Of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington v TB and WH
2013 ONSC 467
COURT FILE NO.: 381/11
DATE: January 18, 2013
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac Lennox and Addington, Applicant
- and –
T.B. and W.H., Respondents
COUNSEL: TINA L. TOM, Counsel for the Applicant ANNE MARIE LANGAN for the Respondents
BEFORE: JUSTICE BRIAN W. ABRAMS
HEARD: October 5, 2012
WARNING
This is a case under Part III — Child Protection, of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11 and is subject to subsections 45(8) and 76(11) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with subsections 45(8) and 76(11), read as follows:
45(8) PROHIBITION: IDENTIFYING CHILD — 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.
76(11) PUBLICATION — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a witness or a participant in a hearing, or a party to a hearing other than a society.
85(3) OFFENCES — A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (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.
ENDORSEMENT
BACKGROUND
[1] The Respondents, T.B. and W.H. are the biological parents of the child, J.M.H. (“the Child”) born […], 2011.
[2] The Child was apprehended from the Respondents on January 8, 2011.
[3] By Order of Quigley, J., dated January 13, 2011, the child was placed in the Temporary Care and Custody of The Children’s Aid Society of the County of Lanark and the Town of Smiths Falls (“the Society”), with access to the Respondents. Further, the matter was transferred to the County of Lennox and Addington, that being the jurisdiction in which the Respondents were then residing.
[4] By Order of Trousdale, J., dated January 24, 2011, Quigley J.’s Order was varied placing the child in the interim care and custody of the Lennox and Addington Family and Children Services, with access to occur no less than five days per week.
[5] On February 7, 2011, an interim care and custody hearing was convened before Johnston, J., who was satisfied that there was sufficient risk to continue the existing Orders, but sought further submissions regarding lesser intrusive plans, such as the Respondent mother living with another person/family in conjunction with greater community supports.
[6] On March 24, 2011, the interim care and custody hearing resumed before Johnston, J., who ordered that the child remain in the Society’s interim care and custody, with access to the Respondents. Access was to continue taking place five days per week to be supervised by a family friend, with one visit to take place at the Early Years Centre. Unsupervised access was contemplated, if not contrary to the child’s best interests, and the Society was encouraged to seek a foster placement where the Respondent mother could also reside.
[7] By Order of Trousdale, J., dated June 30, 2011, on consent of the parties, a Family Court Clinic assessment was agreed upon. Thereafter, the matter was transferred to the Frontenac Children’s Aid Society as the Respondents once again changed jurisdictions.
[8] Trousdale, J.’s Endorsement highlighted certain issues to be canvassed pursuant to the Family Court Clinic assessment, specifically:
- The intellectual, psychological, and emotional status, functioning and maturity of the Respondent mother and how her condition impacts, if at all, to successfully parent the child in the long term, and for the Court to determine what Order to make in the child’s best interests;
- The parenting capabilities of both of the parents in terms of their ability to meet the child’s basic needs such as feeding, their understanding of child development and growth, how relationship issues, mental health concern, adult conflict and cognitive delays impact on parenting, as well as each parent’s ability to prioritize the child’s needs and ability to protect the child; and
- The impact of each parents’ history on their ability to parent the child.
[9] As a result of the Respondents’ demonstrated ability to work co-operatively with the Society and community service providers, the Society brought an Amended Protection Application seeking to return the child to the care of the Respondents pursuant to a twelve month supervision Order. In the Amended Statement of Agreed Facts, all parties consented to the child being found in need of protection pursuant to ss. 37(2)(b)(i), as Ordered by Pedlar, J., on January 5, 2012.
[10] Thereafter, the Society apprehended the child from the Respondents on August 20, 2012, resulting in an Application for a Status Review, pursuant to s.64(1)(c) of the Child and Family Services Act, (“CFSA”) seeking that the Child be made a Crown Ward for purposes of adoption.
[11] By Order of Sheffield, J., dated August 23, 2012, His Honour made an interim, without prejudice Order placing the child in the care and custody of the Society with access to the Respondents from Monday to Friday for two hours each visit. The interim care and custody hearing was then adjourned to September 18, 2012.
