COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-1195

DATE: 2014/03/27

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, as am.

AND IN THE MATTER OF

N.R.A., born […], 2001 and

N.M.A., born […], 2002

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa

Applicant

– and –

M.P. (the mother) and

R.A. (the father)

Respondents

Marguerite Lewis, for the Applicant

Steve Duplain

Self-represented

Beverley Johnston, counsel for the children

HEARD: November 4-7, 13-14; December 17-20, 2013; January 2-3, 2014

Table of Contents

Nature of Proceedings. 4

Background. 4

Family Members. 4

M.Z.’s Childhood. 5

R.A.’s Youth and the Relationship of M.Z. and R.A. 6

Years Following the Separation of R.A. and M.Z. 8

Current Protection Application (February 2011 forward) 9

Original Protection Application. 9

Amended Protection Application. 14

Are the Children in Need of Protection?. 16

Exposure to Domestic Violence and Conflict 16

Exposure to Alcohol Abuse, Drug Use, and Drug Trafficking. 17

Exposure to Weapons and Exposure to the Idealization of their Use. 18

Exposure to a Lifestyle of Instability, Insecurity, and Broken Relationships. 20

Exposure to Litigation Issues and Undermining the Role of the Society. 20

Children’s Challenges in the Learning Environment 22

Children’s Alienation from their Mother, M.Z., and R.Z. 25

Conclusion Regarding the Children Being in Need of Protection. 26

Different Plans of Care for the Children. 27

Father’s Plan of Care for the Children. 27

Society’s/Mother’s Plan of Care for the Children. 27

Position Taken on Behalf of the Children by the OCL.. 27

Family Relationships. 28

R.A. and S.D. 28

M.Z. and R.Z. 29

R.R. and S.R. 30

Dr. McLean’s Evidence. 31

Best Interests of the Children. 33

Child’s physical and mental needs and level of development and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs. 33

Children’s emotional needs. 36

Child’s cultural background. 38

Importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family. 38

Child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community. 39

Importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity 39

Child’s views and wishes. 40

Effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case/Merits of the Society’s plan. 40

Risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent 41

Degree of risk that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection. 41

Problems with the Father’s Plan of Care. 41

Father’s frequent clashes with and disrespect for the law.. 41

Father ignoring court orders, and other directions, in child protection proceedings. 42

Father’s difficulty with authority figures. 45

Fuelling of children’s alienation from their mother, M.Z., by father and father’s family. 46

Father’s antagonism towards the Society. 46

Problems with the Society’s/Mother’s Plan of Care. 47

Disposition. 47

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Aitken J.

Nature of Proceedings

[1] Pursuant to an Amended Child Protection Application dated July 10, 2013, the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“the Society”) sought an order placing N.R.A. and N.M.A. in the care of their mother, M.Z., and her spouse, R.Z., subject to a supervision order for a period of six months. The Society also sought a finding that the children are in need of protection under ss. 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii), s. 37(2)(f), s. 37(2)(f.1), s. 37(2)(g), and s. 37(2)(g.1) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11 (“the Act”). Finally, the Society proposed that access to the children’s father, R.A., be fully supervised at the Society or at another location approved by the Society.

[2] In its closing written submissions, the Society amended its request. It now seeks an order granting sole custody of the children to M.Z. and R.Z., with no access to R.A., and with limited access to their paternal grandparents and their step-siblings. The Society is also seeking a restraining order preventing R.A. from communicating with the children by any means, directly or indirectly.

Background

Family Members

[3] M.Z. (formerly M.P.) is 32 years old. She is the biological mother of N.R.A., born […], 2001, and N.M.A., born […], 2002, and has another child, E.Z., born […], 2011, with her husband R.Z., whom she married on July 6, 2013. She is in good physical health. In the past, she has suffered from depression, but her evidence is that, currently, she has no mental health concerns and is not taking any medication in that regard. She has a grade twelve education.

[4] R.Z. is 44 years old. He is in good health and has been a public servant for over twenty years. He does not have a criminal record and has never been in any difficulty with the law. Pursuant to a temporary order obtained by the Society, M.Z. and R.Z. have had N.R.A. and N.M.A. in their care and custody since July 12, 2013. R.Z. is the sole provider for M.Z., N.R.A., N.M.A., and E.Z.

[5] R.A. is 33 years old. He is the biological father of four children: N.R.A., N.M.A., M.A. (born […], 2007), and M2.A. (born […], 2008). R.A. was born in Guyana but immigrated with his parents, R.R. and S.R., to New York in 1986. In 1991, the family moved to the Toronto area. In 1992, the family relocated to Ottawa where R.R. acquired Penzoil franchises. As a teenager, R.A. dropped out of school, became engaged in criminal activities, and was incarcerated for nineteen months. Since his release, he has been working in his parents’ business, though he has also been incarcerated, subject to bail conditions, or on probation, for periods of time over the last ten years as a result of numerous charges relating to domestic violence, drug trafficking, weapons offences, and breaches of conditions or recognizances. R.A. is in good health. He has two younger brothers: O., aged 27, who is studying for a doctorate in business and who is a college professor, and R., aged 23, who is completing his Masters in computer science.

[6] S.D. is the mother, and primary caregiver, of M.A. and M2.A. She works full-time at a bank and owns her own home.

[7] R.A. cohabited with M.Z. from April 1999 to March 2006. There were brief periods of separation in 2001 and 2005, after incidents of domestic violence. When M.Z. and R.A. separated on a final basis in March 2006, N.R.A. and N.M.A. went to live with their grandparents, S.R. and R.R.

[8] By July 2006, R.A. and S.D. were dating and were spending weekends with N.R.A. and N.M.A. From June 2007 to August 2009, R.A. and S.D. cohabited in a home purchased for them by R.R. and S.R. At some point in 2008, N.R.A. and N.M.A. left the home of R.R. and S.R. and moved in with R.A. and S.D. S.D. acted as the primary caregiver for N.R.A. and N.M.A. from at least late April 2008 to August 2009. As a result of an altercation in August 2009, R.A. moved out of the home, taking N.R.A. and N.M.A. with him. They lived in one apartment until January 2010, when they moved to the apartment R.A. has occupied ever since. For a brief period before the home was sold, S.D. continued to live there with M.A. and M2.A. S.D. and her children then moved into their own home. R.A. and S.D. had no communication with each other from August to December 2009, at which point they started speaking by telephone. By late winter 2010, R.A. and S.D. were spending weekends together with all of the children at each other’s residences. The interactions stopped on February 15, 2011 following another domestic dispute which resulted in R.A.’s arrest. At some point, the parties again reconciled, though they did not give up their separate residences: R.A.’s apartment in Alta Vista, and S.D.’s home across town in Stittsville. Until June 2013, when N.R.A. and N.M.A. went to live with their mother, S.D. would pick the children up after access visits with M.Z. so that all four children could have Sunday night dinner together. In addition, R.A. took N.R.A. and N.M.A. to S.D.’s home a couple of other nights a week.

M.Z.’s Childhood

[9] M.Z. had a very difficult childhood – one that no child should experience. Her parents separated when she was five due to her mother’s relationship with her father’s brother. M.Z. and her two sisters were left in the care of her mother and her uncle/step-father. They saw their father only on weekends. M.Z.’s mother abused her physically and emotionally, pulling her hair, hitting her with shoes, and, on occasion, locking her and her twin sister in their room without food or water for days at a time. As well, M.Z. and her twin sister were repeatedly sexually abused by their uncle/step-father. When M.Z. and her sister were in grade nine, an investigation into the alleged sexual abuse was conducted by the Society; however, the uncle/step-father was present during the interview, and the girls were too frightened to say anything.

[10] M.Z. frequently ran away from home and went to her grandparents. When M.Z. was fourteen, she went to live with another uncle for the summer. Due to her mother’s threats against that uncle, M.Z. returned to her mother’s care at the end of the summer. When M.Z. was fifteen, she left home on a permanent basis. She lived on the streets, in shelters, or at her sister’s apartment. Despite the instability in her life, she managed to complete grade eleven in 1997.

[11] As a teenager, M.Z. suffered from depression. She received counselling from the Royal Ottawa Hospital and the Ottawa Civic Hospital and, in 1998, was hospitalized at CHEO as a suicide risk.

R.A.’s Youth and the Relationship of M.Z. and R.A.

[12] In the spring of 1998, when M.Z. was almost seventeen, living at the YMCA, and attending school, her sister’s boyfriend introduced her to R.A. who, at the time, was incarcerated as a young offender at the Ottawa Detention Centre. On May 5, 1997, R.A. had been convicted of robbery and sentenced to three months secure and three months open custody. On April 15, 1998, R.A. was convicted of an additional two counts of robbery and one count of being unlawfully at large. In all, he was sentenced to thirteen months secure custody for these three offences. While R.A. completed his sentence, the couple conducted their relationship by letter and through phone calls. As well, M.Z. visited R.A. regularly, on Saturdays, when he was at the Ottawa Detention Centre. During this period, M.Z. dropped out of school.

[13] Upon R.A.’s release from prison in April 1999, R.A.’s parents, R.R. and S.R., rented an apartment for R.A. and M.Z. They also provided R.A. with employment through their Penzoil franchises. According to M.Z., from the very day that R.A. was released from prison, he routinely physically and psychologically abused her. He was highly critical of her, controlled what she wore and ate, and prevented her from seeing friends. M.Z. became pregnant, but lost the baby in 2000 after an altercation with R.A., during which he punched her in the stomach.

[14] A year later, the couple were evicted from their apartment due to non-payment of rent. S.R. obtained another apartment for them. M.Z. was pregnant at the time with N.R.A., who was born on […], 2001. When N.R.A. was about three months old, M.Z. was hospitalized for two to three weeks, during which time N.R.A. lived with his paternal grandparents. After M.Z. got out of hospital, S.R. took N.R.A. every second weekend, and then every weekend, from Friday to Saturday or from Saturday to Sunday.

[15] At Christmas, 2001, M.Z. had to call her grandmother for assistance when R.A. was being abusive with her. M.Z.’s mother came to the door. R.A. physically attacked her. The building superintendent called the police. When the police arrived, M.Z.’s mother decided not to press charges and, despite the police urging M.Z. to press charges, she was too afraid of R.A. to do so. The Ottawa Police Services (“the OPS”) reported the domestic dispute to the Society. Both R.A. and M.Z. denied the allegations and, after a brief investigation, the Society closed the file.

