COURT FILE NO.: C606/11

DATE: 2013-06-14

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton

Applicants

– and –

C.L. (mother)

And

A.L. (father)

Respondents

James Wood – Counsel for the Society

Self-Represented

Self-Represented

James Higginson – Office of the Children’s Lawyer.

HEARD: June 12,2013

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PAZARATZ

INTRODUCTION

1. With just a bit of parental cooperation, this temporary care hearing – indeed, this entire child protection application – could have been avoided.

2. D.L. was born […], 1999. He is 14 years old. His mother C.L. and father A.L. are “separated”, but have resumed cohabitation out of financial necessity. Their 19-year-old daughter F.L. also lives with them. F.L. is not a subject child in these proceedings.

3. D.L. was apprehended from the care of the parents on May 7, 2013. The parents now ask that he be returned to their care, under supervision if necessary. The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (“the Society”) asks that D.L. remain in care while a comprehensive psychological assessment of the child is conducted in the coming months.

4. D.L.’s lawyer, appointed through the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (”OCL”) says the teenager wants to go home to his parents. In many circumstances, such clearly articulated views and preferences by a polite, well-spoken 14-year-old might be determinative. But as his lawyer Mr. Higginson so delicately put it: “the context is concerning.”

SOCIETY’S POSITION

5. On April 15, 2011 the Society commenced a protection application based upon the following concerns:

a. The family had a history of child welfare involvement dating back to 2003 regarding the mother’s mental health. The family had been involved with several child welfare agencies since 2003.

b. The parents physically separated in November 2010, with D.L. remaining in the mother’s care.

c. The family’s current file was opened after the Society received a report from a community-based mental health agency that the mother was presenting with paranoid and psychotic behaviours. The Society had also received several other reports from the public regarding the mother’s mental health.

d. The mother had presented with very concerning behaviour including: the belief that she was being stalked and harassed by Melinda Gates, the wife of Microsoft founder Bill Gates; the belief that she was the cousin of Bill Gates; and the belief that she was the niece of Queen Elizabeth II.

e. The family had been evicted and forcibly removed from their home on April 11 2011. The children were home at the time. The mother refused to allow the authorities to enter the home and it was necessary for the police to kick in the door to gain entry. The mother was located in a room in the home “blogging” on her computer about the situation during the eviction.

f. The mother was apprehended under the Mental Health Act and taken to St. Joseph’s Hospital where she was admitted to the acute mental health ward. The mother had not been released from St. Joseph’s hospital at the time the Society application was commenced.

g. At the time of the family’s removal from the home, the mother had not paid the rent and other expenses in several months.

h. The children were previously taken into care in 2008 due to concerns regarding the mother’s mental health, and after the mother failed to abide by the terms of a temporary supervision order. The mother had indicated she was not prepared to accept any involvement from the Society with her family.

i. Then 12 year old D.L. appeared to have been very isolated. He had been home-schooled his entire life and was receiving very little social interaction. The mother was not registered to be home-schooling with the Hamilton Wentworth District School Board (as required by provincial legislation). The child’s visibility in the community was extremely limited in the mother’s care.

6. On April 15, 2011 Justice Lafreniere granted a temporary order placing the child in the care of the father, subject to the supervision of the Society, with access to the mother at the discretion of the Society and supervised at the discretion of the Society.

7. Despite the supervision order, the parents refused to cooperate with the Society or previous OCL counsel. Even though the Society still believed the mother had serious mental health issues, on November 14, 2011 the Society sought leave to withdraw its protection application – simply because the parents were stonewalling and refusing to allow D.L. to be interviewed. I declined to allow the Society to withdraw, noting in my endorsement “child protection applications should not be determined on the basis of a parent refusing to cooperate.”

8. On February 27, 2012 when the matter returned before me, the matter had to be further adjourned because:

a. The mother had previously agreed to make the child available for a private meeting with former OCL counsel, but she had failed to do so.

b. The mother also failed to produce her mental health records, even though she had undertaken to do so. She said she was having trouble assembling the necessary documentation, but refused a suggestion that she could provide a direction to allow the Society to obtain the records.

9. There were more adjournments. The mother never voluntarily produced the required mental health records. The parents did not allow the OCL lawyer to speak to D.L. Neither parent attended for a motion on May 18, 2012 when I granted an order allowing the Society to obtain the mother’s mental health records directly from the hospital.

10. On February 22, 2013 the Society brought a motion seeking an order that the father make the child available for a meeting with the OCL lawyer. The Society also wanted the father to provide written information regarding the child’s home-schooling. That motion was adjourned several times, with no agreement by the parents on any issue. At least one adjournment was required as a result of the father’s illness.

