ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: FC-1342-4
DATE: 2012/01/25

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 P., born […], 2005; A., born […], 2006; and C., born […], 2008

BETWEEN:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant

– and –

M.R. and J.M.
Respondents

Lara Malashenko, for the Applicant

Audra Bennett, for the Respondent, M.R.
Steve Duplain, for the Respondent, J.M.

HEARD: November 8-10, 14-16, 18, 21-25, December 6, 2011

Reasons for Judgment

Aitken J.

Nature of Proceedings

[ 1 ] M.R. (“the mother”) and J.M. (“the father”) are the biological parents of four children: P. (D.O.B. […], 2005), A. (D.O.B. […], 2006), C. (D.O.B. […], 2008) and D. (D.O.B. […], 2009) – the oldest and youngest children being girls and the two middle children being boys. D. was made a Crown ward for the purpose of adoption on May 16, 2011 and will not be impacted by these Reasons.

[ 2 ] This is a Status Review Application under s. 64 of the Child and Family Services Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11 (“the CFSA ” of “the Act”) in regard to the oldest three children (“the children”). The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“CAS” or “the Society”) is seeking an order of Crown wardship without access for the purpose of adoption. The father has put forward a plan of care for the children to be returned to his care, subject to a supervision order for a period of six months. The mother does not put forward an independent plan of care but supports the father’s plan of care.

Involvement Prior to Protection Application

[ 3 ] The R./M. family has had a lengthy involvement with the CAS.

[ 4 ] In May 2005, M.R. was 19 years old, homeless, without financial resources, and pregnant with P. J.M. was involved in criminal activities, and there were concerns about domestic violence between him and M.R. The public health nurse alerted the Society that M.R. was pregnant, and area hospitals were notified. As J.M. and M.R. had a place to stay at the Carling Family Shelter and were receiving good support within the community, the Society closed its file.

[ 5 ] On […], 2005, the Society reopened its file when it learned that M.R. had given birth to P. Due to concerns about the parents’ caregiving capacity, the Society referred the parents to an Infant Stimulation Program. The parents were discharged from the program within a month due to poor attendance. The parents continued to work with the public health nurse and accessed other community resources outside the Society. Since P. was developing normally, the Society closed its file in February 2006.

[ 6 ] The Society reopened the file in April 2006 due to concerns raised by a nurse from the Healthy Babies/Healthy Children program who reported that the parents frequently argued with each other and called each other names. Since M.R. was again pregnant, birth alerts were put in place at local hospitals and the file was closed.

[ 7 ] On June 21, 2006, the file was reopened when the Society was advised that M.R. had been force feeding P. and was verbally aggressive with her. On […], 2006, the Society learned of the premature birth of A. and the fact that the parents had reported that they had used marijuana seven days earlier. A. did not test positive for marijuana. Nevertheless, the Society transferred the file to ongoing services due to its concerns about the couple’s unstable life, unsanitary home environment, and lack of parenting capacity. M.R. and J.M. agreed to accept Society services.

[ 8 ] In December 2006, the police advised the Society that a neighbour had called with concerns about domestic violence as they were hearing the parents fighting and the children crying. When the police attended at the home, there was no sign of a struggle; however, the home was a mess with cat feces and dirty diapers all over the floor and the children playing in the midst of it. In January 2007, the Society received a community referral to the effect that the parents were smoking marijuana in the presence of the children, M.R. had P. outside without proper clothing, and M.R. had smacked P. in the back of the head when she had fallen in the snow. The Society could not verify the allegations, but it kept its file open. By this time, the family was not cooperating with the public health nurse. By February, the parents had completed two parenting courses at the Bethany Hope Centre. Between November 2006 and February 2007, P. attended the Headstart program and benefitted from her contact with other children and by having skilled child care workers. Despite the Society receiving unconfirmed reports of J.M. losing his temper in the home and having to leave from time to time to cool down, and despite the state of disarray of the home, the Society closed its file in February 2007. In April 2007, further alerts were put in place at local hospitals since M.R. was again pregnant.