[16] N.M.A. was born on ¯[…], 2002. M.Z. was the primary caregiver for the children. At the time, she was depressed and ill-equipped to care for two babies. As a result, she relied heavily on the help offered by R.A.’s parents, and the children were often left in their care. At the time, R.A. and M.Z. were living a reckless lifestyle, hanging out with friends, and using drugs. It was not a good environment for babies.

[17] In 2003, R.A. put M.Z.’s hands in the boiling water she was using to sterilize N.M.A.’s bottles. M.Z. went to hospital but told the staff that it had been an accident. On another occasion, R.A. bent back M.Z.’s fingers, requiring her to seek medical treatment for a bad sprain. R.A. gave M.Z. more than one black eye (something noticed by a teacher), and caused bruising on her hips and legs. When R.A. assaulted M.Z., she would call his mother or one of his brothers for assistance. S.R. would come over to the house and tell R.A. not to hit M.Z., but S.R. would also ask M.Z. what she had done to get R.A. so angry, as if the assault had really been her fault. R.R. often came with S.R., but he would not intervene and would let S.R. handle the situation. I have no doubt that R.R. and S.R. were fully aware of the abusive behaviour that their son exhibited toward M.Z., despite their denial of this knowledge while testifying.

[18] At some point, R.R. and S.R. purchased a house for R.A. and M.Z. very close to their own home.

[19] In November 2005, the Society again became involved after the OPS advised of a further domestic dispute that resulted in assault charges against R.A. R.A. attacked M.Z. after she questioned him about where he had been. She ran to a nearby doctor’s office, and office staff called the police. M.Z. moved into a shelter with the children but, due to an illness, N.M.A. went to live with her paternal grandparents. After a few weeks, when a restraining order was put into place and R.A. was obliged to live with his parents, M.Z. returned to the home and resumed the care of both children. Despite the court order, after a few weeks, R.A. moved back in and life carried on. When the police came to serve M.Z. with the summons for trial, she did not answer the door because R.A. was there. The charges against R.A. were dropped. The Society closed its file. The paternal grandparents continued to assist M.Z. in the care of the children, and one or both children were frequently at their home.

[20] In March 2006, there was another incident of physical abuse. M.Z. locked herself in the bedroom. R.A. broke the door and went after M.Z. M.Z. had N.M.A. in her arms at the time; N.R.A. was being cared for by his paternal grandparents. R.A. pushed M.Z. down the stairs and grabbed her around the neck. The police were called and R.A. was arrested for assault. M.Z. called S.R. for help. S.R. was angry with M.Z. for having called the police, and she would not let M.Z. stay in the house. M.Z. moved out of the house to stay with friends. The environment was not suitable for children, so the children went to live with their paternal grandparents. The OPS referred the matter to the Society. The Society stayed involved with the family until March 2007 at which time the file was closed because, in the Society’s opinion, the children were being well cared for by their grandparents. That same month, R.A. was acquitted of the assault charges after a trial during which M.Z. testified. Although the trial judge found M.Z. to be credible, the evidence was inadequate to meet the standard of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. During the period when the children were residing with their grandparents, the Society arranged for M.Z. to have generous access to them; however, she did not attend these visits on a regular and consistent basis. There likely were many reasons why M.Z. found it difficult to visit the children regularly – some relating to M.Z.’s own priorities at the time, and others relating to the dynamics in the R. household. Not seeing their mother was very difficult on the children, and her inattentiveness at this time fuelled the disrespect R.A., S.D., R.R., and S.R. now show her.

[21] At some point in 2006, when M.Z. was arranging access to the children, R.R. and S.R. told her that she needed to attend their lawyer’s office. M.Z. complied, taking a friend. The children were in the care of the paternal grandparents at the time, but wished to be with their mother on that day. The lawyer provided M.Z. with papers which, if she had signed, would have given custody of the children to R.R. and S.R. In return, R.R. offered to give M.Z. money for a couple of months to get her on her feet. R.R. and S.R. offered M.Z. access to the children for a few hours on weekends, but no overnight access. M.Z. refused the offer. The discussion at the lawyer’s office transpired in the presence of the children – something that was highly inappropriate.

Years Following the Separation of R.A. and M.Z.

[22] Meanwhile, in 2006, R.A. was introduced to S.D. who, at the time, was performing as a dancer in a nightclub. By 2007, they were cohabiting. R.A. commenced proceedings for custody of N.R.A. and N.M.A. On May 17, 2007, during a case conference in the family proceedings, Mackinnon J. made a temporary order on consent granting M.Z. access for a few hours three times a week, with pickup and drop off being at the home of the children’s paternal grandparents. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) was appointed. In June 2007, R.R. and S.R. purchased a home for R.A. and S.D., close to their own home. On […], 2007, M.A. was born to R.A. and S.D. Unbeknownst to the Society, at some point, N.R.A. and N.M.A. moved into the home with R.A. and S.D.

[23] In August 2007, the Society investigated a complaint from M.Z. to the effect that R.A. and S.D. were physically hurting the children. The complaint could not be confirmed, and the file was closed. In September 2007, the Society investigated a further complaint from M.Z. that R.A. had slapped N.R.A. across the face. Although this allegation was verified, the Society was satisfied that the children were safe in R.A.’s care and again closed the file.

[24] On […], 2008, R.A. and S.D. had their second child M2.A.

[25] Meanwhile, in June 2008, M.Z. was introduced to R.Z. through a mutual friend. R.Z. agreed that M.Z. could live in his home as a roommate and have N.R.A. and N.M.A. there for access visits. Over the next six months, M.Z. and R.Z. got to know each other and, by the end of the year, they were in a romantic relationship.

[26] By 2008, the OCL had completed a family assessment report. It recommended that custody of N.R.A. and N.M.A. be granted to R.A., with generous access to M.Z. On November 3, 2008, Sheffield J. made a final order, on consent, in the family proceedings granting custody of both children to R.A. M.Z. was given access to the children on alternate weekends (extended to Thursday and/or Sunday on long weekends), Mother’s Day, the Christmas holidays, alternate March breaks, during the summer, and otherwise as agreed. When testifying, M.Z. claimed that the access she was afforded was much less than what she had expected based on conversations with the social worker from the OCL. She felt betrayed by her lawyer who pressured her to consent to the order with threats that, if she did not, she would not be seeing her children again.

[27] In August 2009, the Society received an anonymous call alleging incidents of domestic violence between R.A. and S.D. A few days later, the OPS advised the Society that S.D. had dropped off a bag of weapons that she feared R.A. would use to harm her. S.D. disclosed to the Society two recent incidents of domestic violence, and she also alleged that R.A. was doing drugs, drinking, and attempting to alienate the children from M.Z. Subsequently, based on a report from S.D., the police searched S.D.’s home and located a loaded automatic handgun and bullets. R.A. was arrested and charged with weapons offences. After R.A.’s arrest, N.R.A. and N.M.A. were cared for by their paternal grandparents when they were not having access visits with M.Z. R.R. and S.R. insisted on the sale of the home that they had purchased for R.A. and S.D. S.D. purchased a home for herself, M.A. and M2.A. R.A. and S.D. have not cohabited on a full-time basis since that time.

[28] When R.A. was released on bail, he obtained an apartment in the Alta Vista area. N.R.A. and N.M.A. spent most of their time during the week with their paternal grandparents and alternate weekends with each parent. The Society remained involved until January 2010, when they again closed the file.

[29] During the period of time when R.A. and S.D. were estranged, S.D. befriended M.Z. They visited back and forth, enabling all of the children to play together. S.D. gave N.M.A. her play station to keep at M.Z.’s residence. When R.A. got out of jail, he threatened to put a bullet in M.Z.’s head if she did not return the play station. M.Z. reported this threat to the police, and R.A. was once again charged. The matter went to trial in the late fall of 2010. Again, for lack of evidence, R.A. was acquitted. From December 2010 forward, M.Z. experienced increased difficulties in getting the access which she had been granted under the November 3, 2008 order of Sheffied J.

[30] In June 2010, the Society received an anonymous call alleging that N.R.A. had a black eye and a bruised cheek, caused by R.A. The Society investigated but did not deem the child to be in need of protection. In August 2010, the Society received another anonymous call alleging that R.A. had pornographic material and was using and selling drugs. The Society investigated, but R.A. denied all of the allegations. The child protection worker noted that R.A. appeared to be alienating the children from M.Z. It was also observed that R.A. and S.D. were considering reconciling. In fact, despite the recognizance that prohibited any contact between the two, R.A. had reconciled with S.D. and had proposed that they get married. At the time, she was a key witness in regard to outstanding criminal charges against R.A.

Current Protection Application (February 2011 forward)

Original Protection Application

[31] On February 15, 2011, S.D. called the OPS because R.A. was at her home intoxicated, he was being verbally abusive with her, and he was damaging her property. The OPS arrested R.A. and charged him with mischief and the possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. The OPS found drug paraphernalia in the home consistent with drug trafficking. S.D. advised that she did not want R.A. in her home. R.A. acknowledged arguing a lot with S.D., but he denied that he had any issues with drugs or alcohol. He declined a drug screen. He was unwilling to participate in any services offered by the Society or to complete an anger management program. In interviews with the child protection worker, N.R.A. and N.M.A. confirmed that R.A. drank beer. They also described their father driving them to the residences of various friends and acquaintances and leaving them in the vehicle while he went inside for a couple of minutes. At the end of the same month, N.R.A. advised his school that his father had yelled at him that morning and had thrown a lunch bag at him.

[32] On June 1, 2011, the Society commenced a Protection Application asking that the children be placed in the care of R.A., subject to a six-month supervision order. On June 15, 2011, on the consent of R.A., Mackinnon J. granted a temporary, without prejudice, order placing the children in the care and custody of R.A., subject to Society supervision. The terms of the order were that R.A. would cooperate fully with the Society; allow child protection workers to conduct both scheduled and unannounced home visits; allow Society workers independent access to the children at home, at school, or in the community; refrain from consuming alcohol or non-prescription drugs while in a care-giving role; refrain from engaging in any criminal activity; refrain from exposing the children to adult conflict; refrain from the use of inappropriate physical punishment with the children; successfully complete an addictions assessment, and follow through with all resulting recommendations; and successfully complete a parenting program approved by the Society regarding appropriate child management techniques.

[33] On August 9, 2011, Mackinnon J. made a follow-up order requiring R.A. to disclose various documents relating to his criminal record, his employment, his outstanding criminal charges, any applicable probation order or recognizance, and his ongoing contact, if any, with S.D. This disclosure order was never fully complied with – some documents being produced only during the course of the trial.