11. After approximately 16 court attendances – eliciting little more than unfulfilled promises by the parents that they intended to cooperate -- on May 10, 2013 the Society filed an amended protection application setting out additional concerns:

a. Since the order dated April 15, 2011 which placed the child in the father’s care subject to the supervision of the Society, the father had not been making the child available to meet with the Society as required as a term of supervision.

b. The Society had only been able to observe the child on two occasions since April 2011. The father had not allowed the child to be interviewed independently. The father had not provided any information to the Society concerning the child’s home-schooling even though this information had been requested on numerous occasions and the father had advised in the past that he would provide this information.

c. The Society continued to have concerns regarding the mother’s mental health and its impact on the child. The mother had been diagnosed with Axis I Schizoaffective Disorder and Axis II Cluster B traits and to the Society’s knowledge she was not receiving treatment for her mental health issues.

d. The child’s visibility in the community had continued to be extremely limited as a result of home-schooling; he did not participate in any organized extracurricular activities; he did not have a regular healthcare provider; and he did not appear to have any social relationships other than with his immediate family members, and with two children he occasionally played with at a park.

e. The family had still not registered for home-schooling with the Hamilton Wentworth Board of Education which they were required to do.

f. During a non-identifying consult on April 8, 2013, the Child Advocacy & Assessment Program (“CAAP”) team noted that there was “a high probability that the child is at very high risk due to long-term exposure to the mother’s psychosis and severe mental health as he has had no known protective factors to have a normal development (i.e. no family support or social/community supports, no medical/health supports and unknown educational attainment)”.

g. The CAAP team indicated it would be beneficial for the child to be assessed and that the most informative assessment in regards to the child would be a full psychological assessment. The CAAP team also indicated that the child would need to be removed from the parents care in order to be assessed.

h. The CAAP team subsequently advised they would not able to complete the required assessment. The Society was prepared to facilitate a private psychological assessment of D.L. and was making the necessary arrangements.

12. The May 10, 2013 affidavit of Society family services worker Lucie Rivet set out the following additional information:

a. As of March 2013 the mother’s mental health appeared to be escalating with respect to her level of anxiety and paranoid thoughts.

b. The Society was trying to work cooperatively with the mother, but it appeared that any involvement with the Society was exacerbating the mother’s mental health problems.

c. The Society had been reluctant to apprehend the child for purposes of an assessment because of concerns about the impact on the child. The Society explored every possible less intrusive approach, but without any cooperation or success. Ultimately it became evident that the parents had no intention of cooperating. The drawn out court case was simply adding to the stress level within the home, and potentially negatively impacting on D.L.

d. The mother had made allegations regarding the previous lawyer assigned by the OCL to represent D.L. A new lawyer, Mr. Higginson, was assigned to take over the file. The Society had waited to see if the parents would be any more cooperative with Mr. Higginson. They weren’t. The OCL was still prevented from interviewing the child.

e. The matter was to be spoken to in court on March 18, 2013 but the parents did not attend. Things had reached the stage where the parents were simply ignoring the process.

f. After a series of meetings the Society concluded that a psych-educational assessment would be appropriate as it would include both psychological and educational components.

g. On May 6, 2013 the matter was again to be spoken to in court but the parents did not attend.

h. On May 7, 2013 the Society received a letter from the child’s lawyer Mr. Higginson advising that he had been unable to meet with the child and that the father had not responded to communications from his office.

i. That same day the Society obtained a warrant to apprehend the child.

13. Ms. Rivet provided the following information about the apprehension:

a. On May 7, 2013 she attended the parents’ home accompanied by another worker and two Hamilton police officers.

b. The father answered the door and advised that the mother and children were not home as they were at a dental appointment for the child. When the father was informed that the Society had a warrant to apprehend D.L., the father initially reacted by stating loudly that he would not allow the child to be apprehended and he would physically block the child from being taken.

c. The father stated the Society had continually harassed his family and the parents had done nothing wrong.

d. The father eventually offered to provide the Society with the information about home-schooling which had previously been requested. The father was advised that the Society would be bringing the child into care so that his well-being could be assessed.

e. The mother and children later arrived. When the Society worker explained to D.L. that he would be coming into care, the child reacted calmly and nodded.

f. The mother became agitated and began speaking in a raised voice. She informed the police that the Society worker was part of an international child trafficking ring; that she had documentation to prove this; and she asked the officers to arrest Ms. Rivet.

g. The mother also told the police officers that children are taken by the Society from their parents for the purpose of child prostitution.

h. The father attempted to interrupt and calm the mother. At one point the father spoke quietly to the child and then gave him a hug. The child appeared to be observing the situation carefully and showed no outward emotion.

i. Throughout the process the mother continued to state that the apprehension was politically motivated and a bureaucratic plot to stop her from blogging. However she was able to stop at one point to tell D.L. that she loved him.

j. The mother informed the worker that the child was gluten intolerant and that he was allergic to wall-to-wall carpeting.

k. The worker encouraged the mother to attend court. The mother stated that the judge was part of a mafia ring, which she was assisting the police in investigating, and as a result she did not believe that the court would listen to her.

