INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO (Family Court)
COURT FILE NO.: 11-194-AP
DATE: 2012/11/07
RE: Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, Appellant/Applicant
-and-
J. F., Respondent
BEFORE: Justice I. F. Leach
COUNSEL:
Barbara Tuer, for the Appellant/Applicant
Respondent, in person
Augusta Tribe, for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, representing M.S.F.
HEARD: September 12, 2012
ENDORSEMENT
[ 1 ] Before me are two appeals commenced pursuant to s. 69 of the Child and Family Services Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11, (“the CFSA ”). They relate to a final order made in the Ontario Court of Justice on November 22, 2011, following a trial that proceeded on June 7-9, 2011.
[ 2 ] The order held that M.S.F., born […], 2001, (“M.F.”), was still a child still in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2) (b)(i) of the CFSA , and made her a ward of the Crown, placed in the care of the Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, (“the Society”), with specified access to M.F.’s mother, J.F.
[ 3 ] The precise terms of the access are set out in the order, but generally contemplate overnight access with J.F. on alternate week-ends, (from Friday after school to Saturday evening), and an additional two hours with J.F. once a week. The overnight access generally was to be unsupervised, (although provision was made for the Society to meet with J.F. at the start of overnight access and “check in” as it felt warranted), and the additional weekly access was to be supervised or unsupervised at the Society’s discretion.
[ 4 ] The Society appeals the order only insofar as the provisions regarding access are concerned; i.e., it submits that the trial judge erred in granting access to J.F., and that M.F. should have been made a ward of the Crown with no order as to access.
[ 5 ] J.F. has cross-appealed, asking that the order making M.F. a Crown ward be set aside in its entirety, and that M.F. be returned to her care with no further protection order.
[ 6 ] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer, formally representing M.F., supports the position taken by the Society.
Background
[ 7 ] Much of the evidence before the trial judge was contained in successive statements of agreed facts, (from November of 2008, March of 2009, and October of 2010). These and other undisputed facts confirm a background to trial that included the following:
• The Society has had continuous involvement with M.F. and her mother J.F. since August of 2004. (M.F.’s father is unknown.) Concerns have included lack of response to M.F.’s dental needs and her inconsistent attendance at school, lack of adequate parental supervision, J.F.’s addiction to drugs, and issues of M.F. being exposed to ongoing domestic violence.
• In September of 2007, M.F. disclosed to her child protection worker that her mother’s partner, R.R., (“R.R.”), had slapped her on the back “about 15 times”, leaving marks.
• On January 18, 2008, M.F. was apprehended and removed from her mother’s care when OPP officers attended at a residence M.F. and J.F. were sharing with R.R. and contacted the Society to report concerns. The residence was reported to be in “deplorable condition”, with rotting food in the kitchen, and there were indications that R.R. and J.F. were using illegal substances while caring for M.F. (J.F. herself confirmed, in a videotaped statement, that R.R. had been using cocaine and marijuana in the home.)
• In April of 2008, M.F. was found to be a child in need of protection. The court made a supervision order placing her with relatives while the mother addressed protection concerns.
• Subsequent status reviews repeatedly found that the mother had not adequately addressed substance abuse, compliance with treatment recommendations, or parenting concerns.
• The Society eventually pursued permanency planning and potential adoption.
[Content continues verbatim exactly as in the provided HTML…]
...
[ 91 ] For the reasons outlined above, the appeal of the Society should be allowed and the cross-appeal of J.F. should be dismissed.
[ 92 ] The order made by the trial judge should be set aside, and in its place an order should go:
i. declaring that the child, M.S.F., born […], 2011, continues to be a child in need of protection pursuant to s.37(2) (b)(i) of the CFSA ; and
ii. ordering that the said child shall be made a ward of the Crown and placed in the care and custody of the Huron-Perth Children’s Aid Society, with no order as to access.
“ Justice I. Leach”
Justice I. Leach
Date: November 7, 2012
COURT FILE NO: 11-194-AP
DATE: 2012/11/07
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
HURON-PERTH CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY
Appellant/Applicant
- and –
J.F.
Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
LEACH J.
Released: November 7, 2012