[34] From June 2011 until April 2012, Benjamin Forson was the child protection worker assigned to the file. My impression is that Mr. Forson was easily manipulated by R.A. Mr. Forson never insisted that R.A. comply with the disclosure order previously made by the court. He did not insist that R.A. seek counselling for alcohol abuse and anger management issues, and he allowed R.A. to delay in getting any of these services. He showed minimal concern about the then pending drug trafficking charges against R.A. from February 2011, the further drug charges from August 2011, and the children’s observations that were consistent with their father being involved with drug trafficking. He was not concerned with the presence of numerous weapons in R.A.’s apartment. Mr. Forson’s impression was that the children were doing well at school – something that the witnesses from the children’s school contradicted. He did not follow up with the children’s doctors to get confirmation as to why the children were absent from school. At the same time, Mr. Forson minimized concerns being raised by M.Z. and R.Z., did not advocate for their getting the physical and telephone access to which they were entitled, and accepted at face value allegations R.A. made regarding the care that M.Z. and R.Z. were providing to the children. He did not identify the steps that R.A. was taking to alienate the children from their mother, such as insisting that they call her “M” in his home, instead of “mom”, and discouraging them from telephoning their mother. As well, Mr. Forson never met S.D. to get further information concerning her observations when she was living with R.A. and her reasons for no longer living with him and for denying him unsupervised access to her two children. Finally, despite R.A. not abiding by many of the terms of the supervision order that had been put into place on June 15, 2011, Mr. Forson supported the Society applying to withdraw supervision.

[35] When the next child protection worker, Nathalie King, started working with the family, in April 2012, she observed that both children were aware of the conflict between the parents because both parents were bringing them into the conflict in an inappropriate fashion. Both children were impacted by this, with N.R.A. being angry and N.M.A. being sad. N.M.A. reported that her father did not like her calling her mother “mom”, so, at her father’s house, she called her mother “M”. N.R.A. did not feel that he could tell his father that he had had a birthday party at his mother’s home because he would get upset. N.M.A. said that she would prefer seeing Ms. King at school – the implication being that it was safer for her to speak openly there. The children had not seen their mother in weeks, and missed their visits. R.A. said that the children did better at school when they did not have contact with their mother. The children reported that their father had friends over to the apartment frequently, and he and the friends would go out on the balcony. Subsequently, the children said that they were sent to their rooms so that their father could be alone with his friends.

[36] On April 16, 2012, Polowin J. ordered the OCL to provide independent legal representation for the children. She clarified that access for M.Z. was to be in accordance with the access earlier ordered by Sheffield J. in the family proceedings. Later in April, N.M.A. arrived at school with bruises on her back and hips and an unclear story as to how she had hurt herself. N.M.A. reported that when R.A. got angry, he might hit her and her brother or take them to their grandparents where they were put in the basement for a minute for each year of age. She also reported that her father weighed marijuana on a scale and sold it to his friends from their apartment several times a week. On these occasions, either her father went out on the balcony or the children were sent to their rooms.

[37] In May 2012, Ms. King met with both parents to encourage them to keep the children out of the adult conflict. With R.A., Ms. King also raised concerns relating to drug trafficking, interference with access, R.A.’s criminal charges and outstanding orders, and R.A.’s efforts to alienate the children from M.Z. R.A. admitted to smoking marijuana, but denied trafficking. R.A. acknowledged that he and S.D. were seeing each other, despite the existence of a non-contact order as part of his recognizance of bail. He said it was M.Z.’s own fault that the children were calling her “M” instead of “mom”, and that S.D. was now the children’s mother. With M.Z., Ms. King discussed M.Z.’s concerns about the lack of telephone access, R.A.’s refusal to use a communication book, the lack of information for M.Z. and R.Z. from the schools, the children contacting M.Z. and R.Z. directly from school to advise them of school activities that they would like them to attend, and N.M.A.’s fear of R.A.

[38] Later in May, when Ms. King had difficulty reaching R.A. at home or at work to make a follow-up appointment with the children, Ms. King once again interviewed the children at their school. The children reported that things were going well, aside from the ongoing conflict between their parents. The following day, Ms. King scheduled a visit at R.A.’s apartment. R.A. was furious with Ms. King for interviewing the children at school. He yelled at her, called her incompetent, accused her of traumatizing N.M.A., and insisted that all subsequent meetings have a supervisor present and be recorded. Subsequently the children reported that R.A. had called Ms. King a “white trash racist bitch”, but R.A. denied ever making that statement.

[39] On July 5, 2012, there was a meeting between R.A., Ms. King, and Robert Godman, a supervisor, to allow R.A. to vent his dissatisfaction with the Society. It was agreed that meetings between Ms. King and the children would occur at the Society offices, with Mr. Godman observing. No such meeting ever occurred as, for various reasons, R.A. cancelled any that were scheduled. In order to ensure that the Society had continuing contact with the children, a new worker, Leigh Ann Sterritt, was assigned to the file.

[40] On September 28, 2012, on consent, Polowin J. ordered a Family Court Clinic Assessment. She again reconfirmed that the access provisions in the November 3, 2008 order of Sheffield J. in the family proceedings were incorporated into the child protection proceedings. She ordered the Society to visit the children at least once a month, with the visits alternating between the parents’ homes, where the Society worker was to conduct a private interview with the children. She instructed the parents not to discuss the litigation with the children. Finally, she ordered that counselling be made available for N.R.A., with the parents sharing the cost.

[41] During the fall of 2012, R.A. told Ms. Sterritt that N.R.A. had a hard time taking direction from females, and that he was doing better at school with a male teacher. He also commented that N.R.A. did not need any counselling because he was doing better at school. For that reason, R.A. was not moving forward to get a counsellor for N.R.A.

[42] By February, 2013, R.A. had still not arranged for any counselling for N.R.A., and was continuing to argue against any need for it. He continued to be critical of M.Z. He confirmed that he had refused to do any drug screens, and he denied that he had ever been told to take a parenting course, something contained in the order of Mackinnon J. dated June 15, 2011.

[43] From September 2012 to February 2013, Ms. Sterritt met with the children approximately once per month at the home of R.A. or M.Z. Both children seemed comfortable with Ms. Sterritt. Both conveyed that things were going well, and that they were happy spending time with both of their parents. Their main complaint was the continuing conflict between their parents and, also, the conflict between R.A. and S.D.

[44] During a lengthy interview at M.Z.’s house on February 23, 2013, Ms. Sterritt received much information from N.M.A. N.M.A. said that normally her father did not get up with the children in the morning and that they would make their own lunches, which generally consisted of snack foods. N.M.A. said that when they were staying at S.D.’s place, S.D. and R.A. would go into the garage about twenty times a day, but she did not know what they were doing there. N.M.A. described how her father was frequently angry, especially when people fought or when he was woken up. She described him screaming on the telephone and doing “a lot of weird stuff”. She reported that R.A. and S.D. fought a lot, and that this frightened M.A. and M2.A. N.M.A. also reported that: (1) she opened a container on the kitchen counter at her father’s place that contained marijuana; (2) her father used to hide a box under the laundry basket; (3) her father had given S.D. a container with “skunk” written on it; and (4) her father had a secret compartment in his car where he put bags that he then gave his friends. N.M.A. asked Ms. Sterritt not to ask her any questions about that at her father’s apartment, because it was small. Ms. Sterritt interpreted this request as meaning that N.M.A. did not want her father to hear any conversation between Ms. Sterritt and herself.

[45] When Ms. Sterritt met with N.R.A. on February 23, 2013, he did not want to speak with her. He was angry that the court had ordered that he receive counselling. He blamed that on his mother thinking that he was crazy. He stated that he did not need counselling and that his report card would prove that. It was clear to Ms. Sterritt that N.R.A. had been brought into the litigation process and was parroting what his father had said.

[46] When meeting with Ms. Sterritt, R.A. complained about M.Z. making false allegations against him, the lack of structure at M.Z.’s house, the children staying up too late during access weekends and being tired at school on Mondays, and M.Z. going out with friends on access weekends and leaving the children with R.Z. The messages Ms. Sterritt received from M.Z. and R.Z. were that R.A. was continuing to expose the children to drug trafficking, R.A. did not get up with the children in the morning to make their lunches, and R.A. was not abiding by earlier court orders.

[47] On March 4, 2013, the Family Court Clinic Assessment Report was released to the parties. In April 2013, N.R.A. finally started to receive counselling from Jennifer Williams. On April 16, 2013, Polowin J. ordered the appointment of the OCL for the children.

[48] When the matter was returned to court, the disclosure that N.M.A. had made to Ms. Sterritt was included in her affidavit. From that point forward, communication between Ms. Sterritt and R.A. became difficult, and R.A. limited any meetings at his apartment between Ms. Sterritt and the children to twenty minutes each. On April 24, 2013, when Ms. Sterritt tried to meet with the children at R.A.’s apartment, it was very difficult to engage either child in any conversation or activity, and R.A. had the children time the interactions and end them precisely after twenty minutes. When Ms. Sterritt was trying to interview the children, she could hear R.A. engaged in a telephone conversation in which he was agitated, his voice was raised, and he was referring to someone as being racist and sexist. On that day, R.A. refused to speak with Ms. Sterritt about her most recent affidavit. There was so much tension in the apartment during this visit that the Society decided not to attempt any further meetings with the children at the father’s apartment.

[49] During a meeting with the children on May 16, 2013, both children expressed their desire to go to the wedding of M.Z. and R.Z. that was planned for July 6, 2013, but also stated that they knew that their father did not want them to attend. When Ms. Sterritt asked N.R.A. why he had reported to his mother that he could not be alone with R.Z., N.R.A. said that the issue was his always having to be with N.M.A., because she told lies. He did not say, as he had said to his mother, that it was because R.Z. was a pedophile – something I find that he was told by R.A.

[50] On June 18, 2013, Polowin J. ordered that M.Z. have access to the children from pickup at school on June 27, 2013 to July 12, 2013. M.Z. picked up the children from school on June 27, 2013. R.A., although aware of the court order, did not advise either his parents or S.D. about the pickup arrangements. He also did not tell M.Z. that the children had their final baseball games that evening. When M.Z. found out about the games, she and R.Z. took the children to the field. R.A. and S.R. were there as well. More will be said of this event later.

[51] When Ms. Sterritt met with the children at M.Z.’s home on June 28, 2013, N.M.A. was very happy to be staying with her mother, having the opportunity of playing in the neighbourhood, and going to the wedding. She spoke of how she would hear her father and S.D. fighting all the time over the telephone, and how M.Z. and R.Z. never fought. She considered her weeks with her mother to be weeks away from fighting. N.R.A. did not want to communicate with Ms. Sterritt that day.