[12] Following a further adjournment, the matter returned for argument on October 5, 2012. By that time, the Parenting Capacity Assessment prepared by Dr. Robert C. Rowe, dated September 18, 2012, had been served and filed with the Court.
ISSUE
[13] At this stage in the proceeding, should the child remain in the interim care and custody of the Society pending resolution of the Status Review Application currently before the Court?
THE LAW
[14] The procedure for Status Reviews is set out in s. 64(1) of the CFSA. More particularly, s. 64(1) and s. 64(2)(c) of the CFSA provide that:
“64(1) This section applies where a child is subject of an Order under subsection 57(1) for Society supervision or Society Wardship.
(2) The Society having care, custody or supervision of a child,
(a) May apply to the Court at any time before a review of the Child’s status;
(b) Shall apply to the Court for a review of child’s status before the Order expires, unless the expiry is by reason of subsection 71(1); and
(c) Shall apply to the Court for a review of the child’s status within five days after removing the child if the Society has removed the child from the care of a person with whom the child was placed under an Order for Society supervision.
[15] Further, section 64(8) of the CFSA provides that:
“If an Application is made under this section, the child shall remain in the care and custody of the person or Society having charge of the child, until the Application is disposed of, unless the Court is satisfied that the child’s best interests require a change in the child’s care and custody.”
[16] Section 37(3) CFSA provides that:
“Where a person is directed in this Part to make an Order or termination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:
(1) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs;
(2) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development;
(3) the child’s cultural background;
(4) the religious faith in which the child is being raised;
(5) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family;
(6) the child’s relationship and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community;
(7) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity;
(8) the merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a Society including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption, or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent;
(9) the child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained;
(10) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case;
(11) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed, kept away from, returned to, or allowed to, remain in the care of a parent;
(12) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection;
(13) any other relevant circumstances.”
[17] In Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. E.S., Annis, J., articulated the onus and test to be met in a temporary care motion to change the status of custody of a child, specifically:
“I conclude that a temporary change in care and custody from the mother to the Society is required pursuant to section 64(8) where I am persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, based on properly admissible evidence as of the moment of the hearing, that it is in the children’s best interest to do so as determined by applying the circumstances that I deem relevant from those described in section 37(3).”[^1]
[18] Accordingly, the burden is on the Society to satisfy the Court on a balance of probabilities that it is in the child’s best interest that He remain in the interim care and custody of the Society pending resolution of the Status Review Application, as opposed to being returned to the Respondent parents.
Parenting Capacity Assessment of Dr. Robert C. Rowe dated September 18, 2012
[19] The report assesses the ability of the Respondents to successfully provide stable care for the child. It reviews both parents’ intellectual, psychological and emotional status, and how these may impact on their ability to parent the child in the short and long term. The assessment also focuses on the assessment of substance abuse issues and the impact this may or may not have on the parents’ ability to parent. Parenting skills, strengths and deficits are evaluated in the report. The report also provides estimates of risk for future physical and emotional abuse, maltreatment, and the development of child maladaptive behaviours for the child, while under his parents’ care. The report sets out recommendations on how to manage identified need factors. Finally, the report identifies care plans, intervention strategies and pertinent treatment issues.
[20] Under the “Social Background” section of the report, the Respondent mother divulged failing at least one elementary school grade. Her records indicated that she was identified as having a mild intellectual delay and repeated grade three. More specifically, file information revealed that she was found to be functioning in the borderline intellectual range after being tested at the age of 8. She was also found to be well below average in all academic domains. Four years later she was tested again and her overall intellectual functioning was determined to be at the fourth percentile or the borderline intellectual range.[^2]
[21] By the time that the Respondent mother entered high school, she admitted to being suspended on a regular basis for conduct problems and truancy. She left school prior to completing Grade 9. There has been no serious attempt by her to update her education.[^3]
[22] No employment history is evident. The Respondent mother has no skills, trade or significant work experience in any field. It does not appear the she has ever attempted to find work or enter the work force. She has always been on some form of social assistance or depended on someone else’s social assistance. No aspirations to have a career were indicated. She emphasized that she wants to be a “stay at home mom”.[^4]
[23] The Respondent father is 44 years the mother’s senior. He described his relationship with his parents in mostly detached terms.
