services.

265. J.T. has completed the Beyond the Basics program. However she failed to complete the Incredible Years parenting program. She said she missed the start date.

266. Barnes testified she offered to connect J.T. with a domestic violence worker because of the history of volatile behaviour by R.B.. She said J.T. refused to participate.

J.T. & R.B. -- PARENTING SKILLS

267. Barnes testified the parenting capacity assessment which was completed on September 22, 2011 by Dr. Ashbourne concluded the factors required for the children to have a long-term safe and stable home base are missing, and that neither J.T. nor R.B. have the skills to care for their children on a long-term basis. She testified:

a. There were significant concerns about J.T. and R.B.'s parenting of P.P. even before the children were apprehended. It was reported they displayed harsh, inconsistent and inappropriate parenting of P.P., and that R.B. was verbally abusive towards P.P. and I.T..

b. Hamilton CAS records confirmed R.B. behaved in a similar harsh and abusive manner to the child of his previous partner B.B..

c. J.T. dismisses R.B.’s inappropriate and abusive behaviours towards herself and her children and she has failed to protect them from emotional harm.

d. J.T. has prioritized her relationship with R.B. over the needs of her children and continues to be preoccupied by other crises in her life including those of R.B., which have led to her being distracted during visits -- or sometimes missing visits entirely.

e. R.B. has displayed aggressive and inappropriate behaviour in front of the children during access visits.

f. J.T. continues to present as speaking harshly during access, particularly to C.B..

g. Concerns continue about the parents’ ability to supervise the children and keep them safe.

h. Both parents blame P.P. for the family's difficulties and they demonstrate little insight into how their interactions with P.P. have impacted on him.

i. J.T. has not engaged in any process to resolve the difficulties in her relationship with P.P. and has seen him only once since mid 2011.

j. In the fall of 2010, shortly after apprehension, R.B. left a visit very angry because he felt I.T. had been cool with him. He said things like "I don't need this shit, I'm leaving" in front of I.T..

k. Similarly on September 30, 2010 there was an incident in which I.T. had trouble putting her shoes on and wouldn't cooperate when R.B. tried to help her. He ended up becoming exasperated and threw the shoe down and walked away. She said I.T. was very upset by this.

l. Barnes said she still has concerns about J.T. and R.B.'s ability to supervise children during visits.

268. In describing the evolution of access, Barnes explained:

a. In late October 2011 she informed J.T. her visits to S.B. would become semi-supervised because she was making progress. Times were not being expanded but there would be less supervision.

b. In October 2011 R.B. was attending for the last hour of J.T.'s visits with C.B. and S.B. on Thursdays.

c. Barnes acknowledged in November 2011 R.B. was seeking access to I.T.. However he has only had a Christmas visit since then.

d. On November 29, 2011 Barnes participated in supervising a visit between J.T., R.B., I.T. and C.B., at a Christmas party put on by the Hamilton Police Service. The visit was initiated by J.T.. Barnes testified I.T. hugged R.B. when she saw him and the child appeared to be happy. Barnes had no concerns about any interactions during that visit.

e. As of January 2012 R.B. and J.T. were generally interacting in a loving way with the children during visits. They were both good at redirecting C.B. when he was difficult. But she recalled supervising a visit between J.T. and the three youngest children on January 6, 2012. She said I.T. had a bit of a temper tantrum and she felt J.T.’s reaction – on this occasion and on other occasions – was unnecessarily harsh.

f. On January 31, 2012 Barnes assisted in supervising a visit in which J.T. took I.T. to a movie. Her only concern was that on the previous day Barnes asked J.T. not to talk about R.B. during visits, because I.T. reported being uncomfortable at the mention of R.B.. Despite that warning, during the movie visit J.T. spoke to I.T. about wanting to bring popcorn and McDonald's food home for R.B.. Apart from that, Barnes said the visit went well.

269. She described the current access arrangements as follows:

a. J.T. has access with I.T. Tuesdays from 9 – 11 a.m.; with C.B. and S.B. on Mondays from 11-2:30 pm; and Thursdays from 1:30 pm until 4:30 pm, and with S.B. on Wednesdays from 12:30 – 2:00 pm. S.B.’s visits have been moved to semi-supervised, and the other visits are fully supervised.

b. As of January 2012, J.T. has had a visit with her three youngest children the first Friday of each month from 9:30 – 11:30 a.m.

c. J.T. has had one access visit with P.P. in January, 2012, since Barnes became involved in July 2011. This was a supervised visit in which P.P. read a letter to J.T. discussing his feelings of being ignored, and stating he felt J.T. chose R.B. over him. That visit ended with P.P. telling J.T. to drop dead.

d. R.B.’s access to the children has increased in recent months. Between July 2011 and November 2011 he had only two visits. Three were cancelled during that time by R.B.. Starting in November 2011 R.B. began attending the Society for one hour weekly access on Thursdays. In February 2012 this was increased to three hours on Thursdays, and a 90 minute visit on Wednesdays was added. As of March 8, 2012 R.B. was approved to attend all three weekly visits with J.T.. However, after court on March 12, 2012 R.B. left a voicemail saying he would not be attending visits until the trial. He then changed his mind.

J.T. & R.B. -- LACK OF INSIGHT

270. Barnes testified J.T. and R.B. have repeatedly dismissed the Society’s concerns stating their only issues are financial, and the children were wrongfully removed from their care. J.T. often says she has done nothing wrong and the children should never have been removed from her care.

271. Neither J.T. nor R.B. have shown any insight into how R.B.'s unpredictable and aggressive behaviour could impact on young children. J.T. denies any issues in her relationship with R.B., and insists the relationship is beneficial for her and the children. She intends to marry R.B..

272. Barnes said both parties perceive any conflict in their relationship has been caused by the Society’s intervention. Both feel all their difficulties would be solved if the children (except perhaps P.P.) were returned to their care.

273. Barnes agreed in the fall of 2011 R.B. verbalized he wanted to start working with the Society. She said at times he would even make statements suggesting he realized he had to be more careful about things he said and did in front of the children. For example she once heard him say he had come to understand children pick up what they hear and he should control himself better.

274. However, Barnes emphasized while periodically R.B. would claim to understand he needs to change, she has not seen him demonstrate through his actions he is really doing anything to behave differently. She questioned whether R.B. actually had any insight, or whether he would simply sometimes say what he thought the Society wanted to hear.

J.T. & R.B. -- DR. K.B.

275. Barnes gave evidence about a report she received from Dr. K.B. dated February 20, 2012. The physician stated:

a. He had previously given the Society a verbal update concerning J.T. and R.B.

b. He has been the family doctor for R.B. since February 2011 and for J.T. since August 8, 2011.

c. R.B. has been seen regularly and he has been attending with a mental health counsellor B.H. and a psychiatrist Dr. L.G.

d. He described R.B.'s attendance as impressive and an indication of significant commitment, considering that R.B. has not had any significant medical care for decades.

e. R.B. has ADHD inattentive active impulsive type and social anxiety order.

f. In addition to mental health issues R.B. has a number of physical issues which impact on his ability to work.

g. He is not completely illiterate but has limited writing and reading capabilities.

h. R.B. has had quite a dramatic response to his medications.

i. R.B. is now able to sit and be attentive to conversation and stay calm and focused. Compared to when the doctor first met him this is "absolutely dramatic change for him". His impulsivity and apparent uncontrolled anger are rarely manifest and he is able to self regulate with much more regularity and effectiveness.

j. The response to medication has been absolutely dramatic and the doctor expects that in the future R.B. will be able to self regulate with much more regularity and effectiveness.

k. The doctor expects that R.B. will continue to gain further people skills and control in social situations.

l. Medication helps R.B. be more focused and less impulsive and over time this will help him be even more organized and sociable.

m. More recently R.B. was diagnosed as having panic attacks and these were contributing to some of his rages. He is now more educated about this and has medication to take in case of panic attacks.

n. J.T.'s medical/mental health issues have included anxiety and depression.

o. J.T. has been making progress since October 2011 when he prescribed Cipralex.

p. He is seeing J.T. and R.B. together on many occasions for conjoint visits. The doctor volunteered he has never seen the slightest evidence of any aggressive or violent, verbal or physical tendencies between this couple. He said there was no evidence of physical abuse perpetrated by R.B.. He said J.T. has on occasion thrown things and pushed R.B..

q. He described them as "two human beings who are in love with each other and care about each other deeply and are very supportive of each other".

r. He said both J.T. and R.B. admit to becoming verbally aggressive with each other. He said he has spoken to them individually and as a couple and made it clear that this needs to stop.

s. The doctor said he understood episodes of aggressive behaviour have drastically curtailed except for one episode sometime in October 2011 when they were having a disagreement.

t. He said there was no evidence that J.T.'s fractured arm was perpetrated by R.B..

u. He said it was his understanding that both parties occasionally smoked marijuana perhaps once a week but never on the weekdays when they have anything to do with the children. Neither of them drank alcohol or used street drugs. He said R.B. had problems with alcohol many years ago and this caused all sorts of trouble. He described it as being much to his credit that R.B. has been clean and sober from alcohol for many many years.

v. He said he has not been able to observe either party in a parenting role.

w. He summarized by saying these parties have attended a large number of appointments in comparison to his average patients and they have attended as much as has been reasonably possible given their challenges with transportation and schedules.

x. He said both have shown dramatic improvement in their mental health. He expressed frustration the current court documents did not mention any of this improvement and focused on events and issues which are dated.