14. Ms. Rivet described May 8, 2013 telephone conversations with the mother and the father individually as follows:

a. The mother advised she had spoken to the child the previous evening and expressed concern that the child “is traumatized because of the abduction” and that even though he looked okay he was “in a state of detached sensitivity”.

b. The mother asked that the child call her every morning and evening.

c. With respect to the child’s education the mother said she uses a classical-based, curriculum-free education plan that is self-motivated and self-directed, suitable for very advanced and extremely bright children.

d. The mother said if the Society kept the child past Friday it would lose all its funding.

e. The mother said she would be “going on record” to identify that Ms. Rivet was an international terrorist and child trafficker with “affiliations to higher-ups”.

f. The family services worker described the mother’s conversation as disorganized and the topics became more disjointed during the conversation.

g. The mother told the worker she should be thankful for the knowledge that the mother was sharing with her. The mother said she had given a gift and that people will pay $10,000 to hear her speak.

h. When reminded that the matter would be in court on Friday, May 10, 2013 at 2 p.m., the mother said the judge “won’t listen to her and takes everything wrong” because she has been instrumental in the investigation into the judge’s mafia connections.

i. The father advised he did not agree with the child being enrolled in any school program and said the child was to be home schooled only.

15. The affidavit of family services worker Lesley Mathers sworn May 30, 2013 included the following information:

a. On May 8, 2013 the parents refused to cooperate with respect to providing information required to enrol D.L. in school.

b. That same day the mother stated the Society was penalizing her for her beliefs and her internet writings by taking the child, and that the apprehension had nothing to do with D.L. or his care. She accused the Society of retaliating through its services.

c. During a May 9, 2013 conversation with a family services supervisor, the mother made many complaints. She spoke of being sexually assaulted by the police and robbed by them. The mother claimed that the police officer who twisted her arm to handcuff her had an erection and which caused her to scream.

d. The mother was also unable to focus on discussing D.L. and the Society’s goal of returning him home. She spoke about conspiracies, government funding, immigration and judges.

e. On May 10, 2013 Ms. Mathers met the mother and F.L. The mother said Society worker Ms. Rivet was part of the “international terrorist child trafficking ring” and was working undercover for the United Nations.

f. The mother also advised Ms. Mathers that Ms. Rivet had threatened to kill the father two days prior on the telephone and that Ms. Mathers should watch out because Ms. Rivet might harm her.

g. On May 10 2013, after being told that D.L. required an ultrasound, the mother stated that ultrasounds cause cancer and that the doctor was a Nazi.

h. On May 12, 2013 the mother stated people were blogging about the foster parents and stated that the foster parents were part of a cult. She also said employees of the Society were child molesters and the worker was a Nazi. She cursed at the foster father and became volatile.

i. The mother then made a complaint to police that the child was in distress at the foster home. Police attended the foster home that evening to check on the boy. He was asleep and had to be awakened so that police could confirm he was alright. It turned out to be a completely needless disruption for the child.

j. The following morning D.L. was upset that the police had woken him up and stated he hated the police. The foster father noted that the child “bought” into the mother’s paranoia. The child was reported as being anxious mostly due to the conversation he was having with the mother as she did not approve of the activities the child was partaking in.

k. The mother complained she felt the Society was being dismissive about her complaints. She insisted she did not want D.L. attending mainstream schooling. The mother’s continuing refusal to provide the Society with any of the child’s identification was preventing the child from being registered in school.

l. The mother denied having any mental health problems. She told Ms. Mathers that she was complaining to her superiors.

m. On May 14, 2013 the mother left a voicemail for a Society employee alleging that Ms. Mathers had a political motive to isolate the child from her.

n. The foster parents complained about abusive behaviour by the mother, and that the mother was making statements to the child which were upsetting and disruptive. Ultimately the Society decided to terminate telephone access between the child and the parents. Access was to be limited to once per week at the Society’s office, supervised for 1.5 hours. As well, special duty officers would be present during the first visit and video and audio recording would not be permitted during the visits as per agency policy.

o. On May 15, 2013 Ms. Mathers spoke to a sergeant with Hamilton police services who advised that the mother had contacted police and made a complaint about how Ms. Mathers had conducted herself at court on May 10, 2013. The mother alleged the Society worker wore a miniskirt with a very low cut top where her nipples could be seen.

p. The worker advised the police officer about an entry on the mother’s blog in which she named the foster father and stated the foster father wanted to have sexual intercourse with the child.

q. The mother had been confrontational with the foster parents. She also posted a recording of a telephone conversation with the foster father, on the Internet. As a result, on May 16, 2013 the Society hand-delivered a letter to the parents advising that based on the mother’s actions telephone access with the child was no longer permitted.

r. The letter advised that ongoing supervised access would occur once a week at the Society’s office Tuesdays 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. The letter also stated that all future communication would have to be in writing. The letter expressed the Society’s concern that the mother had been posting information on the internet about the child and about the foster family, in contravention of section 45(8) of the Child and Family Services Act (“CFSA”). The mother was asked to take steps immediately to remove the offending material which included the foster father’s identifying information.