[24] While the Respondent father denied ever being the victim of neglect by his parents, he explained that he was left to his own for most of his child hood and was rarely supervised as a child due to his parents alcohol problems. Both of his parents were characterized as “strict disciplinarians”. No other parental figures were reported.[^5]
[25] The Respondent father stated that he had been married on three previous occasions. The longest of these relationships lasted roughly 20 years and ended around the time he began to see the Respondent mother. Four children were reported as being produced from his first two marriages. File information indicated that he had little involvement with the upbringing of his children and that he has never kept meaningful contact with the children after separating from his partners.[^6] The Respondent father admitted that the Society was “always involved” with his children, although he professed to not know why. File information reported previous domestic violence concerns and the Respondent father failing to financially support his children.
[26] Both parents drove with the child to Manitoba this past summer to visit the Respondent father’s sister and niece. While staying at their residence, several issues developed that led to them leaving his sister’s home prematurely, and later led to his family writing to the Society. Concerns documented include poor care of the child and an incident where the Respondent father was overheard slapping the child. Both parents denied the allegations. By Dr. Rowe’s assessment, the Respondent father gave an implausible explanation of the assault allegation. [^7] Both parents asserted that the relatives made the allegations to cause trouble.
[27] A more recent concern leading to the child’ apprehension was his failure to remain on his growth curve. Since April of 2012, the child’s lack of weight gain has been identified as an issue for the Society. Both parents have been documented as resisting Society efforts to have them change their feeding schedule or habits.[^8] Under the subheading “Parenting Skills and Strengths”, Dr. Rowe reported the following:
“Both parents have been identified by the Society as having limited care giving skills. From both file information and interview impression, they have been resistant to guidance or strategies offered by the Society to target identified need areas or parental shortcomings. Society concerns with the family unit centre predominantly on J.’s lack of physical development while he has been in the care of his parents. The child’s physical growth deteriorated significantly under the care of his parents and that other developmental concerns are now coming to light. Little action or initiative has been taken by the parents to intervene or be proactive in the care of their son.” (Emphasis added)[^9]
[28] Both parents have had regular supervised access to the child. They have consistently attended access visits. They have reportedly interacted well with the child during these visits and have arrived for the visits prepared with appropriate toys, activities and food. They were noted as being able to manage during these visits independently. Both parents continuously show concern for the child during visits and express worry for his overall well-being. The Society has commented that the parents have received positive responses from the child upon greeting and that he seeks comfort and affection from them during each visit. Society staff has not documented any major concerns with the parents’ interactions with the child since the apprehension.[^10]
[29] Dr. Rowe notes that intellectual impairments and learning problems are apparent for both parents. The Respondent mother has been previously assessed as having significant intellectual impairments. Furthermore, current testing and history indicate that the Respondent father is likely cognitively impaired. Marginal caretaking skills and failure to recognize risks are presumed to be related to their intellectual limitations. Both parents are functionally illiterate. [^11]
[30] Dr. Rowe notes that observations have been made to suggest that the child requires specialized services. He has failed to reach some developmental milestones and was referred to Early Expressions for an assessment of speech and language development. Other milestones have also been slow to develop as identified through standardized screening measures by professionals working with the child. Although this may be suggestive of a general development delay, it would be difficult to determine the extent of any cognitive limitation or learning problems until a later age. Dr. Rowe concluded that these findings placed the child at risk.[^12]
[31] Dr. Rowe further concludes that given the child is at risk for a maladaptive development, both parents should be expected to demonstrate additional and more advanced parenting skills than would normally be expected in order to properly care for the child. At this time, however, both parents are reluctant to consider this as a potential scenario. Instead, they have denied the presence of delays or blamed recent events, on causing the delays. The parents’ lack of recognition of problems and failure to identify the future needs of the child may place the child at increased risk by failing to imply incentive to advocate or obtain services that may be preventative in nature. [^13]
[32] Dr. Rowe noted that during his observations, both parents had minimal engagement with the child. They were animated when interacting with the child, but typically kept him in a closed area and did not interact a great deal during the home visit.[^14]
[33] The Respondent father made little effort to engage with the child during the entirety of the visit and seemed content to leave the child to the care of the Respondent mother. That being said, the Respondent father has shown some ability to properly engage with his son for limited time durations when being observed by the Society at other times. It was noted, however, that the Respondent father was quick to pass the child care responsibilities off after short periods of time with the child.[^15]
[34] Dr. Rowe observed that the Respondent mother seems to have a solid bond with her son, while the Respondent father’s bond seems less strong. Notably, the Respondent father rarely referred to the child by name and in many aspects of his upbringing appeared indifferent. Both parents expressed love for their son and enthusiasm about parenting. They tended, however, to exaggerate their own parenting skills sets, while downplaying their deficits.