276. Barnes testified she didn’t observe the sort of improvement in J.T. and R.B. which Dr. K.B. described. He may be less loud and less vulgar, but he still leaves long and bizarre voicemail messages. And he has recently reported to her an increased number of panic attacks.

M.B. - VIOLENCE

277. Barnes testified the Society has serious concerns that M.B.’s last two female partners -- J.T. and A.V. -- have reported significant physical abuse and aggressive behaviour on his part. A.V.’s complaints were corroborated by her son M. and M.B.'s daughter S.. J.T.’s complaints were corroborated by P.P.. Indeed, M. and P.P. both complained of mistreatment by M.B..

278. M.B. initially denied these reports. More recently he said his ex-partners were also abusive towards him, and he was acting in self-defence. He was adamant he is not an abusive person and has learned from his mistakes.

279. However Barnes testified M.B. shows little insight into why these reports from the past continue to be of concern to the Society.

M.B. - DRUGS

280. Barnes testified a second major area of concern about M.B. relates to his use of drugs. The Society had been ready to implement overnight visits between M.B. and I.T. in April 2011 but those overnight visits were suspended after two weekends, because of positive drug test results.

281. Barnes admitted under cross-examination that during the summer of 2011 M.B. was pressing the Society to re-test him for drugs because he did not believe the previous drug tests at the end of April 2011 were accurate. He went so far as to say “I’ll piss every day for you guys.” Barnes acknowledged M.B. was told the Society would not do another test until September 2011. She acknowledged he was pressing very hard to try to clear up the drug test issue.

282. She testified that in July 2011 M.B. admitted in December 2010 he used to do cocaine but he stated numerous times: "That's not in my life anymore".

283. She agreed that M.B. was re-tested in September 2011 and when the results were received in November 2011 they were basically “clean”. She also agreed M.B. offered to be further tested to reassure the Society.

M.B. -- PARENTING SKILLS

284. M.B.'s lawyer Livesey suggested Barnes mentioned negative observations but didn't have many good things to say about M.B.'s relationship with I.T.. Barnes responded she wasn't really M.B.'s access supervisor so she didn't have very many direct observations. She agreed however any information she had about M.B.'s relationship with I.T. – whether from first-hand observations or from reports she had received – was entirely positive.

285. She agreed that on November 15, 2011 M.B. attended at a doctor’s appointment with I.T.. He behaved appropriately throughout the visit and agreed to cooperate with respect to treatment for I.T.'s weight problems. Barnes agreed that afterward D.C. commented that M.B. was "really trying", and also said I.T. "adores her dad".

286. Barnes recalled M.B. expressing concern about I.T. being exposed to P.P.'s swearing at M.C. and D.C.’s home.

287. She testified head lice was an ongoing problem in relation to I.T.. The source of the problem was never determined, because I.T. was having lots of visits and also attending school.

M.B. -- UNWILLINGNESS TO WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH SOCIETY

288. Barnes testified on December 2, 2011 she participated in a meeting with M.B., his lawyer, and a Society lawyer. On December 6, 2011 the Society sent a letter confirming the Society expected M.B. to:

a. Work cooperatively with the Society.

b. Enrol in either the PARS (“Partner Assault Response”) or Caring Dads programs.

c. Try to facilitate an interview of his daughter S. by the family service worker.

d. Set up an appropriate bedroom for I.T. in his home.

e. Maintain a violence-free and crime-free lifestyle.

f. Cooperate with any drug testing which the Society requests.

g. Not permit others to care for I.T. unless first approved by the Society.

h. Not permit any contact between J.T. and I.T. when the child is with him, except as first approved by the Society.

i. Permit the Society worker scheduled and unscheduled access to his home.

j. Attend I.T.'s medical, school and other appointments as well as recreational activities, whenever possible.

289. The letter confirmed agreement that overnight access could commence after:

a. The Society had been able to speak to M.B.'s daughter S. and S.'s mother.

b. The Society was satisfied regarding the appropriateness of M.B.'s parenting of S..

c. A proper bedroom had been set up for I.T..

d. M.B. had enrolled in either the PARS or Caring Dads programs.

290. Barnes recalled her predecessor Carmazin had previously requested an interview with S., but M.B. would not consent. Barnes testified ultimately the Society decided that it didn't need M.B.'s consent to speak to S. -- but it did need his consent to give S. information about what was happening. She noted the December 2011 meeting was the first time M.B. actually agreed to the Society speaking to S..

291. Livesey suggested to Barnes that despite M.B.'s misgivings about how he had previously been treated by Society workers, M.B. was ultimately cooperative with her, and he did everything possible to comply with the expectations set out in that December 6, 2011 letter. He suggested in contrast the Society had, in some ways, breached the agreement which arose during the December 2, 2011 meeting.

292. Barnes disagreed M.B. had been as cooperative as his lawyer was suggesting, or that the Society had in any way reneged on the terms of any agreement. She testified M.B. has had difficulty interacting in a civil manner with Society workers and at times can present as intimidating. She referred to Dr. Ashbourne who stated on page 42 of his report, "M.B. is a very assertive personality, to the point of risking being perceived as a bully. He has difficulty seeing the benefit of being involved with the Society or other services."

293. As for "doing everything possible to cooperate", Barnes noted the following:

a. For many months the Society made it clear to M.B. it was concerned about serious allegations of domestic violence on his part, particularly in the context of positive drug tests, and a significant criminal record including acts of violence and aggression.

b. M.B. consistently denied needing any sort of domestic violence or anger management program. He said he had no convictions for domestic assaults; his criminal record was old; his former partners were lying; and he was confident he could establish that he was no longer using drugs.

c. Despite his objections, on December 2, 2011 M.B. specifically agreed to participate in either the PARS or the Caring Dads program.

d. But within days he changed his mind and again argued he shouldn’t be required to take such a program.

e. As a result of his renewed objections, Barnes looked into the matter further. On December 9, 2011 she left M.B. a voicemail stating she had reviewed his criminal history and consulted with her supervisor. The Society still required that he attend one of the two specified programs.

f. Later the same day M.B. left Barnes a voicemail stating he signed up for "your stupid program".

g. However he ended up missing the January 30, 2012 orientation meeting for Caring Dads. M.B. later explained he forgot to call them and they forgot to call him.

h. Barnes agreed eventually M.B. went to the Caring Dads orientation meeting in February 2012. She said it was her understanding M.B. would be commencing the 12 to 16 week Caring Dads program on May 1, 2012 – while the trial was still underway.

294. Livesey suggested M.B. had been told by Barnes’ supervisor M.B. would not need to enroll in the PARS program if he was going to attend Caring Dads. Barnes had no knowledge of this ever having been conveyed to M.B..

295. Livesey suggested it wasn't M.B.'s fault the Caring Dads program didn't commence until after the trial was already underway, and it was unfair for the Society to be so rigid with M.B. when he had no control over the scheduling. Barnes responded:

a. As soon as M.B. told her the Caring Dads program did not start until after the scheduled trial date, she made her own inquiries and determined M.B. could "very likely" start the PARS program sooner, if he contacted the program immediately.

b. She said the Society clearly stated its concerns about his history of domestic violence.

c. She suggested M.B. should have been more diligent in pursuing the earliest possible counselling program, bearing in mind the trial was coming up soon.

296. Barnes testified at a meeting on February 10, 2012 she served M.B. with the amended Society application and explained the Society was seeking Crown wardship for I.T. with access to M.B.. She also admitted that she told M.B. that "this position could change up to the date of court".