Amended Protection Application

[52] On July 10, 2013, the Society amended its Protection Application to seek an order for care and custody of the children with their mother, M.Z., and her spouse, R.Z., subject to a six-month supervision order.

[53] On July 12, 2013, Sheffield J. granted an adjournment of the care and custody hearing on terms that, on a without prejudice basis, the children would remain in the temporary care and custody of M.Z. and R.Z., subject to supervision by the Society. R.A. was given access three times a week as arranged through the Society. During July, R.A. saw the children regularly and the access visits went well. It was clear to the access supervisor, Keith Davis, that the children enjoyed their time with their father, and he was good at keeping the children interested in a variety of activities. N.M.A., in particular, expressed her desire to see more of her father, and asked if she and N.R.A. could spend alternate weekends with him. The children were also interested in seeing S.D. (whom they referred to as “mom”), M.A., and M2.A. During their visits, they referred to their actual mother as “M”.

[54] On July 24, 2013, N.M.A. told Ms. Sterritt that she would like the living arrangements to be changed so that she would live with her mother and see her father on alternate weekends. At the same time, she went on the defensive regarding her father, acting as his surrogate in denying various allegations that M.Z. had discussed with Ms. Sterritt. N.M.A. told Ms. Sterritt about how her father had been in jail before when M.Z. had called the police and then when S.D. had called the police. N.R.A. said that he did not really care if he was living at his mother’s, as long as he got to see his father. He also acted as his father’s surrogate, saying things like “his father was paying for his counselling, his mother never pays”. He also noted that his father had raised him all his life and that his father and his grandmother make food for him, whereas his mother takes them out to eat. M.Z. reported to Ms. Sterritt that, although N.R.A. was initially angry with the change in residence, he was settling down and accepting it. That being said, when they returned from visits with their father, the children were agitated and would act out. They would report that their father said that he would get them back.

[55] By early August 2013, R.A. was starting to speak to the children about their rights, saying that he would go to the United Nations in order to get them back, and providing them with documents from the Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy. On August 9, 2013, S.D., M.A., and M2.A. accompanied R.A. to the access visit. R.A. again provided the children with advocacy papers and explained to them their rights. S.D. focused on N.M.A.’s eczema, saying it was the worst she had ever seen it. During the session, she called N.M.A.’s physician and made an appointment for her. She was highly critical of the care M.Z. was giving N.M.A.

[56] During the August 12, 2013 visit, R.A. advised N.R.A. that it was his right to go to court, that the state of N.M.A.’s eczema amounted to child neglect, and that R.A. and the children could speak on the telephone, but the calls would be recorded. During the August 14, 2013 visit, R.A. told N.R.A. that he was going to sell his Subaru so that he could retain better legal counsel for the children. He told N.M.A. that the eczema on her arms had never been so bad. He told N.R.A. to take care of N.M.A. because the Society takes children away from families and puts them in situations that can be dangerous. During the August 16, 2013 visit, R.A. raised the topic of court proceedings and asked N.R.A. if he had asked Ms. Sterritt to see his file. N.M.A. reported to R.A. what her mother and Ms. Sterritt had discussed during their last visit. The children asked R.A. whether he had sold his Subaru yet. During the August 19, 2013 access visit, R.A. focused on legal issues, providing the children with another copy of advocacy papers. The same occurred during the August 21, 2013 visit, and Mr. Davis had to terminate the visit early due to the inappropriate communications on the part of R.A.

[57] As reported to Ms. Sterritt on August 16, 2013, both children wanted longer, unsupervised, access visits with their father.

[58] On August 28, 2013, Mr. Godman, Ms. Sterritt, and Mr. Davis met with R.A. prior to the access visit to get his cooperation in following the rules for access visits. Ms. Sterritt initiated the conversation, but R.A. would not acknowledge her and was dismissive of her. He was only prepared to interact with the men in the room. R.A. refused to sign the agreement Society staff were seeking, and R.A. left the building without seeing the children. The children were upset that they did not get to see him. At around the same time, R.A. was sending highly inappropriate Facebook messages to both children in regard to the legal proceedings, their rights, and the Society. More will be said about those shortly.

[59] In early September, the access visits went reasonably well, aside from R.A. trying to control aspects of the children’s lives relating to things such as vaccinations and haircuts, and his encouraging the children to communicate with him on Facebook and Xbox, something that had not been approved. He also told the children on a number of occasions that they would be “home” before certain dates, raising expectations on their part.

[60] Understandably, the children’s behaviour at M.Z.’s home was very challenging during the months of August and September 2013. Both displayed much anger. M.Z. and R.Z. were open to the Society’s assistance in developing strategies to deal with the children’s unruly, disrespectful behaviour. Kelby Shaw, a child and youth counsellor, visited M.Z.’s home on two occasions in September to provide guidance regarding appropriate ways to handle the children’s behaviour. M.Z. and R.Z. found his suggestions helpful, and Mr. Shaw thought M.Z. was very engaging, cooperative, and open in receiving his guidance.

[61] On September 18, 2013, Beaudoin J. ordered that the children be placed in the temporary care and custody of M.Z. and R.Z., subject to Society supervision. R.A. was given supervised access three times a week. From that day forward, R.A. decided to have no further supervised access visits with the children. He claims to have lost faith in the Society, and he does not see why his access visits need to be supervised. The last access visit R.A. had with the children was on September 13, 2013. RA.’s unilateral termination of access visits has been very hard on the children. They wonder whether they have done something wrong, and they cannot understand why their father would not want to see them.

Are the Children in Need of Protection?

[62] The evidence is persuasive that N.R.A. and N.M.A. are children in need of protection under ss. 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii), 37(2)(f), 37(2)(f.1), 37(2)(g), and 37(2)(g.1) of the Act. In this regard, I make the following findings of fact.

Exposure to Domestic Violence and Conflict

[63] When R.A. and M.Z. were cohabiting, the police were called on a number of occasions due to domestic violence. R.A. was charged on at least two occasions, but he was never convicted. On one occasion, R.A. manipulated matters so that M.Z. was not served with the summons for the trial and, therefore, did not attend court to testify. On the second occasion, although M.Z. did testify and was considered credible by the trial judge, the evidence did not rise to the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite the lack of a criminal conviction, I am satisfied on a balance of probabilities that, during the time they cohabited, R.A. physically assaulted M.Z. on several occasions, berated her, and isolated her from those in the community who could have provided assistance. The children witnessed some of the violence and, in regard to other incidents, were present in the home when the incidents were occurring. There is no question that they were exposed to a high level of control and domination on the part of their father over their mother, and to her being put in the role of a victim in the relationship. I am also satisfied that M.Z. advised S.R. of the abuse that she was suffering at the hands of R.A.; however, neither R.R. nor S.R. intervened in a helpful fashion.

[64] When R.A. and S.D. were cohabiting, N.R.A. and N.M.A. were exposed, once again, to serious adult conflict. Arguments were frequent, loud, and angry. On one occasion in August 2009, R.A. pushed S.D. in order to get out of the door, and she fell. At the time, R.A. said that he did not know what he was capable of, a statement that S.D. took as a threat. On another occasion, R.A. was intoxicated and damaged the kitchen cupboards in S.D.’s home. Although the children were in bed at the time, it is inconceivable that they would not have been impacted by the noise of R.A. and S.D. fighting, of R.A. being on a rampage in the kitchen, of the police arriving at the home, of R.A. being arrested, and of the kitchen being damaged. This type of environment instills fear, insecurity, and hyper-vigilance in children.

[65] When N.R.A. was young, R.A. was rough with him. When N.R.A. was a toddler, R.A. knocked him into a table, chipping his tooth. If N.R.A. was not listening to R.A., R.A. would hold N.R.A. in the corner and yell into his face. When N.R.A. was older and in school, R.A. physically assaulted him on at least two occasions. On one, he slapped N.R.A. across the face. On another, he threw a lunch bag at him in anger. N.R.A. was in tears at school after this episode. N.M.A. has expressed fear of her father and spoke of his use of physical discipline.

[66] Dr. McLean’s assessment was the following:

I would suggest that [N.R.A.’s] home environment has contributed to his aggressive or violent behaviour at school, although this may also reflect a modelling of what he has witnessed in the home environment. … [N.R.A.] does comment on the arguing he hears and blaming of others and advises that he would like to move out with his sister when he reaches age 16. I would suggest that in addition to ongoing counselling that [N.R.A.] requires a non-violent home environment which is secure, safe, conflict-free and not exposing him to an antisocial lifestyle.

Exposure to Alcohol Abuse, Drug Use, and Drug Trafficking

[67] When R.A. and M.Z. were living together and N.R.A. and N.M.A. were young, R.A. drank beer nightly and, during his Friday poker night with friends, got very drunk. The children witnessed this if they were not at their grandparents. As well, at this time, R.A. used a lot of illicit drugs. Marijuana was a daily habit, but R.A. also indulged in cocaine, ecstasy, and, on occasion, heroin. During this period, he also trafficked in drugs. M.Z. accompanied R.A. as he went on runs to drop off marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy for friends. R.A. grew a marijuana plant in their walk-in closet and used to weigh marijuana and count out pills in the presence of the children. N.R.A. would say that Daddy was doing arts and crafts.

[68] On the evening of February 14-15, 2011, when R.A. and S.D. were together at S.D.’s home and the four children were upstairs in their rooms, R.A. was intoxicated and got into a verbal altercation with S.D. He did significant damage to the kitchen, breaking drawers and cupboards, banging up a wall, and sticking scissors in a cupboard door. Realizing that he was too drunk to drive, he came back into the house and went to sleep on the couch. S.D. called the police. When they arrived, they found a bag of marijuana close to R.A. The police arrested R.A. and charged him with mischief and drug-related offences. The Society was, once again, brought in. R.A. advised the child protection worker, Elissa Haimovitz, that, over the previous month, his drinking had increased due to ongoing conflict with S.D., and that he would drink six to eight beers a night, after the children went to bed. Despite this level of drinking, R.A. saw no need for him to have an addictions assessment or treatment. He also refused to provide random urine samples or to discuss the drug charges with Ms. Haimovitz. Finally, he said that he had no time to take an anger management program.

[69] In March 2011, N.M.A. disclosed to Ms. Haimovitz that, while she and N.R.A. had been living with R.A., he would drive them around to different persons’ residences and would have the children wait in the car while he briefly dropped in on those people.