[ 9 ] On June 6, 2007, there was another community report of M.R. shaking A. on a public bus and P. having a cast on her leg. During a visit later that day, an emergency worker discovered the parents’ home to be very messy and unsanitary. It was agreed that the children would remain with a neighbour for two days while the parents cleaned the home and made it safer for the children. The parents advised that P. had a cast because J.M. had accidentally fallen on her. The Society was advised that CHEO accepted that the event had been accidental. During a subsequent visit to the home on July 16, 2007, the worker confirmed the home to be acceptable and safe. Nothing further was done. In October 2007, a stranger reported to the Society that she had observed M.R. verbally and physically abusive with A. while on a bus. The parents denied that this event had occurred. The Society kept its file open.

[ 10 ] On […], 2008, the Society was advised that M.R. had given birth to C. and both had tested positive for marijuana. Due to earlier conflicts, J.M. had left the home and was not present for C.’s birth. M.R. intended to spend time at her father’s home to receive support with the children. M.R. refused help from the public health nurse.

[ 11 ] From April 2008 to June 2009, with a brief hiatus between February and March 2009, Annie Bellemare, a child protection worker, worked with the R./M. family. Between April 17, 2008 and the end of the month, Ms. Bellemare had trouble getting access to the home. She explained to M.R. the concerns of the Society. M.R. advised her that J.M. was not currently living in the home due to their arguments, but he came there every day to help with the children. When Ms. Bellemare finally went into the home on May 1, 2008, she observed it to be in complete disarray. There were dirty clothes and diapers lying around. Dirt was encrusted in places. There was a mattress, without sheets, on the floor in the living room. There was left-over food on the floor and table. The main living area was not accessible due to all of the stuff on the floor. At trial, J.M. acknowledged that the home was messy, but he denied it being unsanitary. Ms. Bellemare’s evidence was that no walls in the living area were intact – all had large and/or small holes, which J.M. acknowledged he had made in anger and one of which he acknowledged had been made in the presence of the children. The parents denied Ms. Bellemare access to the upstairs. When Ms. Bellemare was in the home, she observed P. roughly placing C., who was three months at the time, in a car seat. The parents reacted negatively when Ms. Bellemare expressed safety concerns for C. Ms. Bellemare explained to the parents her concerns regarding the state of the home, the inability of the parents to manage their children’s behaviour, J.M.’s anger management difficulties, and both parents’ use of marijuana. Ms. Bellemare gave the parents several hours to clean and tidy the home. When she returned later that day, the home was in better condition.

[ 12 ] At a scheduled visit to the R./M. home on May 5, 2008, Ms. Bellemare advised the parents that the Society wished to work with them on a voluntary basis, and more specifically, she offered the following services:

• the home management program [1]

Although the parents initially agreed to help from the home management program, they changed their minds after one visit with a worker. On June 23, 2008, when Ms. Bellemare conducted another visit, she noted that the home was very messy with clothes and toys everywhere. Despite this, the parents believed they could clean the home on their own.

• the public nurse

M.R. agreed to have C.’s development monitored by a public health nurse. C. had a very large head and a floppy neck. He was referred to a specialist to determine if there were any serious health issues. The parents missed their appointment on December 8, 2008, but eventually attended on January 7, 2009. The doctor was not concerned about C.’s head size.

• the lice program

M.R. obtained help from the Lice Squad Program on two occasions at the expense of the Society to get rid of the lice that had plagued the children for six months.

• the family support program [2]

The parents were initially resistant to the family support program. They did not see the children’s behaviour or their parenting ability as significant issues. Nevertheless, after meeting with Lori Price, they agreed to work with her for three months starting at the end of June. Ms. Price’s role involved parenting coaching and mentoring, role modeling, helping at meal times, establishing routines, and organizing the apartment. After a month and a half, the services were discontinued at the parents’ insistence, even though it was obvious to Ms. Bellemare that the parents needed them.

• the Headstart program [3]

P. and A. were enrolled in Headstart, where it was reported that A. was very active and required constant supervision due to his aggressivity with other children. The children left the program within a short period due to their continuing problems with lice. It was observed around this time that A.’s language development was delayed.