[35] Under the subheading “Clinical Impressions”, Dr. Rowe made the following observations regarding the Respondent father:
“He was usually friendly and polite but every so often he would be observed being condescending towards the Respondent mother. There was an obvious power imbalance as the Respondent mother would quickly become quiet and stop conversing in these situations.”[^16]
[36] There were also signs of impression management during the Respondent father’s responses in the interviews and at times, deliberate deceit. Typically, the Respondent father was reluctant to provide details of conduct or experiences that placed him in a bad light and would often omit important information.[^17]
[37] The Respondent father took no responsibility for any of his past transgressions, including incidents of domestic violence, criminal conduct or poor family relations. He was apt to disengage responsibility for misconduct by claiming his actions were justified or simply deny wrong doing. His capacity for empathy was suspect. The depth of interpersonal relationships seems lacking and there were indications that he would have difficulty establishing a meaningful relationship or be able to build a strong emotional bond with a child. (emphasis added)[^18]
[38] During the interviews, both parents expressed negative attitudes towards program participation and indicated a lack of willingness to attend future programs unless compelled to do so. They spoke defiantly about the lack of need for interventions. They both asserted that the Society was the problem. For example, they blamed the Society for the child’s lack of language. Neither parent shared any insight into their behaviour, motivation to change, or inclination to make an effort to improve their situation or parenting.[^19]
[39] Dr. Rowe noted that a persistent theme over the last year has been reluctance for the parents to engage in interventions and a resistance to Society or professional child care suggestions. In the end, their failure to follow direction placed the safety of their child at risk. Overall, their amenability towards future interventions was assessed as low and the likelihood of benefitting from services was also considered low. Barriers identified that are likely to reduce the potential effectiveness of future interventions include defiance, a lack of social supports, lack of intrinsic motivation to change, rigid thinking, literacy and logistics. Strengths include some positive community and professional supports and sobriety.[^20]
[40] Under the subheading “Test Results”, Dr. Rowe noted that the Respondent mother’s scores on the Shipley Institute of Living Scale indicated an estimated IQ in the borderline range. Her verbal and reasoning skills were both in the impairment range. Similarly, the Respondent father’s scores on this test indicated an estimated IQ in the borderline range. His verbal skills and reasoning skills were both in the impairment range. Clearly, at best, both parents are functioning in the borderline range of intellectual functioning.[^21]
[41] On the Paulhus Deception Scales, both parents scored above the 99th percentile compared to a normative sample. Similarly, their scores on the Self-Deceptive Enhancement and Impression Management subscales were at the 98th and 99th percentiles respectively. These responses indicate that both parents lack self-appraisal skills, but have a stronger inclination to appear acceptable for assessment purposes. Given these profiles, both parents are likely to intentionally exaggerate skills and minimize faults and problems.[^22]
[42] With respect to the child, Dr. Rowe assessed his current status in the following terms: The child currently has some medical concerns related to parenting. Prior to being placed back in his parents care last year, the child was weighed and was found to be at roughly the 40th percentile on a standardized growth chart. After being placed in his parents care for a few months, it was noted that he had failed to maintain his growth curve. No medical issues have been identified that would account for the lack of weight gain. File information has suggestion that the lack of weight gain is attributable to a rigid and improper diet supplied by the parents. The parents have been resistive to Society suggestions to change their feeding routine and practices. Subsequent to apprehension and while in foster care, the child gained a significant amount of weight giving credence to the hypothesis of him receiving a poor diet under his parents care. Since being taken into care, he has been reported as eating well and adjusting well to his new environment.[^23]
[43] During Dr. Rowes observation, the child spent most of his time on the floor watching T.V. There were lots of toys and potential activities, although minimal attempts were made to utilize different toys. He showed some capacity for being able to keep himself busy. His parents infrequently engaged in any play activity or turn taking.