s. On May 16, 2013 Ms. Mathers supervised an access visit between the child, his sister and the parents at the Society’s office. The mother had a camera and appeared to be videotaping. She was advised that videotaping and audio taping was against CAS policy. The mother said she was taking still pictures and the Society worker advised that still photographs were permitted.

t. Ms. Mathers observed that it appeared that the parents and child truly missed one another.

u. Ms. Mathers said at one point the mother held D.L.’s hand and said “you’re freezing, they are trying to make you sick. They are trying to give you cancer”. The mother then said “the foster home parents are lying; nothing about these people are right, they are all liars.” The parents continued to instruct D.L. as to how to act in the foster home, and not to allow the foster parents to immunize him as he never had a needle and it could kill him. Later in the conversation the mother again told D.L. the foster parents were verbally abusing him and that they were trying to make him sick.

v. At the end of the May 16, 2013 supervised visit the mother again spoke of a conspiracy with the Society plotting against her and her family. The mother told Ms. Mathers “you will not have a job for very long once I’m done with this.”

w. On May 23, 2013 the Society provided the parents with a letter advising the Society would be arranging private tutoring for D.L.

x. On May 23, 2013 D.L. had a supervised visit. D.L. spoke positively about the foster home where he was staying. The teenager later said that if he had to stay in foster care he would like to stay with his current foster family.

y. Ms. Mathers stated that since she was assigned carriage of the file she has been monitoring the mother’s blogs on the Internet. Based on these blogs Ms. Mathers expressed concerns about the mother’s mental health in that she often speaks about conspiracies including how she believed Ms. Mathers was taking instruction from actress Pamela Anderson with the goal of driving D.L. to suicide through systematic psychological torture. The mother had described Pamela Anderson as a triple agent who uses her sway with organized crime to murder fellow operatives. Copies of the mother’s Internet blog were attached.

16. In her affidavit Ms. Mathers provided the following information about D.L.:

a. On May 10, 2013 the child’s foster father advised D.L. was doing well, eating and there were no issues to report.

b. D.L. had been talking with the mother on a daily basis and she had requested phone calls twice daily. D.L. enjoyed talking with his mother.

c. The foster father stated the conversations between the child and the mother were very controlled by the mother and the mother wanted to know every detail. For example the mother wanted to know what was in the child’s salad and what kind of water they use to prepare the salad.

d. Interviewed at the foster home, D.L. told Ms. Mathers he wanted to go home. He described life at home without complaints. The worker noted the D.L. was very passive, with no emotional expression, even when he talked about going home. She said his speech appeared to be “rehearsed”.

e. D.L. advised he did not want to attend mainstream school.

f. D.L. said he understood the actions the Society was taking.

17. Ms. Mathers stated that on May 22, 2013 she said received a voicemail message that was sent to another CAS employee from the mother. The mother’s comments in the voicemail included the following:

a. The mother was getting suspicious phone calls from foreign countries including India and strange activity on her internet account from India. The mother believes that a group of UN affiliated “fermers” were messing around with her status at CAS, and Society management were enabling this to occur.

b. She said D.L. is in a lot of pain right now and he is in a strange place where they are far less educated than the members of her household. She expressed a great deal of concern about his well-being.

c. The mother said she thinks it’s a United Nations plot and “it amounts to kidnapping when it becomes political”

18. Ms. Mathers swore a supplemental affidavit June 6, 2013 which included the following information:

a. She provided an update as to efforts made by the Society to arrange an assessment for D.L.

b. She attached a printout from the mother’s blog posts from May 30, 2013 to June 2, 2013. The mother continued to make associations between Bill and Melinda Gates, columnist Arianna Huffington, and the Society. She alleged Melinda Gates had influenced the child’s foster placement.

c. During a supervised visit on May 30, 2013 the mother repeatedly expressed concerns to the child that he needed to do things to clean out the toxins they were giving him in the foster home.

d. The mother told D.L. that the foster mother was trying to kill him by giving him tap water. She continued to warn him about all of the dangers in the foster home, and this upset D.L.

e. At one point during a supervised visit the mother gave D.L. pills and instructed him to take them daily. He put them in his backpack. When the access supervisor later asked for the pills there was an unpleasant scene and the mother refused to give the worker the medication. D.L. became very upset and was crying.

f. Ms. Mathers stated the confrontation during the supervised visit escalated to the point where the worker had to ask for a “code white” in the building, indicating that an emergency was taking place and requesting police be called. She said the parents were becoming progressively more agitated and the father was refusing to allow D.L. to leave the room.

g. The mother denied videotaping the visit – but later posted a video recording of the visit on her blog. She had also encouraged her daughter F.L. to videotape D.L. while he was crying.

h. During all of this the mother continued to make allegations that Ms. Mathers was a terrorist, a Nazi and a liar.