297. Barnes denied ever telling M.B. his chances of getting I.T. back into his care were good. She said she consistently encouraged M.B. to address the various concerns outlined in the parenting capacity assessment and identified by the Society. But she never raised expectations there was a good chance I.T. would be back in his care on a full-time basis.

298. She admitted in other respects M.B. followed through with the Society’s expectations.

S. & I.T.

299. Barnes agreed S. clearly wanted to see her sister I.T.. She said S. (now 13) told her she visits M.B. whenever she wants. She used to go over every time I.T. was at his home because she really likes seeing her sister.

300. The Society worker testified S. spoke very positively about M.B. and said that he was not like other dads who "do their own thing". S. said he will often play with I.T. and her. She told Barnes she does not stay overnight at M.B.'s residence because her mother A.V. won't let her.

301. S. said she has a very good relationship with M.B.. She said he has never hit her or I.T.. S. said generally M.B. does not say anything bad about anyone and he talks to her about wanting to move forward so he can have I.T. live with him permanently. S. said M.B. had “changed”, although she gave no specifics. Barnes agreed it sounded like M.B. was verbalizing a commitment to do whatever was necessary to have I.T. in his care.

SOCIETY’S POSITION

302. Barnes summarized the Society’s position as follows:

a. All four children have been in care for a significant amount of time, without the necessary improvement in their parents’ lives that would ensure the long-term safety and stability of the children.

b. P.P., I.T., and C.B. have now been in care for more than a year and a half; S.B. has been in care since birth.

c. She emphasized the children require long-term permanent placement.

d. She said the Society is requesting Crown wardship with access for P.P. -- in the discretion of the Society. She said the plan is that P.P. would continue to live with M.C. and D.C. with support from the Society. She said J.T. has repeatedly told her that she wishes P.P. to be a Crown ward, and has not presented on alternative plan for P.P..

e. With respect to I.T., the Society seeks Crown wardship with access to M.B. -- but no access to J.T. or R.B.. The plan is that M.C. and D.C. would adopt I.T..

f. The Society requests Crown wardship for C.B. and S.B., with no access. The plan is that the children would be placed into adoptive homes quickly, in view of their young ages.

BARNES AS WITNESS

303. Barnes’ status as the current family services worker -- with the most recent (and perhaps most comprehensive) information – made her one of the Society’s most important witnesses. As such, her evidence was not only the most detailed of the Society employees – it was also the most intensely scrutinized in cross-examination.

304. Her lengthy affidavit and updating evidence were well supported by her case notes and exhibits. Her narrative and explanations were thorough and internally consistent. She was well prepared, with an excellent memory. She was thoughtful – and very careful – particularly under cross-examination. She appeared visibly anxious to get every detail right, and took whatever time was required to check her notes for the most precise answer.

305. As with other Society employees who testified (most notably Colleen Richardson), Barnes was subject to personal attack – both by the parties during carriage of the file, and by parents’ counsel during cross-examination. I find that none of those personal criticisms – allegations of bias, incompetence, inexperience, insensitivity, etc. – are warranted.

306. I found Barnes to be an articulate, fair-minded and entirely child-focussed witness. Her observations, interactions, and recommendations made sense. During her involvement on the file she appears to have consistently shown sensitivity, professionalism – and commendable patience – dealing with difficult and at times overtly abusive and intimidating parents.

307. On the witness stand she was responsive to questions and balanced in acknowledging the strengths and weaknesses of competing positions. None of her evidence was undermined or successfully contradicted during the course of persistent and quite thorough cross-examination.

308. I found Barnes to be a helpful and credible witness. I accept her evidence.

WITNESS #15: MIKE STONE (Hamilton Police Constable)

Witness #15: Mike Stone (Hamilton Police Constable)

309. Hamilton police constable Mike Stone testified on September 10, 2011 he was dispatched to Dundurn Park in Hamilton at approximately 2:15 p.m. to investigate a tent which had been erected in the public park. He said when he arrived there was no one around. He looked through personal belongings in the tent including a jacket which had three pill bottles in it. Two of the pill bottles contained pills of various descriptions. One of the pill bottles had R.B.’s name on the label. There was also a bong inside the tent. Stone described the bong as an item typically used for smoking marijuana.

310. When the police officer telephoned a number he found in the tent, he reached J.T.. Soon after, J.T. and R.B. arrived at the park on foot.

311. Stone testified initially J.T. and R.B. were very cooperative and agreed to take the tent down. When he advised the couple he would have to give them a ticket for trespassing, R.B. became very irate and started yelling, screaming, cursing and swearing. The officer testified R.B. demanded he be given 10 tickets but that J.T. should not receive any. After that discussion Stone gave each party a single ticket for trespassing.

312. Under cross-examination Constable Stone acknowledged he did not find any drugs in the tent.

WITNESS #16: DAVID ALLCHIN (Hamilton Police Constable)

Witness #16: David Allchin (Hamilton Police Constable)

313. Hamilton police Constable David Allchin testified on May 5, 2010 at approximately 9:45 a.m. he was driving through a townhouse survey en route to an unrelated call when he observed a young child sitting without any other person around, on the front porch of unit 22. He said he was so concerned he diverted his attention from the call he was supposed to respond to, and went over to talk to the little girl.

314. It was I.T.. The child told the officer that she was waiting for a friend to come out and play. He described the little girl as calm. She did not seem scared. She was dressed appropriately for the weather.

315. After talking to her for three or four minutes with no adult appearing, Allchin went to unit 22 – the closest unit to where I.T. was sitting – and knocked on the door. A female answered and explained that I.T. did not live there. The woman said sometimes her own child plays with I.T., but they weren't going to be playing together today. The woman had been unaware that I.T. was sitting out front all alone.

316. The officer was directed to the next-door unit number 21 where he knocked at the door and spoke to both J.T. and R.B.. J.T. told him she knew I.T. had gone next door to play with her friend at an adjacent park. J.T. said I.T. always plays outside and J.T. checks on her every couple of minutes.

317. Allchin testified he was not entirely satisfied with that explanation, because he had been with the child for more than a couple of minutes and no one had checked on her. The officer said he asked if he could look inside unit 21 to ensure that there were no issues of child neglect and all necessities of life were provided. He said J.T. and R.B. refused to allow him access to their unit.

318. The officer contacted Hamilton CAS who in turn referred him to CCAS which had an ongoing file for the family. He testified J.T. was reluctant to give him information and she expressed fear of Society involvement.

319. Allchin testified J.T. told him I.T. was her only child, but after he learned from Society worker Colleen Richardson that the parties also had another child P.P., the officer drove to Lynnwood Hall to make sure that P.P. was at school and that he was alright.

320. I accept the police officer’s evidence that I.T. was not being properly supervised by either J.T. or R.B. on May 5, 2010. I accept his evidence that J.T. and R.B. were uncooperative.

WITNESS #17: A.V. (M.B.’s former partner)

Witness #17: A.V. (M.B.’s former partner)

321. M.B.'s former partner A.V. was called as a Society witness. From the outset she made it obvious she was attending court reluctantly, pursuant to a summons. She expressed such fear of M.B. that she refused to be in the courtroom with him unless a court security officer was present.

322. A.V. testified she lived with M.B. for about six and a half years. They have a daughter S., who is now 13 years old. A.V. also has a son of a prior relationship, M., now 17.

323. Despite visible anger and struggling with her emotions, A.V. was responsive, clear and consistent during the brief time she was on the witness stand. She was succinct about her feelings, stating: "I have never hated anybody more in my whole entire life than I hate (M.B.)."

324. She said she didn't want anything to do with M.B. or this case. She didn't want to appear in court. She didn't want to give evidence. She didn't want to be involved with the Society.

325. Nonetheless she confirmed that in January 2012 she was contacted by Society worker Jessica Barnes. She answered Barnes’ questions. She provided Barnes with a summary of the domestic violence she had experienced with M.B..

326. In Barnes’ affidavit sworn March 21, 2012 she summarized the information provided by A.V.:

a. M.B. abused her for seven years.

b. M.B. was okay when S. was first born in 1998 and he was released from jail.

c. Then he came home drunk one night and "beat" her.

d. A.V. said she would tell him to leave but he would not leave.

e. M.B. had a drinking problem.

f. One time S. witnessed M.B. throw A.V. down the stairs, stamp on her head and spit on her. After that A.V. and her children lived with her parents for a period.

g. One time her son M. witnessed M.B. "choke me out in a sleeper hold" and "kick the shit out of me".

h. She said M.B. would do things to her son M.: "torture him, yell and scream, lock him in his room, hang him over a banister." She said she never called CAS because she was afraid of M.B.. She said he threatened to use CAS against her because she occasionally smoked pot.

i. A.V. said she had to receive stitches and chipped her tailbone as a result of M.B. abusing her.

j. She had to place M. with relatives to get him away from M.B.'s dangerous behaviour. M. will not have anything to do with M.B. now.

k. Despite the abuse she always came back to M.B..

l. She never reported any of his abuse to police because she was afraid.

m. M.B. was no longer allowed near her or her son.