[70] In August 2011, R.A. was stopped for speeding in a rental car while en route to Sarnia with a friend. The police searched the vehicle and found marijuana in a tool kit in the trunk and a cell phone in the car. R.A. was charged with driving offences and breach of a recognizance not to be in possession of a cell phone and not to associate with anyone with a criminal record. R.A. and his friend were charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking. R.A. was in jail for over a week, until his mother could arrange bail for him. While out on bail, R.A. was obliged to live with his parents. R.A.’s companion pled guilty to the drug charges. Eventually, the drug charges against R.A. were dropped and R.A. pled guilty to the breach of condition. He was also prohibited from driving for a period of time.

[71] More recently, the children reported that, while they have been living at R.A.’s apartment, many friends and acquaintances of R.A. come to the apartment for short periods of time. On these occasions, the children are sent to their rooms and can only come out once the other people leave. R.A. goes out on the balcony with these people. The children have also reported that they have seen their father handle and weigh drugs in their apartment.

[72] Considering all of this evidence, I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that R.A. has for years been involved in drug trafficking, and that the children have been exposed repeatedly to this activity. Not only have they been put at risk by being with their father while he is handling and dealing in illicit drugs, but also, the children have been given the message that drug trafficking is an acceptable way to make a living. The children have also been exposed to their father’s abuse of alcohol. Finally, the children’s home life and routines have been disrupted due to R.A.’s frequent arrests and terms of release.

Exposure to Weapons and Exposure to the Idealization of their Use

[73] R.A. has exposed both N.R.A. and N.M.A. to weapons in a way that is inappropriate and harmful, considering their young age and the context in which the children live. One area in R.A.’s small apartment has been set aside for an array of Ninja weapons, including a Ninja star (shuriken), nunchucks, aluminum rods, bows and arrows, throwing knives (the children each have their own set), and swords (katana). These are hanging on the wall in easy reach of the children, and the children are allowed to use them in the apartment, as long as they first obtain R.A.’s permission. There is a board attached to the wall into which R.A., and the children, throw knives and the Ninja star, and into which they shoot pellet guns. Shurikens and nunchucks are prohibited weapons under the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46.

[74] When R.A. and S.D. separated in August 2009, S.D. took to the police a bag of weapons (including nunchucks, knives, and swords), saying that she did not feel safe with all of these weapons available to R.A. At trial, S.D. minimized the significance of the weapons and claimed that she was just being vindictive when she took them to the police. Nevertheless, she acknowledged that she thought that R.A. had purchased guns for N.R.A. and N.M.A. when the children were too young, and that she does not want the weapons around her home.

[75] R.A. does not have a licence to own a firearm. Despite this, he gave N.R.A., on his eighth birthday, a 410 gauge shotgun that is capable of shooting rifle ammunition. There are pictures of N.R.A. proudly holding the gun and pointing it at the camera. There are other children around when he is playing with the gun. N.M.A. told M.Z. and R.Z. that she also received a shotgun on her birthday. R.A.’s evidence was that, although he had wanted to give N.M.A. a shotgun on her birthday, he did not actually do so because S.D. did not want him to. There are also pictures of N.R.A., N.M.A., M.A., and M2.A. holding pellet guns in R.A.’s apartment. R.A.’s evidence was that he lets all of the children shoot these weapons at the target on the wall in the apartment. According to R.A., N.R.A. and N.M.A. have been discharging firearms since they were seven or eight years old.

[76] When N.R.A. was eight, R.A. took him on a hunting trip with some friends. N.R.A. was allowed to use the shotgun he received for his birthday, and he was allowed to pose with a shotgun which, R.A. acknowledged, N.R.A. would not have been legally allowed to use for another five years. On another occasion, R.A. took the children to get a Christmas tree in the woods and shot the trunk of the tree into pieces instead of chopping it. At some point, when he was in the woods with her father, N.M.A. also fired a long-arm gun. She told M.Z. and R.Z. that she was frightened to shoot the gun, and it had left a bruise on her arm that was sore. R.A. took N.M.A. on her first hunting trip when she was ten years old and was very proud of how she carried and used a hunting knife.

[77] R.A. has trained N.R.A. and N.M.A. in the use of all of these weapons and delights in taking pictures of them using the weapons. In some of the pictures, the children are pointing the guns at the photographer. In one, a three-year old M2.A. is feeling the edge of a long knife and, in another, when she is slightly older, she is using a pellet gun. R.A. considers the children’s use of weapons as a useful way to teach them patience and responsibility. R.A. was not concerned that any of his children – even the younger ones, M.A. and M2.A. – might access or use the weapons in an unsafe way. He claimed to have complete confidence in their discipline and their appreciation of what was or was not safe. He acknowledged that, if the children’s friends came to his apartment (which they rarely did), he would have to put the weapons under lock and key.

[78] For recreational activities with the children, R.A. takes them to a shooting range and to a martial arts program.

[79] I note that R.A. was charged with the illegal possession of a firearm after the police found a loaded handgun and additional ammunition in the ceiling of the home occupied by S.D. and R.A. prior to their separation in August 2009. As R.A. had been out of the home for a couple of weeks prior to the police locating the weapon, the judge hearing the weapons charges against R.A. could not find, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the gun had been in R.A.’s possession. Nevertheless, on a balance of probabilities, I find that R.A. was in possession of that weapon. According to S.D., no one other than R.A. and herself would have been in the position to hide the weapon in that location during the period that she and R.A. were residing at the home. As well, according to S.D., R.A. acted in a very suspicious way in wanting to get back into the home after he was forced to leave, and it was for this reason that she encouraged the police to do a thorough search of the premises. I am satisfied, on a balance of probabilities, that the loaded automatic handgun and bullets found in the home occupied by R.A. and S.D. was in the possession of R.A., even though this could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the criminal proceedings.

[80] As well, I accept the evidence of M.Z. that, when she was cohabiting with R.A., he had guns, pellet guns, knives, swords, long guns, and ammunition in their home. In 2005, when R.A. was arrested for assaulting M.Z., M.Z. advised the police that there was a gun in their home. By the time the police had gone to the home to search it, the gun had been removed.

[81] R.A. acknowledged that, due to his criminal record, it is unlikely that he would be able to get a licence to own a gun.

[82] It is one thing for a child living in a rural area to be trained at a young age as to the proper use of firearms when firearms are part of a normal, law-abiding way of life on a farm or in the woods. It is quite another thing for a child in an urban setting, with a parent involved in drug trafficking and the unlawful use of guns, to be exposed to firearms and encouraged to use them. It is especially inappropriate for N.R.A. and N.M.A. to be surrounded by weapons and taught to use and revere them when their father has exposed them in the home to violence and threats against his female partners and to violence against N.R.A., and when their father has used violence or the threat of violence when committing several robberies as a young offender.

[83] In the case of N.R.A., the preoccupation with weapons and militias carried over to school, where he frequently wore camouflage clothing, spoke about the military and guns, and drew pictures of guns. On one occasion, he made a Ninja throwing star from popsicle sticks and elastics, which the school Vice-Principal confiscated. None of this caused R.A. any concern.

Exposure to a Lifestyle of Instability, Insecurity, and Broken Relationships

[84] The children have been subjected to a lifestyle lacking in stability and security. Initially, they were cared for by M.Z. who, due to her childhood experiences and her treatment at the hands of R.A., was incapable of providing them with the level of care that they required. The children then lived with their paternal grandparents, during which time they rarely saw their mother because she was psychologically unable to be a consistent presence in their lives. They saw their father regularly, but he left much of the parenting to his parents, and there were periods when he was incarcerated and totally unavailable for his children.

[85] When R.A. and S.D. began to cohabit, and the children lived with them, S.D. did most of the parenting. That arrangement did not last long and, once again, the children were returned to the care of their paternal grandparents. Once R.A. was living in his own apartment, the children were returned to R.A.’s care, but they spent most of the time during the week with their grandparents, and they alternated weekends with their parents. Then, after R.A. and S.D. re-engaged in their relationship, the children were shuffled back and forth between R.A.’s apartment, S.D.’s home in Stittsville (which she acquired in July 2011), and M.Z.’s home for access visits. Finally, in July 2013, the children’s primary residence was moved to their mother’s. Although R.A. exercised access to them on a regular basis from July to mid-September 2013, he then terminated access because he did not approve of the Society’s methods of supervision. R.A. has not seen his children since September 13, 2013, despite their clear wish to see him.

[86] In these circumstances, it is understandable that, in the past, and on a continuing basis, the children have displayed signs of insecurity, confusion, and the effects of loss.

Exposure to Litigation Issues and Undermining the Role of the Society

[87] The children have been exposed to the litigation in an inappropriate way, rather than being told that the adults are dealing with adult problems. There are numerous examples.

[88] During an access visit with R.A. in August 2013, N.R.A. was provided with a package of materials relating to steps he could take to ensure that he would be returned to his father’s care as quickly as possible. Some of the documents related to the Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy and the Ombudsman of Ontario. One appears to have originated with Canada Court Watch, an organization that gives voice to parents who have been disgruntled with the role played by children’s aid societies, the OCL, and the courts in regard to child protection matters. Another lengthy document from an unidentified source argues that the practice of child protection workers interviewing children at school is contrary to the law. The obvious intent of R.A. in providing all of these documents to N.R.A. was to create a sense of distrust in the children in regard to their child protection worker, their lawyer, the Society, and the courts. The children have said to their mother that their lawyer is actually M.Z.’s lawyer, and that two child protection workers, Nathalie King and Leigh-Ann Sterritt, are actually working on behalf of M.Z. and not on behalf of the children. Statements of this nature clearly originated with R.A.

[89] R.A. has gone further and, in Facebook exchanges with both N.R.A. and N.M.A., has given the following messages:

Excerpts from messages to N.M.A.:

I was there. Le-ann and her supervisor wanted to talk to me first. They don’t want us to talk about your rights, they don’t want to hear what you have to say. They would not let me see you guys unless I gave up our rights. You’re a smart girl you know that this is Canada and no one can take away your right to free speech no one can tell you what you can and cannot say. Right now the 3 of us are in a struggle with the CAS, we will win. They are wrong.

Don’t let them scare you by saying things like – if you don’t say what we what you’ll never see you father, or brother and sister. I have been reading a lot about Family Law. People like Fred [Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy] know that some CAS workers scare kids like this. Don’t worry, they can’t. They are desperate to shut you both up, because they have broke the law and can only get away with it if you guys stay silent. That’s not how I raised you, You know whats right, now comes time to stand up and prove it.

I’m talking to the Advocate (Fred) now, then Lawyer (Mike). If you 2 want to finish this thing now, call Fred. You guys will be back home with your Family before school starts.