i. On June 3, 2013 the Society determined that even supervised access was so out of control and having such a negative impact on the child that personal access would be discontinued and contact between the mother and the child would be by letter only. The father and F.L. would still be allowed ongoing access at the agency but this would also be reviewed if the access was having a negative impact on the child.

j. Ms. Mathers attached copies of the mother’s blog entries from June 4 and 5, 2013 in which she again makes reference to the child being kidnapped. She also mentions murderous threats against the child and the child being in immediate danger. She attempts to make connections between the child’s placement and Queen Elizabeth II, as well as the Catholic Church. The mother continues to state that the child’s apprehension was politically motivated.

k. On June 6, 2013 Ms. Mathers supervised an access visit between the father, F.L. and D.L. The father was appropriate during the visit. The child’s presentation was significantly different from his presentation when the mother had supervised access. The child was much more relaxed in the absence of the mother.

19. The Society adopts the recommendations of the CAAP team, and proposes a comprehensive psychological assessment of the child, with the following objectives:

a. Assess D.L.’s general cognitive functioning and related academic levels (particularly given the fact that little information is available about his home-schooling curriculum).

b. Assess his general socio-emotional functioning (e.g. sense of self and family).

c. Screen for mental health issues (as it relates to general socio-emotional functioning and in response to his mother’s positive history for mental health issues).

d. Determine if this use has any special needs, given his family history and caregiving environment.

20. CAAP recommended that as part of a comprehensive assessment, it would be of significant value for the psychologists to have access to collateral information from others involved with D.L. Currently collateral information is not available because D.L. has been so socially isolated, and his parents have not been forthcoming with information. The CAAP team recommended that D.L. remain in foster care for a period of time to allow him to adjust to his new circumstances, and allow an opportunity to assess his general functioning prior to engaging in any testing.

21. The Society submits that even prior to apprehension there were many indicators that D.L.’s home environment was highly problematic. Being home-schooled and isolated from the rest of the community, D.L.’s personal and emotional development is particularly tied to his parents. His primary parent may suffer from a serious psychiatric disorder. In the Society’s view, while less intrusive options were preferable – and pursued – stonewalling and bad faith by the parents have left little choice but to ensure that D.L.’s situation and potential problems are fully explored without interference or subversion by his parents.

22. The Society argues that the parents’ reaction and behaviors since apprehension – particularly on the part of the mother – not only reinforce general concerns about the chaotic and unstable emotional environment D.L. has been exposed to – but the recent supervised visits and interactions provide a previously unseen and troubling glimpse of how emotionally unsettling and destructive the mother’s influence may be.

PARENTS’ POSITION

23. The parents represent themselves. The mother filed lengthy affidavits dated May 24, 2013 and May 27, 2013. The parents filed a joint answer and plan of care dated May 27, 2013. They advanced a common position: they want their son back in their home.

24. The father summarized his position during submissions:

a. The initial apprehension in April 2011 was a very traumatic experience for the entire family. The mother and the children had been left homeless as a result of criminal behaviour by the former landlord. The father criticized the Society for failing to help them.

b. He felt the mother had been wrongly placed in a mental hospital.

c. He said the family’s difficulties have largely been financial and this has impacted on their ability to provide a more desirable environment for their children. He suggested if the Society really wants to help them, it should provide financial assistance to help them live better lives.

d. He acknowledged that in the recent past he and the mother had not made D.L. available for interviews by the Society or OCL. However he stated that during the initial apprehension two years ago D.L. was interviewed five separate times by the Society. He felt his son had already been questioned more than enough times. “Enough was enough”.

e. He said the family feels persecuted.

f. He objects to his son being analyzed by a psychiatrist or a psychologist. He said it would be frightening and intrusive for the boy.

g. He said D.L. is benefiting from home-schooling, but the Society involvement has actually interfered with their ability to formally register their home curriculum with the school Board. He questioned whether teachers and the regular school system would be able to help his son.

h. He said the family still needs to heal, but the Society’s unnecessary action in apprehending D.L. has created a major setback for them. He said the Society is actually hurting their family rather than helping.

i. He expressed concern about problems in D.L.’s current foster placement. He said his son is anxious to get home as quickly as possible so he can get on with his life.

j. He said if D.L. is returned to the parents care, the Society can send a worker around to interview D.L. weekly if they would like.

25. The mother added the following comments during her submissions:

a. D.L. is an introvert. He is under tremendous stress living in a foster home. He doesn’t want to be there. He is being emotionally harmed, being kept away from his family. She said the foster parents don’t want him in their home.

b. The Society is persecuting the parents because they have a different parenting philosophy. They are being penalized for their decision to home-school their son.

c. The Society has political motives for intervening in D.L.’s life.

d. The mother described herself as being very knowledgeable about D.L.’s medical and nutritional issues even though she has not been formally trained in these areas. She believes she is competent to diagnose D.L. as being lactose intolerant, and she doesn’t need a doctor to make such a diagnosis.

e. She said speculation about her mental health is unwarranted. She insisted that she has no mental health issues.

f. There is nothing wrong with her parenting skills. The Society should leave the family alone.

