SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: FC-12-1978
DATE: 20121029
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990 and in the matter of C., born […], 2010.
RE: The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. L.C. and J.C.
BEFORE: J. Mackinnon J
COUNSEL:
Julie Daoust, for the Applicant
Martha Sullivan, for the Respondent mother, L.C.
Martha Sullivan, for the Respondent father, J.C.
DATE HEARD: October 25, 2012
E N D O R S E M E N T
[ 1 ] This came before me on October 25, 2012 as a request by the CAS to withdraw its protection application with respect to the child, C., born […], 2010. The CAS has satisfied itself that C. is not in need of protection and is content to operate under a three month Voluntary Service Agreement already entered into with the parents.
Child’s Injuries
[ 2 ] The child became very ill during the day of June 1, 2012 while at daycare. The daycare provider (“DCP”) called the mother to come and get her. On arrival at the local hospital, she was transferred to CHEO Emergency and required an urgent surgical procedure. Subsequent examinations revealed two lacerations to her liver, one 2.6 cm long x 2 cm deep and one 1.7 cm long x 1.8 cm deep; four fractured ribs on the right side, a healing fracture of the left radius, and unusual bruising. A number of diagnostic procedures have since been conducted.
[ 3 ] Dr. Murray, writing for the Child Protection Team at CHEO, stated that these were all acute injuries and not likely to be expected from regular play or care, giving that the child would have experienced significant pain at the time of each injury and, with respect to fractures, would have demonstrated distress by screaming or crying. Dr. Murray’s opinion was that the injuries appeared to suggest at least two separate episodes of trauma. There was no history or explanation given by the parents to account for these injuries. There were no medical conditions discerned that might account for them.
[ 4 ] Except for the healing fracture, the medical evidence pointed to recent, acute injuries in relation to the child’s presentation in hospital on June 1, 2012. The CAS concluded from the medical information that the injuries most likely occurred within 24 hours prior to admission in hospital. That conclusion is certainly available from the medical evidence and is supported by the totality of the evidence in the Record. Both parents and the mother’s sister, who was an overnight visitor in their home on May 31, 2012, confirmed the wellness of the child during the evening of and overnight on May 31, 2012. The parents say C. was fine the morning of June 1 st and on arrival at the daycare. The DCP did not telephone the mother to come for C. until about 4 p.m. on June 1 st .
[ 5 ] There is no doubt the rib and liver injuries were sustained close in time to the hospital admission. Some medical reports might place them at three to four days pre-admission. Based on the other accounts in the Record, the CAS conclusion as to timing is reasonable and supportable.
Possible Suspects
[ 6 ] Given the timing of the injuries, the CAS and police initially identified three individuals, any of whom might have inflicted injury on this young child: the mother, the father, or the DCP. Neither investigation has resulted in any criminal charges being laid. The CAS reports that the police regard the information as “circumstantial”. The affidavit filed by the CAS in support of its Notice of Withdrawal outlines concerns with the DCP raised by the parents in hindsight. Their child was clingy and resisted going. She experienced hair loss and unusual bruising. The DCP provided little information to them by way of explanation. On pick up, C. would cry and run to her mother.
[ 7 ] The CAS also note complaints received from other parents whose children were cared for by the DCP and who removed their children from her care. The affidavit also deposes that, in April 2012, the DCP had eight children in her care, six under the age of two years. Overall, the affidavit leaves the clear and strong impression that all was not well at the daycare.
[ 8 ] The CAS has satisfied itself that the parents of C. are no threat to their daughter. C. has adjusted easily to her new daycare and has had no unusual bruising since June 1 st . C. appears very happy and relaxed with both of her parents. They have been supervised by family members around the clock since these events with no adverse report. CAS personnel have attended the home on many occasions, for more than 20 hours, and all reports are positive. The parents undertook a psychological evaluation in an effort to rule out any major parent-based risk factors typically associated with physical child abuse. The psychological testing of both was by and large within normal ranges, with some displays of defensiveness. This could be situational rather than personality based or the product of deception. The psychologist, properly, did not offer any opinion as to whether the child’s injuries may be tied to one or both parents, given his narrow mandate.
[ 9 ] The CAS conclusion is one of no concerns in regard to the parenting abilities of these parents.
Voluntary Service Agreement
[ 10 ] The parents have agreed to what amounts to a voluntary supervision order. The CAS will be allowed scheduled and unannounced visits to their home and with their child in the community. They will sign releases of information and will accept referrals by the CAS for other services. It is not stated in the Agreement but is deposed in the CAS affidavit that the parents remain willing to complete a previously agreed to Parental Capacity Assessment, if the CAS and the Family Court deem it necessary. The CAS no longer regards it as necessary as all observations of them with their child have been very positive no matter the source.
Disposition
[ 11 ] Based on the investigation conducted by the CAS and the medical and psychological reports in the file, its decision to withdraw its protection application in favour of a Voluntary Service Agreement is reasonable and supportable. Despite her very serious injuries, C. has recovered and is described as thriving in her parent’s care. The court accepts the withdrawal of the protection application.
[ 12 ] A copy of this decision is to be provided to the presiding judge prior to disposition of the protection application with respect to the children of the DCP.
J. Mackinnon J
RELEASED: October 29, 2012
COURT FILE NO.: FC-12-1978
DATE: 20121029
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990 and in the matter of C., born […], 2010. RE: The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. L.C. and J.C. BEFORE: J. Mackinnon J COUNSEL: Julie Daoust, for the Applicant Martha Sullivan, for the Respondent mother, L.C. Martha Sullivan, for the Respondent father, J.C. ENDORSEMENT J. Mackinnon J
RELEASED: October 29, 2012