[44] Dr. Rowe noted that the Respondent mother was able to comfort and redirect the child’s activities when necessary. It would appear that the child has the capacity to develop secure attachments with others. A familiarity to his mother was identified. Little was observed regarding his attachment to his father given his lack of engagement with the child during the observation. However, file information suggested a familiarity and comfort with his father during recent observations. Good attachment with his foster parents has also been documented, although this was not directly observed.[^24]
[45] Dr. Rowe observed that no language was demonstrated by the child during the assessment at 15 months. He did make gestures. The child was also not walking yet, but showed some leg strength to suggest that walking would be coming soon. Hand-eye coordination appeared grossly normal. File information indicated that a formal developmental assessment screen that was done close in proximity to the observation meeting also found a failure to meet some development milestones on time. Some months later, a lack of speech warranted a referred by a pediatrician to Early Expressions. However, his parents were resistive to this intervention and did not follow through.[^25]
[46] The parents both contended during an interview that the child lost weight while on vacation due to having diarrhea. As Dr. Rowe assessed, this seemed disingenuous. In addition, both parents contended that the child had “lost” all of his words since being apprehended. They indicated that he had up to 20 words, but because of the trauma of apprehension, he has regressed. Again, Dr. Rowe observed that the file indicates that a referral related to delayed speech was in place prior to the apprehension. Dr. Rowe noted that both parents showed a high level of risk on the Static Factors assessed on the Child Protection and Parent Case Management Inventory (CPI/CMI), a parenting capacity risk management system used to systematically assess empirically supported risk factors for child maltreatment and provide intervention strategies to reduce risk.[^26]
[47] Dr. Rowe noted that perhaps the most significant factor for the parents relates to their cognitive impairments. This continues to be a risk factor for multiple reasons, most importantly the lack of ability to learn and to be flexible in their parental approach is worrisome, in respect of both parents. They disengage responsibility for their conduct and as a result have no motivation to change. Their lack of self-appraisal skills adds to this problem.
[48] Dr. Rowe noted that proximal parenting cues were also considered as a high need area. This included all three domains of parenting skills, parenting style and attachment. Both parents are deficient in respect of some basic parenting skills. They fail to utilize parenting resources and are poor teachers/modelers. They do not optimize their positive time with their son and have poor knowledge of child development. Detachment may prove moderately problematic as both parents have mild expressive connection, lack empathic understanding of their child’s needs and fail to prioritize the needs of their child in some respects.[^27]
[49] As Dr. Rowe concluded when all factors were considered, the CPI/CMI indicated that the child is at a moderate-high risk to experience future child maltreatment and/or maladaptation if placed back with his natural parents. Clinical impressions are consistent with these estimates. [^28]
[50] Dr. Rowe noted that after a period of a year in foster care, the child was returned to live with his parents. After roughly nine months in his parents care, the child was apprehended again due to suspected neglect and failure to abide by conditions of a supervision Order.[^29]
[51] The child had been residing with his current foster family for approximately one month, without any obvious detrimental impact at the time of the report.