26. Both parents shied away from discussing the more unusual and in some cases bizarre allegations and statements attributed to the mother. The mother’s affidavits largely consisted of rambling (and highly personal) attacks on all of the agencies and personnel involved in her life – children’s aid societies, the courts, police, lawyers, social workers, judges. She did not expressly deny or dispute many of the very strange and seemingly delusional statements attributed to her in the Society’s materials. Additional examples from her blogs:

a. About actress Angelina Jolie: “She may be in contact with D.L.’s Italian foster mother, who happens to be a teacher in the Ontario school system who thinks I hate teachers and refuses to speak on the telephone with me about my son’s diet, feeds him stagnant water, never lets him have fresh air and sunshine once for over three weeks now. I believe her breasts are intact; that these are directives to the woman to poison my son.”

b. “They (the Society) are taking blood and urine samples and it’s rumoured they are threatening to diagnose (D.L.) with AIDS!!!!!!!”

c. “I believe it’s cooked up by Melinda (Bill Gates’ wife) in an effort to leverage foreign economic forces against my family when in fact this has little to do with us – (the father’s) welfare agent is Middle Eastern and she keeps cutting off our checks when she doesn’t like what we write here for some bizarre reasons.”

d. “People say (a Society worker) ought to be arrested on terrorism charges and have her cell phone impounded and searched by the RCMP.”

e. In relation to a video clip of a graduation speech which Melinda Gates gave at Duke University, the mother blogged: “the ‘biological sciences’ building is in reference to my son’s detainment – she believes he will be raped and beaten up by the other boy whose room he’s sleeping in there. The entire speech is a veiled attack on myself, D.L., F.L. – instigating criminal acts against the vulnerable boy – calling us ‘mutant frogs’.”

f. In a subsequent blog: “More ghost donations from Melinda Gates to local doctors/scientists as motivation to torture my kidnapped son.”

g. Yet another blog setting out the mother’s preoccupation with conspiracies involving Bill Gates and his wife: “Apparently, Melinda has placed my son with people she figures will take an emotional, angry stance to materials she’s placing online through various news sources. The disinformation intelligence circulating about this woman is complex… The same thing they did with me through my private school with the bullying, they plan to orchestrate through my son’s life to ‘test’ him and see if he is a good person like they are.”

h. In relation to a Society access supervisor the mother blogged: “She thinks she has the right to detain other people’s kids and lock them in a room with nothing to do, then watch them on camera to see if they masturbate. If they do, she condemns them to a life of servitude and misery – railroads them into the flesh trade…. She keeps torturing and testing her victims until they either crack or else they bend to her will but they never pass even if they suppress everything that might be interpreted as ‘bad’ because of the economic agenda she supports to suppress genius. It’s not a test, it’s child slavery.”

i. In response to a story about Bill Gates by American columnist Ariana Huffington, the mother blogged using all capital letters: “VEILED RAPE THREATS THAT REFERENCE AN ANIMATED GIF OF POSTED EARLIER TO MY STREAM AN OBESE MAN IN RED SHORTS FALLING BACK INTO A POOL THEN DETONIZING A NUCLEAR BOMB. YOU’RE NOT LISTENING ARIANA HUFFINGTON – D.L. DOESN’T WANT TO BE THERE!!!!! YOU’D BETTER LOCK YOUR DAUGHTERS UP REAL GOOD AFTER YOU PUBLISHED THIS BECAUSE YOU JUST GUARANTEED THEY’LL BE RAPED AND THROWN OUT LIKE CHEAP TRASH FOR WHAT YOU’RE IMPLYING HERE ABOUT MY BELOVED CHILD!!!!”

j. “I’m advised there are economic threats against the Chinese implied through the mention of the name “Ambassador Rice”. It is suspected the motive is to force the tampering in my son’s food supply as he is gluten intolerant; relies on rice as a means to supplement his diet.”

k. In relation to Queen Elizabeth II the mother recently blogged: “Elizabeth is quite frustrated with D.L. as he is not ejaculating at the foster home (for her friends at the Ontario legislative assembly?) – He doesn’t find crown sanctioned child abduction and slavery terribly arousing, evidently. She’s frustrated with me because she told everyone I was a “cheap, dirty slut” but I have not ever been unfaithful in my 23 years of marriage and everyone intercepting radio signals into our private domicile can hear this, so now she looks like a liar and a fraud. Elizabeth is proud, vain, vindictive and her thirst for blood is legendary among her lesbian cohorts. She’s got management at the OCL exchanging strategies with the social workers on D.L.’s file to paint me as an irresponsible mother who endangers her son by asking questions to determine if he is being abused.”