327. On the witness stand, A.V. confirmed those allegations were true. She elaborated:

a. One time M.B. tried to throw her through a window, and she chipped her tailbone on the window ledge.

b. She said the violence and aggressive behaviour occurred in front of her son M. and sometimes in front of S..

c. She recalled one time M. witnessed M.B. choking her. She asked her son to call police for help, and he did. But when police arrived she was too afraid to tell the truth so she lied that nothing happened. She said her son M. felt betrayed; that she had told him the police would come to help some, but when the police arrived she "sent them away".

d. She said M.B.’s violence caused her son M. to become very aggressive. She said ultimately M. went to live with his grandmother for approximately four years, although he has now returned to live with her.

e. Under cross-examination by Livesey she said she was too afraid to call the police but she had hospital reports concerning the scars and injuries which M.B. had caused.

328. A.V. testified their daughter S. was about five or six years old when the parties separated. She said she obtained a custody order and M.B. was given access to S. in A.V.’ discretion, with a requirement that he not consume alcohol during visits. She said the alcohol restriction was required because when M.B. drinks he "becomes abusive and stupid and whatever." However, she testified that despite the “no alcohol” restriction S. reported M.B. was drinking during visits.

329. A.V. testified that she was friends with M.B.'s next partner J.T.. She said she tried to warn J.T. about the parallels in their situations: each of them had a son when they met M.B.; each of them had a daughter born of their relationship with M.B.; and M.B. was treating “her son” as garbage, while showing favouritism to “their daughter”.

330. She testified in her view S. does not have a good relationship with M.B. at this time and does not see him very often. She acknowledged S. might be communicating with him over the computer, or by telephone, and periodically they might see each other at Tim Horton's. She stated however the only reason S. goes to M.B.'s house is because she wants to see her sister I.T.. She said S. “really loves her sister” and worries if she will be able to see her in the future.

331. A.V. acknowledged S. does not talk about how M.B. behaves toward her when she goes over to see I.T.. Under cross-examination she also acknowledged that she really knows very little about M.B.'s lifestyle or behaviour during the past few years.

332. A.V. admitted sometimes she smokes marijuana, but denied smoking crack cocaine.

333. On some topics I found A.V.'s evidence to be credible and helpful to my determination; on other topics, less so.

334. Her descriptions of M.B.'s past violence; his drinking; his intimidation; his abuse toward her and her son – those recollections were conveyed with such painful emotion, raw detail, and spontaneity that I found her to be a truthful and compelling witness. None of her allegations about domestic violence were undermined through cross-examination.

335. Notably, A.V.’s allegations are consistent with information from her daughter S. who told Barnes:

a. A.V. hates M.B. "because of what happened".

b. S. saw M.B.'s abuse toward A.V..

c. S. recalled seeing M.B. holding her mother up against the wall and screaming in her face.

d. S. saw M.B. hit A.V..

e. She recalled seeing M.B. "whip around and spit on" A.V..

f. S. said she and her brother would go across the street to a neighbour’s home when this happened, or stay at grandparents.

g. S. said she would usually be upstairs with her brother and if she heard A.V. and M.B. fighting she would go to investigate. This is when she would see M.B. hit her mother.

h. She said she would run into her brother’s room and together they would listen to A.V. and M.B. fight.

i. She said she never saw M.B. hit J.T., but they would argue.

j. S. said M.B. never hit her and she never saw him hit I.T..

k. She said when M.B. and A.V. fought she was sad and scared.

l. She said she doesn’t talk to M.B. about what happened. It's in the past, and she wants to focus on the future.

336. I accept A.V.’s evidence that M.B. was violent and abusive.

337. By the same token I found A.V.’s speculation and cynicism about M.B.'s current situation to be less helpful. By her own admission she hates him, wants nothing to do with him, and has in fact had nothing to do with him for many years. She remembers what he was like. Indeed, she will never be able to forget what he was like. Undoubtedly, she presumes he is incapable of changing.

338. But she readily admitted she doesn't actually know his situation today. She doesn’t trust him, and she won’t allow S. to go for overnight visits. She knows little about his interaction with S.. She did not appear to be fully aware of how often S. may be seeing M.B..

WITNESS #18: DR. L.G. (Psychiatrist)

Witness #18: Dr. L.G. (Psychiatrist)

339. Psychiatrist L. G. testified on behalf of J.T. and R.B.. She works within a medical group and was referred to each of these parents by their family physician Dr. K.B..

340. Dr. L.G. summarized her involvement will R.B. as follows:

a. On June 9, 2011 she had her first consultation with him. He complained about his mind racing; difficulty keeping jobs; an "anger attitude"; panic attacks; difficulty sleeping; social anxieties; lack of trust with people; avoiding crowds; perceiving that everyone was judging him. He said he was easily frustrated; extremely impatient; easily distracted; hyperactive; impulsive; volatile; used harsh language; and that he was experiencing rapid shifts in mood.

b. Based in part on the fact that when he was in kindergarten he was labelled as having ADD, she concluded that he was suffering from adult ADHD, with perhaps an underlying anxiety disorder.

c. She saw him again June 23, 2011. He reported certain positive results with the medications she had given him. Her case notes said that on that date he was "still very angry/impulsive" and had "lots of issues with CCAS."

d. Her third appointment with him was a telephone consultation. She said she commonly had telephone appointments for people who couldn't attend. She couldn't recall why R.B. hadn’t attended in person, as had been scheduled. He reported that some of the medication was helping.

e. She was scheduled to see him again in August 2011 but couldn't recall why she didn't see him again until April 5, 2012.

f. On that last appointment he reported feeling much less anxious and "clearer" in his thinking. She described him as being "the most calm I've seen him, relaxed, engaged, attentive, pleasant, respectful."

341. Dr. L.G. summarized her involvement with J.T. as follows:

a. On February 23, 2012 she had her first consultation. J.T. explained she wanted to get a "second opinion" from the psychiatrist because she did not agree with Dr. Ashbourne's unfavourable conclusions in the parenting capacity assessment.

b. On that first occasion J.T. described herself as very sad; low-energy; poor concentration; suicidal in December 2011; zoning out; and socially withdrawn. Dr. L.G. concluded that J.T. was suffering from a recurrent major depression.

c. J.T. attended for a second consultation on April 5, 2012 at which time she was still depressed, and struggling to deal with a childhood diagnosis of ADHD.

342. Dr. L.G. concluded that both parties have made significant progress in identifying their mental health issues, and an ongoing adjustments of prescribed medications have assisted each of them in dealing with their problems.

343. She reported R.B. is doing much better. The comparison between June 2011 when she first met him and April 5, 2012 when she last saw him was "quite remarkable". She said he now appears to be able to stay calm, and participate in regular conversations without distraction. She said his mood is better, his affect is bright, and he looks happier. She said he has followed through with all recommendations, and appears committed to make changes in his life.

344. She reported J.T. is still dealing with her depression, and she will continue to work with her.

345. Contrary to Dr. Ashbourne, she said she saw no evidence of post traumatic stress disorder in either of the parents.

346. Under questioning by Livesey she agreed she did not check the veracity of any of the information provided by J.T. or R.B.. She said she saw no sign of abuse by R.B. toward J.T.. She was aware there had been a period of separation when J.T. was in a shelter, but she stated when she saw both parties on April 5, 2012 things appeared to be going well between them.

347. Under questioning by Society counsel Anis, she acknowledged she did not check any historical medical records for J.T. or R.B., and largely went on the basis of self reporting (which included their own descriptions of previous diagnoses of ADD or ADHD when they were very young).

348. She acknowledged each of the parties had provided information which had resulted in her prescribing controlled and addictive medications. She did not acknowledge any manipulation, patient abuse, or drug-seeking behaviours.

349. She agreed this court case has impacted on medical issues:

a. The ongoing child protection litigation is a source of stress for both parents.

b. The pending trial may in fact have affected the information provided by the parents and the medical services they were requesting.

c. J.T. first saw Dr. L.G. primarily to get a “second opinion” for court.

d. A medical note from her February 7, 2012 visit with Dr. K.B. quoted J.T. as saying that she was no longer taking depression pills but she "feels it will look good for the judge if taking pills".