[52] Based on a structured assessment and clinical impressions, Dr. Rowe concluded that any child placed in the care of the Respondent parents would be considered as moderate-high risk for maltreatment. This risk estimate is based on both static and dynamic factors addressing core need areas such as community supports, stressors, lifestyle, parenting attitudes, parenting style, parenting skills and attachment have the potential to decrease risk. However, the Respondent parents’ prognosis for effectively managing their risk factors was assessed as very poor. Many barriers exist that are likely to deter or minimize the potential effectiveness of interventions, which include: resistance, motivation, self-appraisal, poor family support, cognitive impairment, literacy skills, lack of transportation, concrete thinking and instability. As Dr. Rowe further assessed, the Respondent parents’ view no need to change their parenting. Given the static nature of many of the risk factors and the remote likelihood that either parent will put an effort into learning and adapting new skills to the needs of their child through intervention, this risk rating will likely remain the same over the short-term.[^30]
[53] In summary, Dr. Rowe made the following recommendations:
“At this time there is no foreseeable plan of action that would, over the short term, adequately address the parents need areas and barriers to treatment that exist in order to substantially lower the risk that a child would be placed in under their unsupervised care. Simply put, both defiantly state that they will continue to engage in behaviours and parenting that have led to their child being at risk for developmental maladaptations and ignore interventions designed to change or modify their parenting strategies. Without substantially changing their orientation towards interventions, any participation designed to improve parenting would probably have minimal impact on risk. In the long term, the child may also require more advanced parenting and more skilled supervision and monitoring than either parent is currently able to provide or likely able to provide in the future.”
[54] Dr. Rowe’s parenting capacity assessment stands alone, unchallenged.
Position of the Parties
[55] The Society contends that based on the totality of the evidence, including the report of Dr. Rowe, the Society has discharged the burden to show that the child’s best interests lie in his care and custody being changed, on an interim basis, from his parents to the care of the Society. Accordingly, the Society requests an Order that the child remain in the interim care and custody of the Society pending resolution of the status review Application currently before the Court, with an Order for ongoing access between the child and the parents, such access to be at the discretion of the Society.
[56] The Respondent parents unequivocally deny the allegations made by the Manitoba relatives by pointing to certain inconsistencies in the letters received by the Society. They further assert what amounts to be malice on behalf of the relatives. On this narrow issue, the competing, contested and untested versions of the evidence cannot be resolved on this motion. That said, the Society’s case, in terms of discharging the aforementioned onus, does not depend heavily, or at all, on the evidence of the Manitoba relatives.
[57] The Respondent parents further contend that they were willing to participate in services offered by community based service providers. Any missed visits with service providers were based on inadvertence, as opposed to active resistance. The Respondent parents assert that the family doctor’s file indicates that he was not overly concerned regarding the child’s weight loss and that it could be explained by an illness that the child had recently recovered from. Further, the physician’s file indicates that he had discussed speech therapy with the Respondent parents who advised that they would discuss it and get back to him, as they had to sort out how they could afford to travel back and forth from their home to Napanee for these services.
[58] The Respondent parents were surprised by the apprehension on the 20th of August, 2012, as the worker had come to their home on August 17th, 2012, with another worker and did not have sufficient concern for the child’s well being at that time to exercise the warrant for apprehension.
[59] The Respondent parents point to the sworn Affidavits of Diana Shorts and Ken Stencell, who have both had regular contact with the family and dispute the assertions made by the Society regarding the child’s social and physical limitations.
[60] The Respondent parents contend that during the eight months that they had care of the child, no physical harm came to him and he was well cared for by them. Moreover, the child was adequately fed, clothed, housed and supervised throughout the time that he was in his parents’ primary care.
[61] The Respondent parents assert that they substantially complied with the terms of the supervision Order under review and that they cooperated fully with the Society and with other service providers that were recommended to them by the Society. More critically, the Respondent parents contend that the Society did not wait to obtain the Assessment Report from the Family Court Clinic that was underway before apprehending the child.
[62] In all of the circumstances, the Respondent parents contend that the Society did not try to address their concerns prior to apprehending the child and had the Society done so, the parents would have continued to comply with the recommendations, including that of attending speech therapy with the child, which they were not given an opportunity to do prior to the apprehension.
[63] Accordingly, the Respondent parents request an Order that the child be returned to their care and they commit to continuing to cooperate with the Society and other service providers recommended to them by the Society.
ANALYSIS
[64] Beyond the conflicting and competing versions of the evidence in this case, there is objective evidence of risk for the child that I find troubling.