27. These are only some of the very strange and troubling writings of D.L.’s mother. She insists she has no mental health issues. Regrettably I received virtually no medical information clarifying her situation. Some of the concerns raised by the parents (for example, the child’s diet and allergies) may have validity. But inevitably the mother’s mental health is going to be a major issue in this case. I would hope she will take steps to address this with professionals, as quickly as possible.

CHILDREN’S LAWYER’S POSITION

28. OCL counsel Mr. Higginson provided the court with a brief summary:

a. The parents did not allow him to meet with D.L. prior to the apprehension. He has interviewed the child once since then, in the company of a social worker.

b. D.L. is an extremely polite, courteous, nice teenager.

c. He is physically tall and slender.

d. He has only a vague idea of why he’s in care and does not understand why he was apprehended.

e. He has been home-schooled his entire life. He never wanted to attend regular school.

f. He has no complaints about his parents.

g. He has dietary restrictions which require vigilance, and his foster family are attempting to assist him with his diet.

h. He was not aware that his previous OCL lawyer had been wanting to interview him for quite some time. He was also unaware Mr. Higginson had been trying to meet with him.

i. He has only two friends. Mr. Higginson described them as individuals he met at a park. The lawyer noted they sound more like casual playmates than friends.

j. D.L. very clearly wants to return home to live with his parents. The OCL added: “the context of those views is what we are here for.”

THE LAW

29. At this temporary care hearing, the court must decide where D.L. will live until the protection application can be heard on the merits. The hearing is to be determined pursuant to section 51 of the CFSA which states:

51(1) Adjournments

The court shall not adjourn a hearing for more than thirty days,

(a) unless all the parties present and the person who will be caring for the child during the adjournment consent; or

(b) if the court is aware that a party who is not present at the hearing objects to the longer adjournment.

51(2) Custody during adjournment

Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child,

(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part;

(b) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the Society's supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate;

(c) be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the Society's supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; or

(d) remain or be placed in the care and custody of the Society, but not be placed in,

(i) a place of secure custody as defined in Part IV (Youth Justice), or

(ii) a place of open temporary detention as defined in that Part that has not been designated as a place of safety.

51(3) Criteria

The court shall not make an order under clause (2)(c) or (d) unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause (2)(a) or (b).

51(3.1) Placement with relative, etc

Before making a temporary order for care and custody under clause (2)(d), the court shall consider whether it is in the child's best interests to make an order under clause (2)(c) to place the child in the care and custody of a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child's extended family or community.

51(3.2) Terms and conditions in order

A temporary order for care and custody of a child under clause (2)(b) or (c) may impose,

(a) reasonable terms and conditions relating to the child's care and supervision;

(b) reasonable terms and conditions on the child's parent, the person who will have care and custody of the child under the order, the child and any other person, other than a foster parent, who is putting forward a plan or who would participate in a plan for care and custody of or access to the child; and

(c) reasonable terms and conditions on the Society that will supervise the placement, but shall not require the Society to provide financial assistance or to purchase any goods or services.

51(4) Application of s. 62

Where the court makes an order under clause (2)(d), section 62 (parental consents) applies with necessary modifications.

51(5) Access

An order made under clause (2)(c) or (d) may contain provisions regarding any person's right of access to the child on such terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate.

51(6) Power to vary

The court may at any time vary or terminate an order made under subsection (2).

51(7) Evidence on adjournments

For the purpose of this section, the court may admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances.

30. Subsection 51(3) creates a two-part test the Society has to meet:

a. The Society must establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe there is a real possibility that if the child is returned to the parents, it is more probable than not that he will suffer harm.

b. As well, the Society must establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order to the parents. (Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., O.J. No. 2273 (Ont. S.C.J.))

31. The test for admissibility of evidence at an interim motion is “credible and trustworthy in the circumstances” (CFSA, s.51(7)). See Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan v. A.D. (1994), 1 R.F.L. (4th) 268 (Ont. Ct. Gen. Div.). Evidence that may not be credible and trustworthy when viewed in isolation might reach that threshold when examined in the context of other evidence. Family and Children’s Service v. R.O., 2006 O.J. No. 969 (OCJ).

32. A court must choose the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child (CFSA, s.1(2)): Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.D. and F.T.M., 2012 ONSC 2448 .

33. The basic options for a temporary order under s. 51(2):

a) Return the child without supervision.

b) Return the child with supervision.

c) Place the child with someone else, under supervision.

d) Place (or keep) the child in care of the Society.

34. Those last two options – placement with someone other than the parent who had charge of the child prior to the Society’s involvement – can only be ordered if the court is satisfied that there are “reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm” and that the child cannot be protected if returned to that person, with or without supervision (s. 51(3).) Here, no alternate placements pursuant to s.51(2)(c) were proposed.

35. The degree of intrusiveness of the Society’s intervention and the interim protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk. CCAS of Toronto v. J.O.1, 2012 ONCJ 269 .