Excerpts from messages to N.R.A.:

Just got back from CAS they still want to censor us and deny you 2 your rights. This is after I spoke to the Youth Advocacy Office this morning and they told me NOONE can tell us we can’t talk about this. Especially since your over 12. I told the supervisor (Rob) the worker (Le-ann) and Keith was there too – “My kids were born in Canada, they have the same rights as any other Citizen.” Then told Rob if you want to take away peoples rights maybe you should annex a small part of the country and set up a dictatorship. Then I got up and walked out. I would love to see you both, but we will not submit to being second class citizens, I will not fold and I hope both of you remain strong and don’t forget who you are over there.

Don’t let any of these weasels threaten you with going along with CAS, or you woundn’t see your Father again, or you wouldn’t see [M.A.] and [M2.A.] again. It’s lies, and on top of that Fred (the Advocate) has had cases like that before, he will believe you. Where CAS workers scare kids into shutting up. They (CAS) are scared right now, they have broken the law, and can only get away with it if you stay silent. That’s not how I raised you, you know what’s right, and you know what’s wrong. This is wrong.

Children’s Aid Societies have been found guilty of incompetence, negligence and malicious prosecution – these are exact words from Wikipedia.

[90] The children have been encouraged by R.A. to look at the Society as their enemy who is trying to take away their rights and keep the children from seeing their father, their grandparents, and their step-siblings. R.A. has told the children that children are more likely to come to harm when they are under the care of the Society than when they are under the care of their parents. R.A. has also undermined the relationship between the children and their child protection worker, and has encouraged them not to trust or respect her. This is clear from the comments N.R.A. has made in the presence of his mother and, additionally, Society staff.

Children’s Challenges in the Learning Environment

N.R.A.

[91] When N.R.A. was in junior kindergarten in February 2006, M.Z. sought special assistance for him from the school. N.R.A. was identified as requiring extra assistance from the Learning Support Teacher due to delays with language and speech development. This was despite N.R.A. having participated in First Words in October/November 2005. It was also noted that N.R.A. had difficulty communicating, and that his social skills were undeveloped. Behavioural concerns were raised about N.R.A.’s relationships with peers and about N.R.A. hitting M.Z. and calling her names. A psychological assessment was requested. On the referral authorization form signed by N.R.A.’s teacher, the Learning Support Teacher, and the Principal, it was noted that R.A. had been abusive with M.Z., and that the Society had been involved with M.Z.

[92] When N.R.A. was in grades four to six, he had numerous behavioural issues. According to the Vice-Principal of his school, N.R.A. showed a high level of anger, frustration, and anxiety, and the Vice-Principal identified N.R.A. as being a student at risk. The Vice-Principal devoted countless hours trying to gain N.R.A.’s trust and keep him engaged in school. N.R.A. was a runner. He would leave the classroom without permission – at first, leaving the school yard but, as time passed, leaving the classroom but not the school. The Vice-Principal would have to find N.R.A., engage him in a conversation, and, hopefully, redirect him back to class. At times, N.R.A.’s behaviour could not be redirected, and R.A. or S.R. would be called to come and pick him up. On these occasions, N.R.A. could be very argumentative with adults, saying that there was freedom of speech in Canada, and he could do and say as he wished. The Vice-Principal thought that the home support being provided to the school in regard to N.R.A. was quite limited, compared to that offered by other families. It often took several phone calls before the Vice-Principal could reach R.A. or one of his parents. S.R. was likely to arrive more quickly than R.A. and work harder than R.A. trying to get N.R.A.’s behaviour to improve. Neither R.A. nor S.R. engaged in much conversation with the Vice-Principal or other school officials when picking up N.R.A. They simply took him home.

[93] N.R.A. is considered bright; in fact, his grade five teacher, who testified during the trial, suggested to R.A. that N.R.A. should be tested to see if he would be a candidate for a gifted program. The testing never occurred because R.A. did not sign the application form. The teacher tried to provide N.R.A. with gifted programming on an ad hoc basis in the classroom but, although N.R.A. seemed interested initially, he showed minimal follow-up.

[94] The teacher described N.R.A.’s behaviour in the classroom as being unpredictable: he could be cooperative at times but then, for no apparent reason, would become volatile and confrontational with her and the other students. She could not trust him to have a quiet time at a desk in the hall or to go directly to the office without supervision. Other students complained about N.R.A.’s foul language but, in that N.R.A. often spoke under his breath, the teacher herself never heard that.

[95] The teacher discussed N.R.A.’s behaviour with R.A. during the fall 2011 parent/teacher interview. R.A. believed that N.R.A.’s behaviour was triggered by spending time with his mother; however, after tracking which weekends N.R.A. spent with each parent, the teacher could find no such pattern. The teacher observed that R.A. was very keen to blame M.Z. in regard to the children’s homework not being completed, but the teacher observed that the children’s homework was not being done in either parent’s home. The teacher did not notice any improvement in N.R.A.’s homework completion after her discussion with R.A. She specifically advised R.A. that she wanted to meet with N.R.A.’s parents, but R.A. never contacted her to make an appointment.

[96] A review of N.R.A.’s report cards for grades four and five show that N.R.A. did not perform to potential during those years. He experienced the greatest difficulty working independently, completing work and tasks, submitting written assignments, maintaining a consistent effort, and being well integrated into classroom activities. In his February 2012 grade five report card, the teacher described N.R.A. as seldom taking responsibility for his own behaviour. She went on to say: “[N.R.A.’s] behaviour, both in class and during Nutritional Breaks and recess is of concern. His progress this term has been very limited due to his behaviour. If [N.R.A.] could manage his emotions more appropriately, he would be able to spend more time in class, and I am confident that his marks would improve.” In the June 2012 report card, the teacher observed: “[N.R.A.] rarely responds positively to the ideas, opinions, values, and traditions of others.” If the ideas of other students differed from his own, N.R.A. could be belittling and rude. The teacher was concerned about the psychological impact this could have on other students, and this behaviour resulted in N.R.A. being isolated in the classroom. The teacher noted in her June 2012 report card that N.R.A. would require significant support both at home and at school if he were going to succeed the following year. She was not aware of his receiving any support at home.

[97] The teacher viewed N.R.A. as being a student at risk, both academically and socially. His angry outbursts led her to fear that N.R.A. would become a violent adult. Academically, she considered N.R.A. to have a gifted, but learning disabled, profile. She worried that he might drop out of school despite his potential.

[98] N.R.A.’s grade six report card was not put into evidence. The evidence of both R.A. and S.D. was that N.R.A.’s academic performance and behaviour improved in grade six, when he had a male teacher. He won a science award at the end of the year.

[99] N.R.A.’s November 2013 grade seven report card, issued after he had been living for a number of months with his mother, was more positive than his earlier report cards, and suggested that N.R.A. may have been functioning better in class and completing more of his homework.

N.M.A.

[100] When she was in kindergarten, N.M.A. was identified as a student with special needs and, for several years, she has had her own individual educational plan (“IEP”). Currently, she receives 100 minutes a week in class with the Learning Support Teacher to assist her with language skills.

[101] In 2012-2013, N.M.A. had the same grade five teacher that N.R.A. had had in grade five. Pursuant to an IEP, N.M.A. had modified math and English programs and received additional accommodation for science and social studies. N.M.A. has difficulty understanding instructions and completing assignments. Although she does not display behavioural problems in class, she has had difficulty with her peers at recess. When in grade five, she was the object of bullying that rendered her isolated both in the classroom and in the playground. One strategy used by N.M.A. to combat the bullying was to seek the assistance of N.R.A. who, in turn, would threaten the girls who were bullying N.M.A. The girls reported the threats to the teacher. N.R.A. was sent to the office, and the girls became even more reluctant to include N.M.A. in their activities. The Vice-Principal brought in an expert on restitution and restorative circles and, after a lengthy session, the grade five girls got along much better. N.M.A. had a good working relationship with the teacher and, clearly, wanted to please her. The downside of this was that she sought an inordinate amount of help and support from the teacher, rather than attempting to do her work on her own.

[102] N.M.A.’s November 2013 grade six report card was positive and, in November 2013, she won the Student of the Month award for perseverance.

Both Children

[103] When testifying, the teacher commented that she considered the relationship between N.R.A. and N.M.A. to be unusual. Several times during the week, there would be issues concerning their lunches, and the children would want to see each other to swap what was in their lunch bags. As well, both children would linger at school at the end of the day, talking to each other or other students, and seeking out the teacher for a chat. What made this practice unusual when compared with the behaviour of other students was the length of time N.R.A. and N.M.A. wanted to linger at school, and N.R.A.’s reluctance to speak about anything to do with his home life. The teacher had the impression that the children did not want to go home. She watched for signs of abuse, but she did not see any evidence of that while the children were in her class.

Children’s Alienation from their Mother, M.Z., and R.Z.

[104] When R.A. and S.D. were residing together between 2007 and 2009, R.A. let S.D. assume responsibility for communicating with M.Z. regarding access arrangements. The relationship between S.D. and M.Z. was strained. Although after S.D. and R.A. separated in 2009, S.D. and M.Z. were friendly with each other, once S.D. and R.A. reconciled in 2010, S.D. adopted an aggressive and judgmental approach with M.Z. S.D. considered herself the children’s mother, and both she and R.A. minimized the importance of M.Z. in their lives. They both supported the children calling S.D. “mom” and their calling M.Z. “M”. This was exemplified at the baseball game on June 27, 2013, when N.M.A. said she wanted two ice creams – one for her mom and one for E.Z., and R.A. quipped: “that is not your mother, she is M”. It is also evident in Facebook messages sent by R.A. to the children when he refers to S.D. as their “mom”.

[105] From December 2010 forward, R.A. made it increasingly difficult for M.Z. to have access to the children. He discontinued telephone access. He tried to limit M.Z.’s time to alternate weekends. After the parties had a disagreement regarding M.Z.’s right to have the children for the 2011 March Break, R.A. told the children that M.Z. had been arrested for kidnapping them, and he refused to let M.Z. see the children for three weeks.

[106] The steps taken by R.A., S.D., and R.A.’s parents to minimize M.Z.’s involvement in the children’s lives, to marginalize her to the realms of a nuisance in their lives, and to demonize her for her earlier inability to care for or spend time with the children, has borne fruit. When in M.Z.’s care, the children act out and become unruly to such an extent that it is a clear statement of M.Z. and R.Z.’s commitment to them that they carry on with the children in their home. The children’s behaviour toward their mother and R.Z. was particularly aggressive after the court order moving their primary residence to their mother’s, after R.A. stopped his access visits with the children at the Society’s offices, and after R.A. gave the children documents and sent them Facebook messages regarding their rights and their duty to object to living with their mother. At these times, the children would lash out on almost a daily basis. When they are left alone to be children, their behaviour can calm down, and there can be happy moments with M.Z. and R.Z., filled with fun.