350. On balance, I found the evidence of Dr. L.G. only marginally reassuring. While it is clear that Dr. L.G. wants to help J.T. and R.B.:

a. She has not really spent very much time with them.

b. She relied almost entirely on self reporting at a time when the parties were keenly aware of the type of evidence they needed to assemble for court.

c. She conducted virtually no independent or historical investigation of medical histories.

d. Her follow-up was limited, and largely dictated by the parties themselves.

e. Many of her assumptions -- stability in their spousal relationship; the lack of domestic violence; sustained progress by R.B. in dealing with the Society; less volatile behaviour by R.B. -- are simply inconsistent with the volume of evidence from many other witnesses.

f. It is clear there were both medical and litigation agendas.

g. She acknowledged she was not in a position to comment on parenting skills or the relevant considerations in determining whether any child should be placed in the care of J.T. or R.B..

351. While she was optimistic about the trajectory of R.B.'s recovery, she was able to provide little reassurance about any stability in his situation. As for J.T., she basically concluded the mother was “making progress” dealing with her depression and prescription medications were helping.

352. She said J.T. and R.B. are both very upset with the Society and very stressed by having their children taken away from them. She suggested it was obvious if they saw more of their children and if they were having fewer battles with the Society, they would be less stressed.

WITNESS #19: TARA VALLENTGOED (Hamilton Police Constable)

Witness #19: Tara Vallentgoed (Hamilton Police Constable)

353. Hamilton police constable Tara Vallentgoed testified on February 16, 2011 she responded to the residence of J.T. and R.B. after Holbrook school principal Julie Beattie contacted the Society to express concern about J.T.'s well being. This was in relation to the evidence Beattie had given earlier, about being on the telephone with J.T.; hearing an angry male voice in the background arguing with J.T.; and then hearing the phone line go dead.

354. The officer testified when she attended at the residence, R.B. answered but came out and closed the door behind him. He spoke to police in the driveway, and did not invite the officer or her partner into the residence. R.B. admitted he and J.T. had a verbal argument, related to problems with the Society "making his life miserable". R.B. told Vallentgoed his children were going to a school they shouldn't be going to, and that's what the argument was about.

355. R.B. directed the officers to another address in Hamilton where he said J.T. had gone. When the officers went to that address they were told J.T. had gone to Hamilton General Hospital.

356. When they tracked J.T. down at the hospital she advised them that she was attending for medical treatment because a dog had bitten her on the leg. She explained there had been a verbal argument between herself and R.B.; there was loud yelling and screaming; this set the dog off and the dog bit her in the leg. She said she was waiting to receive several stitches when the police officers approached her. She told the officers there had been no physical altercation or contact – just a verbal argument and one of the dogs became agitated. The officer recalled that J.T. said she had three children and was pregnant at the time of the incident.

357. Under cross-examination by Heeley, Vallentgoed confirmed she didn’t notice any injuries other than the dog bite.

WITNESS #20: DR. DANIEL T. ASHBOURNE

Witness #20: Dr. Daniel T. Ashbourne

358. Registered clinical psychologist Dr. Daniel Ashbourne testified for most of a day in relation to the 69 page parenting capacity assessment, issued September 22, 2011, which he prepared pursuant to a court order. Ashbourne has extensive experience dealing with children's issues and specifically the impact on children of exposure to domestic violence and/or child abuse. He has prepared numerous assessments and has previously been qualified by the court as an expert. On consent of all counsel I found him qualified to give expert opinion evidence in relation to psychology and assessment of parenting capacity.

359. Ashbourne outlined the extensive interviewing and testing he engaged in, primarily during the summer of 2011 (with the youngest child S.B. being born while the assessment was under way).

J.T. - OBSERVATIONS

360. Ashbourne said J.T. and R.B. challenged some of the background information which he had been provided, but remained guarded about what information they wanted to share with him. He said J.T. was the most cooperative of the three adults being assessed.

361. He described J.T. as protective of R.B.. He said she was polite, respectful and hard-working when present for interviewing and testing. He said she clearly loves her children and was thrilled to spend time. He expressed concern however that J.T. cannot stand up to R.B..

362. He described J.T. as having a confusing childhood. She recalled being angry but at times happy. She was taken away from her mother at an early age. She lived with her maternal grandparents for three years as a young child, but indicated they were alcoholics. She recalled living with her father and stepmother D.C. for many years but felt like she was a burden to her stepmother. She said D.C. had been verbally and emotionally abusive to her.

363. J.T. told Ashbourne she was verbally and physically assaulted by M.B. when they lived together for approximately 4 years. She said during this time he was addicted to various pills and alcohol, and he also abused cocaine and crack. She said P.P. was also a victim of his verbal attacks. After separation she obtained a restraining order because M.B. broke into her apartment.

364. She told Ashbourne she had separated from R.B. several times, but she wished to have a life with him and raise children with him. She described herself as having patience, compassion and the ability to instil good morals into her children.

365. Regarding their future plans, J.T. said she and R.B. intended to open a business with R.B. running the operation while she stayed home to care for the children. She told Ashbourne all four children would be better off living together as a family under one roof. She said she intended to enrol P.P. in counselling as needed, and she and R.B. would continue to attend their own medical appointments. She admitted to a history of financial difficulty but said she is trying to address this. She emphasized she and R.B. have always been there for the children, emotionally and physically, and to attend to their developmental needs.

366. J.T. told Ashbourne P.P. is not adjusting well in D.C.’s care. She described P.P.’s mood as unpredictable and she said visits were filled with tension. She also expressed concern I.T. may be showing signs of post-traumatic stress as she had been losing her hair, tended to be easily upset, and had a bedwetting problem.

367. In reviewing test results for J.T., Ashbourne stated on page 11 that "overall the pattern points to a woman with significant depression and hostility." He suggested she may be suffering a major depressive disorder, with features of a panic disorder with agoraphobia and specific phobia. He said "this is clearly a woman in need of further assessment and treatment of her clinical issues and it was positive to hear she was willing to follow up on this with her new doctor."

368. On page 13 he stated "significant emotional distress and unhappiness were found for (J.T.) on the clinical factors. In addition, the interpersonal factors also showed significant family problems for the mother. Despite the various parenting programs this mother has reportedly completed, this profile, along with her elevated parenting stress scores pertaining to P.P. raise alarm at how she would handle parenting a child or children who have difficulties."

369. On page 15 Ashbourne said J.T. reported domestic violence had occurred in her relationships with each of M.B. and R.B. "with substantially more difficulties acknowledged in her time with M.B.". He said J.T. "admitted to some abusive behaviours of her own (all of which were also done to her by her partners) towards her partners, past and present, such as throwing things at her partners, pushing or grabbing her partners, threatening to leave the relationships, smashing objects, insulting or verbally raging at her partners, and threatening to take the children away from them." She acknowledged P.P. (and at times I.T.) had witnessed a lot of conflict and domestic violence.

J.T. – CLINICAL IMPRESSIONS

370. Ashbourne described J.T. as presenting well in an interview and speaking at length about her hopes for her children and her desire to reclaim her family. He said she has shown some potential and has been able to work to help support the family in the past, while often engaged in unhealthy adult relationships. Starting at the bottom of page 15 of his report he stated: "Her challenges include struggles with depression and anxiety, many features that fall under a post traumatic stress disorder diagnosis and mixed personality characteristic that encompass a multitude of labels.” He said test results suggested J.T. has problems including:

a. Difficulty regulating her affective impulses (anger and self-destructiveness).

b. Alterations in attention and consciousness (memory troubles, dissociation and depersonalization).

c. Alterations in self perception (struggles with shame, guilt, responsibility and low self-worth).

d. Alterations in her perceptions of perpetrators (taking on their belief systems).

e. Alterations in relationships with others such as trouble trusting and intimacy difficulties.

f. Somatization and/or medical problems that may show up in all body systems.

g. Alterations in systems of meaning such that she often feels hopeless, helpless and that no one truly understands her.

371. Ashbourne concluded at page 16 of his report that "highly specialized treatment of this complex trauma history is encouraged".

372. Under questioning Ashbourne acknowledged within the medical community his diagnosis that J.T. and R.B. suffer from complex post traumatic stress disorder might be subject to debate, because some professionals don't agree that complex PTSD actually exists. For example, Dr. L.G. disagreed with Ashbourne's diagnosis of complex PTSD, primarily because neither J.T. nor R.B. were reliving painful memories or experiencing flashbacks. Ashbourne suggested it was preferable to avoid debating labels. His diagnosis and recommendations did not waver under questioning. I note that he spent much more time working with all of these parties than Dr. L.G., and his methodology was much more comprehensive and focused.