ANALYSIS

36. In this case, the evidence – and the unanswered questions -- are most troubling.

37. There is little doubt 14 year old D.L. sincerely wants to return home to his parents. As stated, any 14 year old’s views and preferences have to be carefully considered. But I agree with OCL counsel that the “context” of those views and preferences requires caution and further inquiry.

38. As a life-long home-schooled, socially isolated child, D.L. really only knows his parents and his sister. His love, attachment, and protectiveness toward them is perhaps exceptionally intense because – more than most 14 year olds -- they’re all he’s got in life. All he’s experienced. He has nothing to compare them to.

39. His social isolation – his inability to observe others, and the inability of others to observe him – has been deliberately magnified and exacerbated by parents who stonewalled for years to prevent anyone from asking D.L. even the simplest of questions: How are you doing?

40. It is encouraging that on the surface – based on Mr. Higginson’s single interview after the child went into foster care – D.L. appears to be “doing ok.”

41. But his parents aren’t doing ok. Especially his mother, whose bizarre and delusional thoughts and actions raise serious questions about the emotional environment D.L. has been immersed in.

42. I agree with Society counsel Mr. Wood that at this stage in D.L.’s life, the court has two basic options: Do something – once and for all -- to see if D.L. needs help. Or do nothing.

43. We can’t do nothing.

44. In the face of overwhelming evidence that something is terribly wrong in that household, we simply can’t do nothing.

45. We wouldn’t have been reduced to these stark, painful choices if only the parents had shown even a modest willingness to cooperate. But the mother’s potent combination of paranoia and reclusiveness leaves us with no choice but to follow up on the warning signs. We cannot walk away from D.L. when we have such clear indicators that something is wrong in his household – and likely has been for much of his life. We need answers, and we need to place D.L. in a safe, neutral environment while we get those answers.

46. I find that there are reasonable grounds to believe there is a real possibility that if the child is returned to either or both of the parents, it is more probable than not that he will suffer harm emotionally.

47. I also find that the child cannot be adequately protected by an order returning the child to either or both of the parents, with or without supervision. The parents flagrantly violated an earlier supervision order. They have been uncooperative. They have refused to provide necessary information. They have interfered with the ability of the Society and the OCL to even speak to the child.

48. To compound matters, the mother openly acknowledged at the temporary care hearing that she posted information (including audio and videotapes) identifying the child and the foster family on the internet, knowing she was prohibited by law from doing so. She said the law needed to be changed. Ultimately she stated that while she would attempt to comply with court orders, in the final analysis she would do anything she considered necessary to protect her son.

49. In that context, eleventh hour promises by the parties that they would cooperate with a supervision order are unconvincing.

50. Accordingly, D.L. will remain in care of the Society. I agree with their proposal to proceed with a psychological assessment of the child.

ACCESS

51. Section 51(5) of the CFSA allows a court making an order under s. 51(2)(d) to order access on such terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate. In determining an access order, the court should consider the paramount purpose of the Act, being the best interests, protection and well-being of children and the secondary purposes of maintaining the integrity of the family unit, assisting families in caring for their children and recognizing the least disruptive action consistent with the best interests of the children (subsections 1 (1) and (2) of the Act). In assessing best interests, the court should consider the relevant factors set out in subsection 37 (3) of the Act. I have carefully considered all of these factors, and I am mindful of the OCL’s description of D.L.’s close attachment to his family.

52. Since the date of apprehension, D.L.’s access to his parents and sister have been in the discretion of the Society. Regretably there have been problems: abusive communications with the foster father; recording and internet posting of telephone conversations; video-taping and provocative behaviour during supervised visits. Most of this inappropriate behaviour has been by the mother. Most recently, her visits have been suspended, and supervised contact between D.L. and his father and sister has gone better.

53. Once again – whether the parents believe this or not – they are in control. Access has become more restrictive because of their choices. Their behaviours. I will leave access in the discretion of the Society. Hopefully the parents will cooperate, and a more liberalized access regime will unfold.

THE ORDER

54. Temporary order:

a. The Child D.L. shall remain in care of the Society.

b. Access to the parents and to D.L.’s sister F.L. shall be in the discretion of the Society, supervised in its discretion.

c. Neither parent shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying the child D.L., or D.L.’s foster parents. This prohibition shall include a restriction against publishing or disseminating any information in print, electronically, over the internet, through social media, or through “blogging”. Each parent shall, within 48 hours, take all reasonable steps to delete or remove any such information relating to D.L. or his foster parents which has already been published or disseminated.

55. Adjourned to August 6, 2013 10 a.m. to be spoken to.

56. The parties may arrange to see me if any residual issues need to be addressed.

Pazaratz J.

Released: June 14, 2013

COURT FILE NO.: C606/11

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton

Applicants.

-and-

C.L. (mother) and A.L. (father)

Respondents.

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Pazaratz, J.

Released: June 14, 2013