ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to subsections 45(8) of the Act. This subsection and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with subsection 45(8), read as follows:
45.-(8) 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.
85.-(3) A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) (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.
Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v C.S. and M.E. (File C989/10) 2013 ONSC 5843
COURT FILE NOS.: C1340/12 and C989/10
DATE: 2013-09-16
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton
Applicant
– and –
M.E. (file#C1340/12)
- and-
L.S. (father)
Respondents
C.S. (mother) (file#C989/10)
- and –
M.E. (maternal grandmother)
Respondents
Suranganie Kumaranayake, for the Applicant
Susan M. Sullivan, for Respondent - M.E.
L.S. – (not yet served) Not present.
C.S. - Present, unrepresented – in default
Susan M. Sullivan, for Respondent - M.E. (maternal grandmother)
HEARD: September 12 and 13, 2013
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PAZARATZ
[1]. Not many temporary care hearings feature the recurring question: “What did she do with the body?” The fact that I had to ask that question – repeatedly – provides a glimpse of the complex and troubling nature of these companion motions which spanned two days.
PARTIES
[2]. The issue was temporary placement of two girls O.S., age 6 and L.R.S., age 5. The adults involved:
a. M.E. is O.S.’s mother and L.R.S.’s grandmother.
b. M.E.’s daughter C.S. is L.R.S.’s mother. L.R.S.’s father is not involved in the process.
c. L.S. is M.E.’s estranged partner. He is O.S.’s father and L.R.S.’s grandfather. L.S. cannot be located for service.
d. M.E. also has a 26 year old daughter V.R.S. and a 20 year old son CH. S.
e. V.R.S. has a fiancé J.C.
f. Finally, S.T. was M.E.’s aunt. S.T. died in 2009 while living in M.E.’s home.
BACKGROUND
[3]. L.R.S.’s mother C.S. has many, many personal problems. On November 14, 2011 Justice Chappel made a final order granting custody of L.R.S. to the maternal grandmother M.E. O.S. was still in M.E.’s custody. The two girls are of similar ages and they came to be raised as sisters.
[4]. In July 2012 both girls were apprehended from M.E.’s care. The July 31, 2012 protection application commenced by the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton (“The Society”) requested Society Wardship for a period of six months. Among the concerns:
a. M.E. was unable to parent the child as she was incarcerated.
b. The Society had regular involvement with M.E. since October 2010 with respect to lack of supervision; substance abuse; conditions of the home; domestic violence; and a lack of consistent cooperation.
c. On June 23, 2012 L.S. had assaulted M.E. and their son CH. S. L.S. was ultimately charged with mischief, assault and breach of probation.
d. M.E. had been incarcerated after admitting to disposing of the dead body of her aunt S.T., and also admitting to receiving S.T.’s ODSP payments for three years after S.T.’s death. There was an ongoing homicide investigation conducted by Hamilton police service. M.E. was subsequently charged with fraud and committing an indignity to human remains.
[5]. On July 31, 2012 Justice Steinberg made a temporary order that both L.R.S. and O.S. be returned to the custody of M.E. pursuant to terms of supervision by the Society. The order specified that L.S. was not to reside in the home and his access to the children was to be supervised and in the discretion of the Society.
[6]. On November 26, 2012 Justice Brown made final orders [pursuant to minutes of settlement] placing each child in the care of M.E. subject to supervision by the Society for a period of six months. Access to C.S. was to be in the discretion of the Society.
[7]. On April 19, 2013 the Society commenced status review applications in relation to each girl. M.E. filed Answers in relation to both applications. C.S. has not filed an Answer in relation to L.R.S. L.S. has not yet been served in relation to O.S.
[8]. At the first return of the status review applications on May 22, 2013, Justice Brown continued the existing orders on a temporary basis and scheduled settlement conferences for September 17, 2013 at 10 a.m.
CURRENT MOTIONS
[9]. Both girls are currently living with M.E. Daughter V.R.S. and son CH. S. are also in her home. V.R.S.’s fiancé J.C. recently moved in as well.
[10]. But M.E.’s criminal charges relating to her dead aunt S.T. have finally caught up with her. She has worked out a deal with the Crown attorney: On September 18, 2013 she will plead guilty to:
a. Failing to meet an obligation to a dead body.
b. Fraud.
She anticipates being sentenced to two years in jail.
[11]. On July 18, 2013 M.E. commenced these companion motions – within the context of the ongoing status review application -- requesting that L.R.S. and O.S. be placed in the care of her daughter V.R.S. while M.E. is in jail.
[12]. The Society opposes the motion. It conducted a kin assessment and V.R.S. was not approved. Notably, the Society brought no cross motion. It seeks no change to the existing order until M.E. goes to jail in a few days. But once M.E.’s incarceration makes her unavailable to care for the children, the Society intends to place L.R.S. and O.S. in foster care.
M.E.’S POSITION
[13]. M.E. and V.R.S. both filed affidavits. Their position is straightforward with many positive elements:
a. L.R.S. and O.S. have been together in M.E.’s household for a very long time.
b. They are closely connected to one another.
c. They are closely bonded to M.E.
d. V.R.S. is L.R.S.’s aunt and O.S.’s sister. V.R.S. loves them both, and is prepared to provide care and continuity for them in the same home they currently reside in.
e. From the children’s perspective, it is regrettable and unavoidable that M.E. will be temporarily removed from the household – while serving her two-year jail sentence. M.E. has been told by her criminal lawyer she’ll likely be released early, perhaps in about eight months.
f. In the meantime, placement of both children – together – with family members should be the priority.
g. Placement with strangers in foster care should be the absolute last resort – and in this case it is unnecessary.
h. Placement with V.R.S. would minimize relocation and disruption in the children’s lives, both physically and emotionally.
i. V.R.S. has the desire; the commitment; the resources; and the support network to ensure a seamless and relatively uneventful transition in the children’s lives at a time when they will already be grieving their temporary separation from M.E.
j. V.R.S. will ensure the children continue to attend their current school. This continuity is of particular benefit to O.S., given certain challenges she has experienced.
k. There will also be continuity regarding daycare.
l. M.E. is following through with counselling for the children, and V.R.S. is prepared to rearrange her work schedule to ensure both children meet all of their commitments.
m. While it is unfortunate – and perhaps unfair – that V.R.S. was not approved in the kinship assessment, nonetheless V.R.S., CH. S. and V.R.S.’s fiancé J.C. were previously approved by the Society as occupants of M.E.’s home.
n. V.R.S. is a responsible, trustworthy person. She has no criminal record or drug issues. She is steadily employed. She is healthy and reliable.
o. V.R.S. is fully prepared to cooperate with the Society under a supervision order.
p. Despite complex adult dynamics in this family, the court should maintain a child-focussed approach.
(Decision continues exactly as in the original judgment.)
...
Pazaratz, J.
Released: September 16, 2013
CAS v C.S. and M.E. (File C989/10) 2013 ONSC 5843
COURT FILE NOS.: C1340/12 and C989/10
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
File#C1340/12
Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton and M.E. and L.S.
File#C989/10 –
Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton and C.S. (Mother) and M.E. (Maternal Grandmother)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Pazaratz, J.
Released: September 16, 2013.