[65] By his own admission, the Respondent father was left to his own for most of his childhood and was rarely supervised by his parents. From an objective standpoint, he appears to be engaged in the same sort of detached parenting with the child that he was subjected to. Moreover, he is replicating the same lack of meaningful contact that he had with the four children from his two previous marriages.
[66] While I have no doubt that the Respondent father loves and is concerned for the child’s well-being, by all observations, he has exhibited very little ability to properly engage with the child, for limited durations of time.
[67] The Respondent father rarely referred to the child by name and in many aspects of the child’s upbringing appeared indifferent.
[68] I accept Dr. Rowe’s clinical observation that there is an obvious power imbalance between the father and the mother, which was exhibited by his condescending treatment of her and the manner in which she would then acquiesce. If the power imbalance is so apparent when the parents are being observed, at which time the Respondent father would presumably be on his best behaviour, query what the relationship must be like when no one is watching, behind closed doors?
[69] To compound matters, the Respondent father took no responsibility for any of his past transgressions, including incidents of domestic violence, criminal conduct or poor family relationships. His capacity for empathy was suspect.
[70] Given the Respondent father’s indifferent parenting, past and present, the spousal relationship’s power imbalance in his favour, his lack of responsibility for past transgressions and his incapacity to show empathy, I find that his view on parenting the child would be paramount, and his view is one of detachment and ambivalence. Moreover, as both parents unequivocally stated to Dr. Rowe, neither intends to modify their parenting strategies because they see no need for change. That said, I suspect that the Respondent mother’s parenting strategy could be more malleable in the circumstances of her co-parenting in an adoptive placement setting, with sufficient community resources in place. However, so long as the Respondent mother is subjected to the power imbalance in the current relationship, her ability to engage in behaviours that decrease the risk for developmental maladaptations in respect of the child likely will not change. Further, I accept Dr. Rowe’s objective assessment that the child requires specialized services, as a result of having failed to reach certain developmental Milestone’s. As a result, both parents should be expected to demonstrate additional and more advanced parenting skills than would normally be expected in order to properly care for the child. Again, on an objective basis, both parents are functioning in the borderline intellectual range. To exacerbate matters, both are likely to intentionally exaggerate skills and minimize faults. Accordingly, I accept Dr. Rowe’s conclusion that the child is at a moderate high risk to experience future child maltreatment and/or maladaptation if placed back with the Respondent parents.
HELD
[71] For the reasons set out above, the child shall remain in the interim care and custody of the Society pending resolution of the Status Review Application currently before the Court.
January 18, 2013 ________________________________
Abrams, J.
Of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington v TB and WH
2013 ONSC 467
COURT FILE NO.: 381/11
DATE: January 18, 2013
Family and Children’s Services Of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington Applicant
- and –
T.B. and W.H. Respondents
COUNSEL: TINA L. TOM, Counsel for the Applicant ANNE MARIE LANGAN for the Respondents
BEFORE: JUSTICE BRIAN W. ABRAMS
HEARD: October 5, 2012
Released: January 18, 2013
[^1]: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. E.S. 2010 ONSC 7182, [2010] O.J. No. 5684 S.C.J. at para. 42 [^2]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, page 5 of 19 [^3]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012 page 6 of 19 [^4]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, page 6 of 19 [^5]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, page 7 of 19 [^6]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, page 7 of 19 [^7]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, page 9 of 19 [^8]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, page 9 of 19 [^9]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 9 of 19 [^10]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 10 of 19 [^11]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 10 of 19 [^12]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 10 of 19 [^13]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 10 of 19 [^14]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 11 of 19 [^15]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 11 of 19 [^16]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 12 of 19 [^17]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Pages 12 and 13 of 19 [^18]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 13 of 19 [^19]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 14 of 19 [^20]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 14 of 19 [^21]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 14 of 19 [^22]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 14 and 15 of 19 [^23]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 15 of 19 [^24]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 15 of 19 [^25]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 16 of 19 [^26]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 16 of 19 [^27]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 17 of 19 [^28]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 17 of 19 [^29]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 18 of 19 [^30]: Report of Dr. Robert C. Rowe, September 18, 2012, Page 18 of 19