[107] N.R.A. is frequently angry, disrespectful, and abusive towards M.Z., R.Z., and N.M.A. He yells and swears at them, he refuses to listen to M.Z., he makes false threats against R.Z. if he intervenes, and he says very hurtful things to both M.Z. and N.M.A. He is a child in great distress who is acting out his emotions in dramatic ways. One example is when, on October 11, 2013, he became enraged after surreptitiously listening in on a conversation between M.Z. and Ms. Sterritt. He berated M.Z. in dramatic fashion and locked M.Z. and Ms. Sterritt out of the house when they had stepped outside to communicate privately.

[108] N.M.A. has tantrums and melt-downs when in M.Z.’s home, and is often angry and abusive towards M.Z. and E.Z. N.M.A. has called E.Z., who is only two years old, a “stupid bitch”.

Conclusion Regarding the Children Being in Need of Protection

[109] There is overwhelming evidence that N.R.A. and N.M.A. have suffered emotional harm arising out of the circumstances of their young lives, and that they continue to be at risk of further emotional harm.

[110] The children have been exposed to the long-standing conflict between their parents, and the persistent denigration of their mother by their father, S.D., and their paternal grandparents. The children have not been given permission to love and value their mother, and their life with her and R.Z.

[111] The children have been told repeatedly by their father that their mother cannot properly care for them, that R.Z. is a threat to them, that the Society does not have their best interests at heart, that N.R.A. does not need counselling, and that the OCL is not acting in their best interests. All of these tactics have the underlying goal of isolating the children from all other potential supports in their lives and of reinforcing the strict control R.A. tries to maintain over them.

[112] Along the same lines, the children have been harmed emotionally by being brought into the litigation between their parents, and between their parents and the Society. The clearest example of this is their father pressuring them to pursue their rights by contacting a government agency so that the litigation can be brought to a quick end.

[113] The children have been placed under enormous emotional strain by being exposed to R.A.’s violence against M.Z. and S.D. and to his ongoing drug trafficking. Exposure to violence has a myriad of negative psychological consequences for children, including depression, anger, anxiety, and hyper-vigilance. Both domestic violence and drug trafficking have led to R.A.’s arrest and incarceration on a number of occasions. The children have witnessed these activities, and know that there is a constant and ongoing risk that their father may be arrested at any time. This, in and of itself, adds a heavy layer of uncertainty to their lives. They are under further pressure due to their father’s instructions that they not speak to child protection workers about these matters.

[114] When the children were in the care of R.A., the school authorities received minimal support from R.A. in dealing with the significant behavioural issues being displayed by N.R.A. and, consequently, progress was slow in getting N.R.A. better integrated at school. Emotional harm will be the result of any delay in dealing with N.R.A.’s challenging behaviours and marginalization at school.

[115] The ultimate affront to the children’s emotional health was their father’s unilateral discontinuation of his access visits in September 2013. This was a clear indication that R.A. could not differentiate his own need to be in control from the needs of his children to see him and not feel abandoned by him. He realizes all too well that the children experienced the loss of their mother during the early years following their parents’ separation as a form of abandonment.

[116] In addition to the risk of emotional harm, there is also a risk that the children’s physical safety is not being protected. There have been occasions when R.A. has applied physical discipline to N.R.A. Most significantly, R.A. exposes the children to an arsenal of weapons – most of which he keeps in easy reach in his apartment. Not only does he let the children use them, he encourages them to do so and showers attention on them when they are handling the weapons. Some of the weapons are prohibited weapons under the Criminal Code. R.A. glibly assumes that the presence of these weapons within easy reach of the children could not possibly pose any safety concerns because he has trained the children regarding their proper use and storage. He leaves no margin for error or poor judgment, despite the children’s young age. He assumes that his children will always be able to differentiate between real and imitation weapons. He ignores the reality that there could be occasions when other children might be present.

Different Plans of Care for the Children

[117] Having made a finding that the children are in need of protection and a court order is required, I must now consider the plans of care that have been advanced and determine which is in the children’s best interests (s. 57 of the Act).

Father’s Plan of Care for the Children

[118] R.A. is seeking an order returning the children to his care and custody pursuant to the final custody order of Sheffield J. dated November 2008. He sees no need for a protection order as, in his view, the children are not in need of protection. In the alternative, if I understand his written submissions correctly, he seeks an order placing the children in his care and custody subject to a supervision order. As a further alternative, he seeks an order placing the children in the care of their paternal grandparents, subject to a supervision order. This final alternative is not one that the court can consider in that the paternal grandparents, S.R. and R.R., did not file an independent plan of care for the children.

Society’s/Mother’s Plan of Care for the Children

[119] The Society and M.Z. are seeking an order placing the children in the joint custody of M.Z. and R.Z. under s. 57.1 of the Act. The Society has no protection concerns in regard to the care that the children are receiving in their mother’s home. The Society, M.Z., and R.Z. are confident that they can work together on a voluntary basis if M.Z. and R.Z. require assistance in raising the children. The Society seeks an order that R.A. have no access to the children and that the children have access to their step-siblings, M.A. and M2.A., and their paternal grandparents approximately once a month. M.Z. and R.Z. are in agreement with this request.

Position Taken on Behalf of the Children by the OCL

[120] The position taken on behalf of the children by the OCL is the following: (1) the children are in need of protection having suffered emotional harm and being at risk of physical and emotional harm if returned to the care of R.A.; (2) the children will be put at further risk if R.A. had direct or indirect contact with them without a commitment on his part to change his conduct; (3) the children should have continued access with their paternal grandparents with access initially being supervised and with a transition to unsupervised access; and (4) there should be an ongoing order restraining R.A. from any communication, direct or indirect, with N.R.A. and N.M.A. until he has satisfactorily demonstrated his ability to act in the children’s best interests.

[121] The children’s stated views and preferences are to have unsupervised access to their father every second weekend with an equal sharing of holidays.

[122] The position put forward by the OCL on behalf of the children is the following:

• The children would reside with M.Z. and R.Z;

• M.Z. would attend counselling;

• M.Z. would receive support through a recognized professional to address the children’s aggressive and defiant behaviour towards her;

• R.A. would attend counselling to address his alienating behaviour and to address his antisocial behaviour;

• R.A. would provide random drug screens to the Society as a prerequisite to access;

• R.A. would successfully complete an anger management program offered by New Directions;

• R.A. would successfully complete a parenting program as approved by the Society;

• R.A. would acknowledge responsibility and insight into the children’s current level of dysfunction;

• Once the above conditions had been met, R.A. would have access to the children twice weekly, to be supervised by an approved third party;

• R.A. would not expose the children to weapons of any kind;

• R.A. would not expose the children to criminal behaviour of any kind; and

• R.A. and members of R.A.’s family would be restrained from communicating either directly or indirectly with the children, other than in the context of supervised access.

Family Relationships

[123] Before providing an analysis of what would be in the children’s best interests, I will briefly summarize my observations of the relationships between the adults involved in the children’s lives.

R.A. and S.D.

[124] The relationship between R.A. and S.D. has been rife with conflict. I do not have any faith that, in the future, the relationship will be less conflictual. Dr. McLean had recommended that R.A. receive individual counselling, including anger management counselling, and then couples counselling with S.D. before the two would resume cohabitation. R.A. has ignored this advice. Despite this, according to R.A. and S.D., they are engaged – R.A. says since 2010 and S.D. says since approximately 2007. I find that the parties have not been “engaged” in the true sense of the word during this period of time. They have had an on-again, off-again relationship since 2009 and have maintained separate residences since then. There is no fixed date for the wedding. Although R.A. has been a frequent guest in S.D.’s home when the couple have been on good terms, S.D. did not give him his own key to her home until December 2013.

[125] It is telling that, following the separation of R.A. and S.D. in August 2009, R.A. did not see M.A. and M2.A. until December 2009. According to S.D., M.A. appeared to miss N.R.A. and N.M.A. more than R.A. Since August 2009, R.A. has not had M.A. and M2.A. on his own overnight.

[126] Although I had hoped that S.D. could be part of the solution in enabling N.R.A. and N.M.A. to benefit from a relationship with both parents, her testimony persuaded me that she is very much part of the problem. While S.D. was testifying, her anger toward and distain for M.Z. was palpable. She took every opportunity to make a sarcastic and negative comment about M.Z. At the same time, she consistently minimized the problems presented by R.A. She denied that he had an anger management problem, despite her being on the receiving end of his inappropriate displays of anger on a number of occasions. She denied that he abused alcohol or drugs, despite clear evidence to the contrary of which she is well aware. She minimized the significance of his exposing the children to the glorification of weapons and violence, despite her having been critical of this in the past, when she and R.A. were not on good terms. In reviewing photographs taken of the four children handling weapons, she minimized the capacity of the weapons to do damage and, instead, focused on peripheral points, such as the gun being a replica (though one that shot pellets) and the children wearing goggles. She tried to create uncertainty as to whether the handgun and ammunition found in the home she and R.A. occupied was his handgun, despite her having invited the police into the home to search for just such a weapon. She also tried to create uncertainty as to whether the marijuana found in a bag in her home belonged to R.A., even though she had told the police on the night the bag was found that it was not hers, and there was no other reasonable explanation as to whose marijuana it was. S.D. testified with confidence that she had every right to tell M.Z. that she would not be having the children with her for the first ten days of July in ANY year, because of family birthdays in S.D.’s family – regardless of the wording of any court order.

[127] There is no question that N.R.A. and N.M.A. have had many happy times with R.A., S.D., M.A., and M2.A., when R.A. and S.D. were getting along. The blended family does fun things together, such as making snowmen, tending the family garden, attending baseball games, going to museums, and watching movies. R.A. and S.D. claim that N.R.A. and N.M.A. present no behavioural or disciplinary problems when they are in their care – a much different picture than is presented by M.Z. and R.Z. and, in N.R.A.’s case, in the past, by the school. It is hard to tell, however, the extent to which N.R.A. and N.M.A. are well-behaved in the home because they are settled and secure, and the extent to which their compliance reflects an underlying fear of their father or, at least, a realization that their father is not someone to cross.

[128] Despite S.D.’s ostensible support to R.A. while providing her evidence at trial, the instability in the relationship between R.A. and S.D. speaks to the difficulties she has experienced with R.A. in the past – difficulties that have not been resolved. Even as the trial progressed, it was clear that she was learning about things related to R.A. of which she did not approve – such as his driving her vehicle and his driving her children when his driver’s licence had been suspended.

M.Z. and R.Z.