J.T. – COLLATERAL INFORMATION

373. Ashbourne quoted J.T.'s biological father M.C. who said whenever she is involved in male relationships she tends to distance herself, particularly during her current involvement with R.B.. The father reported he and D.C. spent considerable time over the years assisting J.T. and R.B. with various problems – including financial problems – but when they made a decision to limit the amount of support they were going to give, J.T. and R.B. became angry and chose to cut them off from contact with their grandchildren.

374. J.T.'s father expressed concern J.T. has struggled over the years in providing the children with a routine such as bedtimes, meals, and ensuring the children attend school.

375. M.C. described I.T. as happy having visits with M.B. and never complaining after having visits with J.T.. However M.C. expressed scepticism about whether M.B. had actually changed for the better. He said P.P. is generally happy to have visits with J.T. and siblings but sometimes he does not wish to attend.

376. Ashbourne quoted J.T.'s biological mother C.M. as having witnessed R.B. being verbally abusive with J.T., as well as personally being on the receiving end of his verbal onslaught. She did not view the relationship between J.T. and R.B. as positive or healthy and worried about the outcome. She said when she had tried to assist J.T. she was confronted with R.B.'s temper.

377. C.M. described R.B. as brutish, rude and angry and said recently in court he informed her "you will never see I.T.".

378. Ashbourne noted according to police records, J.T. and R.B. were involved in disputes in 2006, 2007, and 2008, requiring police intervention.

379. Ashbourne reported at page 18 J.T. and R.B. voiced a common plan for the children, wishing to remain together as a family and reclaim the children. They hope to have all four children back eventually. They felt P.P. needed a placement in a therapeutic group home away from the influence of M.C. and D.C.. They were most concerned about I.T. being with M.B., and felt his time should be supervised because of his use of drugs and past violence. They did not agree with the concerns raised by the Society, and consider themselves good parents and capable of caring for children.

380. Ashbourne said his only home visit took place when J.T. and R.B. were living in a small basement apartment where flooding had occurred. The psychologist described it as dark, dingy, and damp, with lots of items stored in bags while the parties sorted out what was salvageable from a flood. With three dogs in a small space and holes in the wall, he described it as a very sad situation.

R.B.

381. Ashbourne testified R.B. was slow to engage in the assessment process, often ranting about the caregivers of P.P. and I.T., the Society, and the assessor. He said at times R.B. would warm up and engaged briefly in the assessment process. However he did not trust the Society workers and often declined visits unless the assessor was present. Ashbourne said R.B. remained guarded, suspicious, easily shifting to verbal hostility, and walked away from the assessment on more than one occasion.

382. R.B. appeared confused about what consents he was asked to sign, often going off into rants about the various individuals who have mistreated him or his family. As a result, Ashbourne said limited collateral data was available for R.B.. Similarly little test data was available because of R.B.'s behavioural challenges, his suspicious nature, and his unwillingness and/or inability to complete tasks, given his significant learning challenges.

383. Ashbourne described R.B. as having "multiple challenges" making it difficult for him to be organized, keep track of appointments or tasks, recall accurately what is said to him, and not overreact too quickly. The psychologist said R.B. forgot an appointment early in the assessment and then arrived later, upset and ranting such that he was unable to be productive in the time available. On other occasions he sent confusing text messages, made calls and rants, and needed to be reminded to reduce his voice loudness and tone to be understood.

384. At times R.B. was open and appreciative of feedback. At other times his anger, anxiety and confused state made him quick to verbally let loose. Ashbourne recalled sometimes they would meet in a Tim Horton's restaurant. At times R.B. would suddenly become angry and storm out of the coffee shop in a visibly agitated state. At times he would announce to the assessor he no longer wanted to participate in the assessment -- only to call back or text asking for more visits. At page 20 of his report Ashbourne concluded "this up-and-down mood fluctuation was evident throughout the assessment".

385. Ashbourne said the major data source concerning R.B. came from observing him interact with children at visits, as well as observations of him with the assessor and/or his partner.

386. The assessor concluded R.B. loves the children, but he cannot understand why they were taken from him and why they are not back with him. "In visits he acted like the Ever Ready energizer bunny moving about quickly, working to accomplish tasks, to clean the room repeatedly, to complain about what was not present in the visit room or not provided in a communication book. His rants and frantic behaviours often concerned staff observing and yet he appeared to be wanting to help his child." Ashbourne expressed concern R.B.'s frantic movements and erratic behaviour might frighten or jeopardize the children.

R.B. – CLINICAL IMPRESSIONS

387. Ashbourne described R.B. as having significant mental health and learning challenges which impede him from being the kind of parent he desperately wants to be. At page 20 the psychologist stated: "He is often anxious, easily distracted, impulsive, angry, quickly overwhelmed, often easily confused, and frequently misinterpreting the actions or comments of others around him. He shows poor emotional regulation and his verbal rants are frightening to staff, let alone children who may be around him." He said J.T. often works to compensate for his deficits and is R.B.'s "greatest advocate and supporter, sometimes to the detriment of her own needs and the needs of the children."

388. Ashbourne noted R.B. has trouble maintaining steady employment, repeatedly struggles with most agencies trying to assist him, and is often embroiled in conflict and disputes.

389. Ashbourne noted according to Hamilton police records, between 1993 and 1999 R.B. was involved in various criminal activities including: mischief under; theft over; dangerous driving; parole violation; assault causing bodily harm; assault level I; breach of probation; failure to comply with probation; assault of police; harassing phone calls; obstruction of police; etc.

390. In April 2001 R.B. was charged with assault causing bodily harm against his common-law partner at the time. He served a period of time in custody followed by probation. Soon after, in December 2001 he was charged with assault causing bodily harm against a common-law partner. The couple reportedly had been together since October 2001. R.B. was reported to have assaulted this woman in front of her three children. Upon conviction he was again sentenced to a period in custody followed by probation.

391. Fourteen months later, in March 2003 R.B. was charged with assault level I and threatening – against a woman he had a relationship with since the summer of 2002 and married in October 2002. The victim later recanted her allegations and the charges were withdrawn. Three years later, in July 2006 R.B. was charged with assault level I after attempting to choke his victim and confined her to the apartment. He was again given a jail sentence followed by probation.

392. In April 2010 police were called to respond a family trouble call involving R.B. and J.T.'s father. In January 2011 the Society contacted police to advise R.B. had made threats while at the Society office.

M.B.

393. Ashbourne said that as with R.B., M.B. was also quite guarded about his personal information, and didn't want the assessment to involve his other children, his previous partner, or his history. M.B. spoke in general terms of many changes he has made, and stated he is working full-time as a carpenter/framer, and is now focused on being a good parent for I.T.. He acknowledged past abusive behaviours between himself and J.T., but preferred to point to the changes he feels he has made in his life and the "various injustices that abound from his perspective in how he is being treated by the Society".

394. M.B. told Ashbourne he was concerned about the relationship between R.B. and J.T., if I.T. was to spend time with them. He felt any access should be supervised, although he also suggested if I.T. came to be in his care he might use J.T. for babysitting.

395. He was reluctant to sign consents, talk negatively about others, or speak of his past. As a result Ashbourne said he obtained very little background information or collateral data.

396. As well, M.B. tired of the assessment process ("while frequently moving into a tirade of the injustice’s being done to him and his daughter by the Society") and only completed a portion of the measures typically given to parents. He challenged the Society and assessor repeatedly, and blamed both when he did not get answers he was hoping for.

397. Ashbourne said it would have been much more helpful to the assessment if M.B. had allowed him to speak to his former partner, her son M., and his daughter S.. He said "it would have been very helpful to see how M.B. engaged with S., a daughter who was a bit older. It would've given an indicator as to his approach to parenting at different ages."

398. He described M.B.'s presentation as that of an angry, suspicious, frustrated man who has trouble working within the rules outlined by those attempting to help him and his children. At page 30 he stated "although not showing mental health issues, this assessment was limited due to his lack of full cooperation. His difficult personality is what comes across first, and one has to wade through that in order to see his love for his daughter and desire to do right by her."

399. M.B.’s lawyer Livesey challenged Ashbourne's description at page 30 of the assessment that M.B. "appears better suited to taking on the role of a regular access parent, than a primary parenting role." Ashbourne explained he was quite concerned about M.B.'s long-standing refusal to acknowledge his many problems from the past may be relevant to present and future parenting.

