ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: C-571/00
DATE: 2013-07-26
BETWEEN:
The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton
Applicants
– and –
C.G. (mother)
and
S.B. (father)
Respondents
Manjeet Singh – Counsel for the Applicants
Mother - Unrepresented
Francis Lanza – Counsel for the Respondent father
HEARD: July 2,3,4,5,9,10,11, 2013
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PAZARATZ
In this status review application the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (“the Society”) seeks crown wardship with no access in relation to an almost 3-year-old boy V.B. born […], 2010.
V.B. was apprehended at birth and has remained in care his entire life.
He is the seventh child of the mother C.G., age 35. All six of her previous children – now ages 16, 13, 11, six, five, and four – have been made crown wards without access.
V.B.’s father S.B., age 53, is also the father of the youngest three of those six other children.
LITIGATION CHRONOLOGY
- The Society’s involvement in relation to V.B. began in June 2010 as a result of:
a. The mother’s lack of prenatal care.
b. The mother’s cocaine use during pregnancy.
c. The mother having been evicted and cut off Ontario works.
d. The father being held in pre-trial detention in relation to a charge of assaulting the mother.
- On September 2, 2010 the Society commenced a protection application asking that V.B. remain in care of the Society for six months, with access to the parents in the discretion of the Society and supervised in its discretion. In that application the Society summarized its position:
a. The concerns which led to the mother’s first six children being made crown wards with no access were still applicable: These included substance abuse (including crack cocaine), a transient lifestyle, neglect of prenatal care and an inability to meet children’s basic needs.
b. The parents had exercised some supervised access with their other children, but they did not attend consistently. They did not engage in services regarding protection concerns.
c. The next most recent child of C.G. and S.B. was apprehended at birth on June 11, 2009 and made a crown ward without access 18 days later – on June 29, 2009.
d. The mother reported an ongoing struggle with addictions, particularly crack cocaine.
e. During the mother’s pregnancy with V.B., she had limited prenatal care.
f. On June 1, 2010 during a routine prenatal appointment the mother’s urine test was positive for cocaine.
g. The mother reported she used crack cocaine when she was approximately four or five months pregnant and marijuana when she was approximately eight months pregnant.
h. The mother reported she was not in a position to care for the child, and wanted to work towards parenting.
i. The mother was residing in a women’s shelter and did not have housing.
j. The father had just been released from jail and was residing in a motel.
k. The mother said the father also struggled with substance abuse issues. She said he relapsed with crack cocaine at the same time as the mother during her pregnancy.
l. The mother had a history of criminal involvement and was on probation.
On September 3, 2010 Justice Mazza made a temporary order that V.B. remain in care of the Society, with access to the parents in the discretion of the Society, supervised in its discretion.
On November 25, 2010 the father filed an answer proposing that the child be returned to the care of both parents. He stated:
a. The parents are willing to cooperate with the Society to have their child placed in their care.
b. The father is undergoing a parenting course. He will abstain from the use of crack cocaine and non–medically prescribed drugs.
c. The parents are prepared to be fully responsible for the care of the child with the assistance of community, family and friends.
- On February 28, 2011 Justice McLaren granted a final order based on minutes of settlement at a time when both parents had counsel. That order included:
a. Findings that V.B. is non-native, non-Indian and not of the Catholic faith.
b. A finding that V.B. is in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2)(L) of the Child and Family Services Act (“CFSA”).
c. The child was made a ward of the Society for a period of six months.
d. The parents were to have access in the discretion of the Society, supervised in the discretion of the Society. The visits were to be a minimum of three times per week for 1.5 hours each visit, provided the parents attended regularly.
e. A list of terms was set out as a precondition for some of the access moving from the home of the paternal grandmother to the home of the parents.
f. The London Family Court Clinic (“LFCC”) was to prepare a parenting capacity assessment (“PCA”) pursuant to s. 54 of the CFSA.
- On July 25, 2011 the Society commenced a status review application asking that V.B. remain in the care of the Society for a further period of six months, with access to be in the discretion of the Society supervised in its discretion. The status review application included the following updating information:
a. The parents had not completed a parenting program as requested.
b. The mother was attending counselling. The father had not done so.
c. The mother had recently tested negative for drug use.
d. The father had tested positive for medium levels of opiates.
e. There were concerns about conflict and stability in the parents’ relationship.
f. The PCA was to start in September 2011, with scheduled completion by the end of 2011.
g. Although the child had been in care close to a year, an extension was sought so V.B. could remain a society ward for six months while the parents’ progress was assessed and the PCA was completed.
- On September 9, 2011 the mother filed an answer in relation to the status review application. She stated:
a. V.B. should be placed in the care of the parents with voluntary involvement by the Society.
b. In the alternative, the child should be placed in the care of the parents pursuant to a supervision order.
c. In the further alternative, there should be an order for six months society wardship to permit completion of the PCA, with increased access to the parents.
d. The parents were currently enjoying access three times per week, two of the visits being in the home and one at a daycare located at a school. The visits were semi-supervised. The parents attended regularly and access was going well.
e. The mother had completed counselling.
f. The parents had both started a parenting program as of September 2011.
g. The mother had been abstinent from drugs for one year and was committed to maintaining her abstinence.
h. The parties were working on their relationship and attempting to reduce the “bickering” identified by the Society.
- On September 13, 2011 the father filed an answer in relation to the status review application. He stated:
a. He would complete a parenting course and would abstain from the use of non-medically prescribed drugs.
b. He had the support of family and friends.
c. He was capable of properly parenting and caring for the child’s needs.
d. His problem historically had been the ingestion of non–medically prescribed drugs.
On April 30, 2012 the LFCC issued its 60 page PCA prepared by Dr. Carey Anne DeOliveira, a clinical psychologist; and Mary Kay Arundel, a social worker.
Following up on some of the recommendations of the PCA, on August 27, 2012 Justice MacPherson granted an order that the mother was to participate in a s. 54 cognitive assessment to be completed by the LFCC.
On September 17, 2012 Dr. DeOliveira issued a 10 page psychological assessment of the mother.
On April 18, 2013 the Society commenced an amended status review application requesting that V.B. be made a crown ward with no access to the parents. The Society’s request was based upon:
a. The recommendations in the PCA.
b. The findings of the mother’s cognitive assessment.
c. The parents’ lack of insight about their need to repair or terminate their unstable and destructive relationship – and their inability or unwillingness to separate, despite representations that they would do so.
d. The parents’ continuing failure to address appropriate counselling and programs.
e. The mother’s lack of cooperation with the Society.
f. The mother’s lack of consistency regarding access.
g. The mother’s lack of interest and commitment. At the end of January 2013 the mother indicated she was “walking away” from the child and no longer would be pursuing access. The mother indicated that she wanted the child to reside with the father. Thereafter the mother had no further contact with the Society
h. The Society continued to have concerns about the father’s lack of insight; his refusal to participate in required programs or counselling; his substance abuse; and lifestyle issues including the presence of strangers coming and going from his residence.
i. The overall lack of progress the parents had made in dealing with their problems and demonstrating that either of them was in a position to parent this child.
j. The child’s need for permanence, particularly in the context that as of April 2013 the child had been in care his entire life – 32 months – well beyond the timelines allowed under the CFSA. Continued society wardship was no longer an option, and the parents were not able to care for the child either individually or jointly.
[The remainder of the decision continues exactly as in the provided HTML text, preserving all paragraphs, headings, citations, and wording verbatim.]