[ 13 ] The Society closed its file on the R./M. family on February 4, 2009, as the children appeared to be meeting their milestones. Nevertheless, the Society continued to have concerns, including concerns about the parents’ ability to maintain a clean and sanitary environment in their home.

[ 14 ] On March 10, 2009, the Society received a report from the Ottawa Housing Corporation to the effect that the superintendent had attended the R./M. apartment and had observed the home to be in complete disarray. There were big and small holes in the walls of the apartment, the place was a mess with dirty diapers, dirty clothes and food everywhere, and J.M. had reacted in an aggressive and threatening way to the superintendant, the latter allegation being denied by J.M. Ms. Bellemare attended the home on March 18, 2009, but the door was not answered despite sounds coming from inside. At a scheduled visit on March 24, 2009, Ms. Bellemare observed the home in the same unsatisfactory condition as earlier reported. The upstairs was filled with 20 to 30 garbage bags ostensibly filled with clothes. The children’s bedrooms were empty aside from mattresses on the floor, without bedding. C.’s crib was filled with dirty clothes. The parents slept on a mattress in the living room. M.R. advised that she was two months pregnant, but that she did not want the child. The parents asked Ms. Bellemare to close their file at the Society, but she refused. M.R. refused to sign any consent forms so that the Society could speak to collaterals.

(Decision continues verbatim through paragraph [197] and the footnotes exactly as in the source.)

Aitken J.

Released : January 25, 2012

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990
AND IN THE MATTER OF P., born […], 2005; A., born […], 2006; and C., born […], 2008
BETWEEN: THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA Applicant
M.R. and J.M. Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Aitken J.

Released: January 25, 2012

[1] Under the home management program, home cleaning, child-proofing, and home organization services are provided.

[2] Under the family support program, workers teach parents how to better manage their children’s behaviour and organize their homes and schedules.

[3] The Headstart program is a daycare program for children of families who are at high risk.

[4] This differs from what J.M. stated in his affidavit, where he claimed that the previous week he had arranged for Ms. T. to look after the children after Mr. T. had picked up the children from school. It also differs from what Ms. T. stated in her affidavit.

[5] J.Ma. claimed that she had known for about a week that A.T. would be picking up the children; J.M.’s evidence was that he had only been able to reach Mr. T. the morning of trial. J.Ma.’s evidence was that, although she knew that Mr. T. was supposed to pick up P. and A. from school, she went to the school at the pick-up time and brought the children back to the building where the apartments of J.M. and Ms. T. are located. She did not know where A.T. was and why he had not picked up the children. According to J.Ma., she had been in contact with Ms. T. throughout the day, as they are friends. It was her understanding that Mr. T. was supposed to deliver the children to Ms. T. after school, so Ms. Ma. did so when Mr. T. had not gone to the school. Ms. Ma.’s evidence was that she did not have keys to J.M.’s apartment on that day and therefore could not have taken the children into the apartment. J.M.’s evidence was that Ms. Ma. did have his keys and that is why he could not get into his apartment upon his return from the trial. Ms. Ma. acknowledged being with the children and Ms. T. when Ms. Paiement arrived at the building. She testified that she did not hear Ms. T. state that she would take P. and A. with her when she went to get her daughter’s glasses fixed; whereas both Ms. Ma. and Ms. T. recounted her saying that in their affidavits. Finally, J.M. testified that, after court, he had gone back to his apartment but could not get in because Ms. Ma. had his keys. He tried T.T.’s apartment, but no one was there. He went to a friend’s apartment and tried calling his sister, but was only able to reach her at his apartment at about 6 p.m. Ms. Ma.’s evidence was that she was with Ms. T. at Ms. T.’s apartment until about 6 p.m. when the two went out to purchase things and then went over to Ms. Ma.’s apartment with the T. children. She did not receive any calls from J.M. until 6 p.m. Ms. T. had no time on her phone and therefore J.M. would not have been able to reach Ms. T. J.M.’s evidence was that he reached J.Ma. by telephone at his apartment at about 6 p.m.