400. The psychologist suggested it was simplistic for M.B. to argue that successful short visits meant he was ready for custody. Ashbourne cautioned M.B. has failed (until very recently) to take any steps which would assist in demonstrating whether he has developed insight with respect to full-time care of a child.

401. Ashbourne noted according to police records from 1994 to 1998 M.B. was involved in a variety of criminal activities including: break and enter; possession of burglary tools; possession under; failure to appear in court; failure to comply with probation; use of a credit card; assault with a weapon; assault level I; breach of probation; obstruct police; etc.

402. In February 2008 M.B. was charged with criminal harassment after repeatedly contacting J.T.. He was sentenced to a period in custody followed by probation. A few months later, in April 2008 he continued to have communication with J.T. resulting in a charge of failure to comply with an undertaking. He again went to jail followed by probation. Nine months later in December 2008 he was charged with failure to comply with his probation order for failing to report as directed. In July 2009 M.B. was again charged with breach of his probation order and sentenced to a period in custody. In February 2010 M.B. was charged with break and enter when he was caught on video surveillance with another suspect breaking into Hydro one, stealing copper. He was again sentenced to a period in custody.

403. Ashbourne said his three observation visits of M.B. with I.T. occurred in the home M.B. rented with two other men. Ashbourne described the premises as clean, tidy, and quite appropriate – with the exception that the environment did not appear to be sufficiently "child-focused". Ashbourne also had concern about some of M.B.’s plans for sleeping arrangements for I.T. (although these concerns have apparently since been addressed).

P.P.

404. Ashbourne reported when interviewing P.P. the boy was often quick to swear, voice his anger and displeasure, spit, and at times he presented as challenging to workers and the assessor. He said P.P. was clearly angry with J.T. "for staying with R.B." and used profanity to describe various family members including R.B. and C.M..

405. P.P. expressed concern about I.T. visiting M.B.. He recalled M.B.'s aggressive behaviour when he and J.T. lived with M.B.. Ashbourne reported during the course of the assessment P.P. seemed to become more settled on this issue.

406. Ashbourne summarized "P.P. presents as anxious, and when overwhelmed by his anxiety he reacts negatively in both verbal and physical ways”. He said P.P. has been caught in the middle of family conflict. "He appears to be hurt in that his mother has chosen men over her children, in his mind and that often the focus is on the younger children in visits." He expressed a desire to see J.T. but not with R.B. present. He was excited about the birth of his new sister S.B..

407. P.P. spoke positively of M.C. and D.C.. He sees their home as a "safe base from which to venture forth into the world and has come to see his mother as unreliable and inconsistent. He has great anger for J.T.’s mother C.M., much of which appears to relate to what he has heard from his own mother in the past."

408. D.C. said P.P. does not like to hear R.B.’s name mentioned, nor does he like to have visits with him. P.P. attended a birthday visit for his brother C.B. where R.B. was in attendance. After P.P. returned to D.C.’s home he was angry and swore at her. P.P. has reportedly clearly stated to M.C. and D.C. he wishes to stay with them -- but he has also stated on occasion that he likes to see J.T..

409. Ashbourne said P.P. takes various medications to address behavioural concerns, although he has not yet been classified as having Tourette's syndrome. He clearly suffers from OCD and has a ritualistic pattern in things that he does.

410. P.P. attends a modified educational program. He can exhibit verbal and physical outbursts leading to suspensions but this has improved. School has presented some issues for P.P., particularly behavioural difficulties, and he is struggling academically.

I.T.

411. Ashbourne said in observation sessions I.T. was noted to crave individual attention from J.T.. She appeared to particularly enjoy time with M.B. because no other children were present and she had his full attention. She was comfortable doing activities with R.B. at the visit center, when he was calm.

412. M.B. described I.T. as a happy child who gets along with other children. His biggest concern about his daughter was "being around her brother and grandmother because they let them get away with anything." For her part D.C. described I.T. as "very loving, intelligent and outgoing".

413. J.T. complained to Ashbourne she had not been kept fully informed by the Society about I.T.'s issues.

414. The psychologist described I.T. as loving her various parenting figures, and "when not overwhelmed or anxious can move between her various caregivers without difficulty." He said when stressed she can exhibit reluctance to attend visits, toileting accidents, and/or mimic the negative behaviours of her older brother P.P.. Ashbourne predicted that “once more stability and predictability is in place for the child, she will be better able to navigate the disruption in her relationships."

415. He concluded with M.B. being more of an access parent then a primary parent; with J.T.'s life still in chaos; "alternative planning is needed for the child that affords her regular access to her mother and father." He recommended art or play therapy for the child. During his testimony he stated "I worry about continued confusion for this child until things are sorted out. For her age, art or play therapy can be helpful, to give an opportunity for her to voice the things that she is worried about."

C.B. & S.B.

416. Ashbourne noted C.B. and S.B. were too young to be interviewed, but he gathered information on their progress from foster care givers.

417. C.B. does not have any medical issues although he has issues around feeding. He tends to be a happy-go-lucky boy.

418. The foster mother noted there have been occasions when C.B.'s father R.B. has made inappropriate comments (using swear words) and has later apologized in a communication book. J.T. has reportedly made attempts to cover for R.B. by explaining why he was so upset.

OBSERVATION VISITS

419. R.B. never saw the children without supervision. Ashbourne said he could be affectionate and particularly appreciated being able to see his new daughter S.B.. He was upset when C.B. would withdraw from him. I.T. loved the one-on-one attention from R.B. that arose while doing an activity together, but when she tired of the task, he remained focused on completing the activity and lost connection to the child.

420. Ashbourne noted R.B.’s visit supervisors agonized about whether to intervene if he was having difficulties. They wanted to help but worried about provoking an explosive reaction. He said R.B.’s agitated manner and easily provoked hostility were evident and created a great deal of tension during visits.

421. Ashbourne concluded that although often upset, R.B. clearly loves the children -- including P.P. -- and worked hard to keep things moving during visits.

422. He said it was equally clear J.T. loves the children. She presented as calmer and more confident during visits. She interacted well with the children. However Ashbourne expressed concern J.T. was easily drawn away by other crises in her life such as upsetting text messages, or calls from R.B. during access. She missed making the most of the time she had with the children. The assessor was also concerned about J.T.'s lack of insight with respect to C.B.’s lack of weight gain and his eating challenges.

423. Ashbourne said I.T. was generally well behaved during visits with M.B.. Father and daughter were comfortable sharing affection and clearly loved each other. His observation of the interaction between M.B. and I.T. was entirely favourable.

CLINICAL IMPRESSIONS OF THE CHILDREN

424. Ashbourne concluded P.P. is a special needs child with a modified school program and shows a positive response to his current caregivers M.C. and D.C.. He appears to be caught in the middle of family disputes. He has been emotionally hurt a number of times.

425. I.T. misses J.T. and also clearly enjoys time with M.B.. Similar to P.P., she may become entangled in the adult issues if those around her do not provide better boundaries. She exhibits anxious behaviour at times in refusing to go to access, wetting herself, or showing clingy behaviour as she seeks more individual attention from J.T.. She continues to do well in school and placement. She has settled into her new school year quite well.

426. C.B. continues to show challenges in eating. The foster home has had to ensure a quiet focused time to settle him and allow him to finish his bottle.

427. S.B. initially showed some challenges with weight gain and requires close monitoring by foster parents and her doctor.

428. Both C.B. and S.B. continue to do well in their placements.

429. Ashbourne said all of the children are loved, but in this case love is not the issue. At page 42 Ashbourne stated: "Other factors that are required to ensure children grow and develop well along social, emotional, intellectual and psychological areas in their lives are at the root of this difficult family matter before the court." He said all of these children require nurturing, stable, loving environments. He said that apart from providing love, J.T., R.B. and M.B. were all significantly lacking in their ability to provide the children with a stable, safe, home base.

J.T. - CONCLUSIONS

430. Ashbourne concluded J.T. has shown the ability to work in the past and help provide for her family. However, he had many concerns about her:

a. She shows potential and adequate parenting skills but only in short, inconsistent periods of time.

b. She has not been able to maintain herself – let alone herself and the children – for any length of time.

c. She has found herself in unhealthy adult relationships, which have not only undermined her own well-being, but also jeopardized the emotional and physical well-being of her children.

d. Her relationship with R.B. is volatile.

e. Her support network is unstable.

f. He expressed concerns about her housing difficulties, and lack of a stable economic base of the children.

g. Even when she spends time alone with her children she has difficulty being attentive to their needs and is distracted by crises involving herself and those around her.

h. While she does better one-on-one with the children and clearly loves them, as the number of children in her care during access increases, she struggles to consistently provide nutrition, nurturance and close monitoring.

i. “Her apparent complex PTSD presentation will likely require extensive clinical support and treatment to help her improve her lot in life."

431. Ashbourne concluded while J.T. "shows the most ability of any of those assessed to respond to the various needs (emotional, physical, psychological, educational and or intellectual) of the children", she has not been able to demonstrate that she can meet those needs consistently or on a long-term basis. He said a lot of her energy has been taken up over the last year trying to help her partner R.B. deal with his problems. The assessor concluded that for J.T. to improve “this pattern of inconsistent and episodic parenting" she will need to resume treatments and the use of prescribed medications.

432. In answer to questions from each of Livesey and Heeley – who pointed out examples of things that were going better in the lives of J.T., R.B., and M.B. – Ashbourne readily admitted there were things which were happening in each parent's life which were positive, encouraging, and perhaps even hopeful.

433. But in relation to each parent – perhaps slightly less so in relation to M.B. – Ashbourne tried to emphasize that the constellation of historical and unresolved parenting issues is quite significant. He said a handful of examples of things that have recently gone better will not obscure the more fundamental questions which need to be addressed – and addressed quickly – for the sake of these children.

434. He said "the parents have potential to change. Will they commit and engage in the necessary services? – that's an important piece we still have to ascertain."

R.B. - CONCLUSIONS

435. Ashbourne concluded with many concerns about R.B.:

a. He presented inconsistently and demonstrated mood swings as well as limited insight.

b. He has learning difficulties, mental health challenges, and often reacts after misinterpreting social interactions or conversations.

c. While he may have recently overcome his housing problem, he still has financial challenges and an inability to hold employment or maintain a stable lifestyle.

d. He struggles to work with community services.

e. While it is positive that R.B. loves his children and is willing to work with his doctor to try to get his life more stabilized, he still doesn’t understand the magnitude of his problems and their impact on J.T. and the children.

f. "Unfortunately, at this time he lacks stability in a number of areas,”

436. Under cross-examination by Heeley, Ashbourne agreed it was positive and commendable that J.T. and R.B. were locating and engaging with professionals in the community and trying to improve their situation. But he expressed concern some of the reports from Dr. L.G. and Dr. K.B. were limited in terms of exactly what information was being shared; what strategies were being implemented; what follow-up was occurring; what progress was actually being made.

437. He offered a sobering warning about R.B. at page 43: "Currently, children living under his care would be subject to his ongoing conflicts with others, his poor mood regulation and volatile presentation, his difficulty focusing for any length of time, and would likely find themselves living in a constant state of fear."

438. Under questioning, Ashbourne expanded on this: he said unpredictable behaviours; unusual actions; illogical or aggressive comments; even the look on a person's face when they are ranting – all of this can be very frightening for young children who simply do not understand what is happening. He noted that even adult patrons at a Tim Horton's restaurant were quite startled and anxious witnessing R.B.'s volatile and explosive behaviour. The assessor expressed concern that R.B.'s pattern of explosive and irrational outbursts would be even more confusing and frightening for children. He worried ongoing conflict would take a negative toll not only on the adults but also on the children themselves.

439. The assessor concluded in light of R.B.’s multiple challenges; his only-recent engagement with medical and counselling services; and his difficulties working with the Society, "it does not appear that he is in a position to meet any of the needs of his children, whether they are emotional, physical, psychological, educational and/or intellectual in nature."

440. He said neither J.T. nor R.B. have shown sufficient progress in dealing with their own issues that they would not interfere with their ability to respond to the various needs of the children.

441. He said they both struggle with a sense of detachment from C.B. and were upset at S.B. being apprehended at birth.

442. While they report having a good relationship with P.P. and I.T., Ashbourne concluded that P.P. shows a troubled relationship with both J.T. and R.B.. He described I.T. as showing "an anxious attachment to her mother, clinging behaviour at times and appears to do better with one-on-one time with any of her caregivers and/or parent figures."

443. In summary, Ashbourne concluded that J.T. and R.B. aren't even meeting their own basic needs, so clearly they are not ready to take on the care of any of their children.

M.B. – CONCLUSIONS

444. Ashbourne commented that there were similarities between the secretive, defensive and uncooperative approach exhibited by R.B. and M.B. – although M.B. was much more articulate in being able to rationalize his resistance to disclosure by characterizing it as part of a desire to "look to the future, not the past".

445. On the witness stand, Ashbourne suggested M.B.'s stated approach – not wanting to talk about the past; not wanting to say anything negative about J.T.; only wanting to focus on the future – was in many ways self-serving and undermined the assessment process. By refusing to talk about his own past – and refusing to consent to release of potentially relevant historical information – M.B. was trying to control the agenda. By refusing to acknowledge the potential relevance of long-standing lifestyle, substance abuse, behavioural or parenting issues, M.B. precluded (or at the very least significantly hampered) a vitally important objective analysis of what he was really like; what -- if anything -- he's done to change; what he's learned; how far along he is in dealing with these important issues.

446. To compound the information void created by M.B.'s secretive approach, on some topics – notably, domestic abuse and aggressive behaviour in front of children – M.B. has been unwavering in his denial that the concerning behaviour ever occurred, even though the information provided by two former partners and two children is quite compelling. Ashbourne said it is difficult to be reassured that M.B. has addressed issues related to domestic abuse, if he denies that domestic abuse ever occurred.

447. While Livesey attempted to characterize M.B.'s late-in-the-day acknowledgment of some physical conflict with J.T. as being mutual, the assessor rejected the suggestion that it was "tit-for-tat". He said if you compare M.B.'s size, energy, and emotional level, it is unrealistic – and perhaps telling – that M.B. perceived J.T. as being equally matched; an equal aggressor.

448. As for refusing to say anything negative about J.T., Ashbourne found it commendable that M.B. wants to take the high road. But he warned if indeed M.B. has serious concerns about J.T.'s parenting skills or lifestyle – if he really believes any of the children might in any way be harmed during times that they are with J.T. – M.B. has a moral and parental responsibility to protect his children even if it means jeopardizing his relationship with a former partner. Ashbourne concluded on this topic: "I would question the level of insight. If there are things he knows or has concerns about, it is important that he share with the people working with the whole family to ensure that these issues are addressed. Just putting a blind eye to concerns about J.T. isn't helpful for the children."

449. Ashbourne described M.B. as having a very assertive personality, to the point of risking being perceived as a bully. He said M.B. has difficulty seeing the benefit of being involved with the Society or other services. He is a very private man and was reluctant to share information about himself. He was annoyed with the drug test findings, debating the results and questioning the need for his reduced access. He does not deny using substances, but refutes using cocaine and other more serious drugs. He reports having changed and moved away from criminal activity.

450. The psychologist stated although he shows some stability in a home he rents with two other men and working in the construction industry, "both could destabilize quickly".

451. Ashbourne expressed concern about M.B.'s lack of child centered thinking that is evident in several ways:

a. He uses television to entertain the child and has toys available but was rarely seen engaging in play with I.T..

b. His thoughts about his daughter and privacy in an all-male household are not child centered.

c. His anger and lack of self-control at times when I.T. is present is worrisome.

d. He shows little insight into how his bullying style can be frightening to a very young child.

e. "He is a large man, with a strong voice, and a very determined look on his face when he is unhappy about something. Some of those things, combined with his clear indication of annoyance and frustration, may be very worrisome, particularly to a young child."

452. Ashbourne expressed serious reservations about M.B.’s proposal that I.T. live with him full-time:

a. He agreed M.B. loves I.T. and would like more time with her. It is commendable he has maintained his commitment to her over the time she has been in care despite his anger and frustration with the Society.

b. But "he struggles to be child centered in his thinking and clearly values independence in his children."

c. "He presents as capable of providing for her basic physical needs at this time but appears ill-equipped for meeting her ongoing emotional, psychological, educational and/or intellectual needs over the long-term."

d. M.B.'s uncooperative stance and reluctance to fully engage in the assessment process raise doubts about his reliability in the future.

e. He is still refusing to admit problems; refusing to make a real commitment to work with people in the system who can help him and his daughter.

f. "M.B. presents a general plan without great detail that he wants I.T. in his care…"

g. Ashbourne wasn't convinced from the information provided thus far that M.B. had "a clear plan in place and the ability to put his own hurts aside to focus on what was needed for I.T.."

h. While M