[129] M.Z. and R.Z. have a happy, stable relationship that has lasted without incident since 2009. There is minimal conflict in the relationship, and M.Z. and R.Z. are mutually supportive and respectful. Both present as warm, caring, unassuming individuals who do not ask much from others, aside from normal courtesy and consideration. It has not been easy for M.Z. and R.Z. to remain calm and above the fray while N.R.A. and N.M.A. display abusive, out-of-control behaviour toward M.Z., R.Z., E.Z., and each other. Nevertheless, M.Z. and R.Z. have done their best to work with the children so that they will be less angry and aggressive and better able to meet normal expectations, both at home and at school. M.Z. and R.Z. have set up a reward system for both children if they listen to their parents and help around the house. Clearly, this is a work in progress – the children’s behaviour is frequently inappropriate and out-of-control; however, some progress is being made and, considering the children’s lives to date, one cannot expect change overnight.

[130] M.Z. and R.Z. have accepted the help offered by the Society, the school, and the children’s counsellors, and they are prepared to continue working in a collaborative fashion with outside professionals. Therefore, whereas S.D. is angry and argumentative in regard to the Society and to the court’s involvement in the lives of herself, R.A., and the children, R.Z. is open to such involvement and willing to work with the Society in order to improve the children’s lives. He appears to be part of the solution – not part of the problem.

[131] M.Z.’s main challenge is to be authoritative with the children. She does not have strong self-esteem. She never experienced good modelling from her own parents. She can easily be drawn into conflict with the children when they are acting out, and can become defensive, engage in verbal battles, and raise her voice. She struggles with consistency when managing the children. All this being said, Kelby Shaw, a child and youth counsellor who worked with M.Z. during September 2013, felt that M.Z. understood what she should be trying to do and was making progress in this regard. He did not see the need to work further with M.Z. after two sessions.

R.R. and S.R.

[132] R.R. and S.R. have worked very hard to make a life for themselves and their children in Canada. To a great extent, they have succeeded – being successful business people, and having two of their children succeed academically, something that is very important to them. R.A. has been a disappointment to them, not because he lacks intelligence and potential, but because he has not, for whatever reason, applied himself academically and pursued legitimate means to get ahead in life. R.R.’s way of handling his distress about R.A.’s choices is to be critical of his son. Their relationship has been conflictual. S.R.’s way of handling R.A.’s choices is to bail him out of any and all situations. She pretends not to be fully aware of the seriousness of his transgressions, and she seeks to minimize his personal responsibility for what has happened in his life. It would appear that R.A. can do no wrong in her eyes, despite all of the evidence to the contrary.

[133] R.R. and S.R. have provided work to R.A. following his release from prison, and he has never worked for any employer other than them. According to R.R. and S.R., despite R.A. not having a fixed schedule at work, and despite his presence not being required for the operation of the business, he still receives a fixed salary. S.R. has arranged for every apartment where R.A. has lived (except, possibly, his current one), and R.R. and S.R. purchased the two homes where R.A. has lived with M.Z. and then S.D.

[134] Until recently, R.R. and S.R. have been the adults who have provided the greatest security in the young lives of N.R.A. and N.M.A. S.R., in particular, made herself available to care for the children when R.A. was incarcerated or otherwise unable to care for them, and when M.Z. was psychologically and practically not able to care for them. S.R. and R.R. claim that they are still willing and able to provide the children’s primary home. The grandparents have not put forward a plan of care for N.R.A. and N.M.A. and, therefore, I cannot consider their offer a viable option. Nevertheless, it is important to consider what role they can play in the children’s lives.

[135] There is no doubt that S.R. and R.R. love their grandchildren and want what is best for them, and that N.R.A. and N.M.A. love their grandparents and feel comfortable in their home. These relationships are important to N.R.A. and N.M.A. The real question is how the grandparent/grandchild bond can be supported without undermining the children’s relationship with their mother. When testifying, both S.R. and R.R. were highly critical of M.Z. and did not seem to appreciate that N.R.A. and N.M.A. have a strong bond with their mother and benefit from having her love and support. S.R. and R.R. showed no insight into how harmful R.A.’s decisions have been in terms of the best interests of their grandchildren. They minimized concerns about his ongoing criminal behaviour, his abusive relationships, his preoccupation with weapons, and his inability to separate the children’s needs from his own. Despite proclaiming their love and devotion to the children, they put their own pride ahead of the children’s needs by refusing to see the children in a supervised setting – despite the children’s obvious desire to see them. When N.R.A. surreptitiously visited their home after school on a couple of occasions, initially, they did not reveal this to M.Z., R.Z., the Society, or the court. It was only late during the cross-examination of S.R. that this information was revealed. All of this creates doubt as to whether S.R. and R.R. will be able to work constructively with the Society and in the best interests of the children.

Dr. McLean’s Evidence

[136] In the Family Court Clinic Assessment Report issued March 4, 2013, Dr. McLean summarized his concerns regarding R.A. as follows:

[R.A.’s] repeated allegations or charges in regards to violence and drug-related matters all raise concerns about an antisocial lifestyle. Psychological testings confirmed that [R.A.] has his own strong sense of right versus wrong and will act according to these views. … I explained to [R.A.] that the repeated allegations of drug dealing and abuse, including charges and the recent drug conviction, all identified his involvement with drugs as being a concern directly relevant to his parenting assessment. [R.A.] refused the request [to provide a urine drug screen], attributing this to “his privacy”. I also requested that [R.A.] provide us with a CPIC, outlining his past legal difficulties. This was still unavailable at the time this report was released but should surely be provided to the court and CAS. I would suggest there are antisocial traits in [R.A.’s] personality which have caused not only his repeated legal difficulties, but also the ongoing problems in his relationships. As far as [R.A.]’s parenting, the concerns would be the children witnessing father’s domestic violence but also an antisocial lifestyle which might include drug dealing, possession of firearms, and repeated incarcerations. We would also have concerns regarding [R.A.’s] ability to support the children’s relationship with M.Z.

[137] In regard to M.Z., Dr. McLean expressed concerns about her tragic childhood, the abuse she had suffered both as a child and as a young adult, her low self-esteem, and the impact that all of this has had on her ability to make good decisions and to be an effective parent. He strongly recommended that she pursue individual counselling to deal with this reality. That being said, Dr. McLean noted that M.Z. is now in a safe and non-abusive relationship with a very supportive spouse. He saw the main challenge for M.Z. and R.Z. as parents as being to set firm limits with the children.

[138] In his March 4, 2013 report, Dr. McLean recommended that N.R.A. and N.M.A. remain in the care of R.A., pursuant to a supervision order which would include the following: (1) R.A. would provide full disclosure to the Society, including a Canadian Police Information Centre (“CPIC”) printout and random drug screens; (2) R.A. would complete a recognized anger management program such as New Directions; (3) R.A. and S.D. would undergo couples counselling before renewing cohabitation; (4) R.A. would support M.Z.’s involvement in the children’s lives; (5) M.Z.’s access would be increased gradually to extended long weekends and equal sharing of holidays; (6) N.R.A. and N.M.A. would continue to be seen for individual counselling; and (7) R.A. would provide a more stable and predictable home situation, without so many moves to other people’s homes, such as their grandparents and S.D.’s. Of note is that, between March and July 2013, R.A. did not follow through with any of these recommendations.

[139] Dr. McLean acknowledged that one reason why he had recommended in his March 2013 report that the children stay in the care of R.A. with increased access to M.Z. was that the children were living with R.A. at the time, and he did not want their lives to be disrupted further by a change in their primary residence. That being said, he did anticipate that the children would continue to be at risk of harm in the care of their father if R.A. was not supervised by the Society and did not follow its recommendations. He had serious concerns about R.A.’s willingness to support M.Z.’s parental role in the children’s lives, and he realized this was one area where change had to occur.

[140] Dr. McLean was clear in his report, and when testifying, that he did not see the children at risk for any abuse or neglect in the care of M.Z. and R.Z., although he emphasized the importance of their placing more limits on the children and more structure around bedtimes and pastimes such as video games.

[141] Dr. McLean recommended that, if the court ordered that N.R.A. and N.M.A. were to remain in the primary care of M.Z. and R.Z., the following steps should be taken to assist the children in extricating themselves from the parental conflict and settling in to just be children: (1) A safety plan needs to be put into place to handle the situation if the children’s anti-social behaviour escalates; (2) Both of the children require counselling, though this should be pursued once the children’s situation has stabilized and their behaviour is better controlled; (3) The children, M.Z., and R.Z. should enter a contract setting out the parents’ reasonable expectations and the reasonable outcomes if those expectations are not met; (4) Any contact that the children would have with R.A., S.D., R.R., or S.R. must not undermine the likelihood that the children’s placement with M.Z. and R.Z. would be successful.

[142] Dr. McLean was concerned that there has already been emotional scarring of N.R.A. and N.M.A. as a result of their exposure to adult conflict during their young lives. He considered this something they likely would carry for the rest of their lives. He considered it paramount that steps be taken to relieve the children of their exposure to this conflict.

Best Interests of the Children

[143] The concept of “best interests” is defined in s. 37(3) of the Act, and includes many factors.

Child’s physical and mental needs and level of development and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs

Physical needs

[144] I am satisfied that M.Z. and R.Z., on the one hand, and R.A. and S.D., on the other hand, are able to meet the basic physical needs of the children, such as providing them with shelter, food, and clothing. Although the children’s lunches were not ideal when living with their father, the children coped, and they enjoyed the food that they ate at his home and at the home of their paternal grandparents.

[145] In terms of the children’s need for exercise, they may have engaged in more activities when they were living with their father, though the evidence is vague in that regard. Once this litigation has been completed, if the children are left in the custody of their mother, she and R.Z. plan to enrol the children in more formal programming and, more particularly, in programs which they request. The children would benefit from such programs – both to keep them stimulated and to assist them in becoming more integrated with peers.

Medical needs

[146] Both sets of parents have proven themselves competent in caring for the children’s basic medical needs. The only issue in this regard which arose during the trial was that relating to N.M.A.’s eczema.

[147] N.M.A.’s eczema, which normally is under control, flares up occasionally. S.D. and R.A. accused M.Z. of not properly caring for N.M.A.’s eczema during a summer 2013 flare-up. M.Z. did apply cream to the affected areas. She also took N.M.A. to her family doctor, who prescribed a medication that was less harsh than the one R.A. used. Eventually, the skin improved, but not before S.D. had raised the eczema as a major issue during access visits and had taken pictures to show to R.A.’s family doctor. Although M.Z. may not have gotten on top of N.M.A.’s eczema flare-up as quickly as would have been ideal, I am satisfied that she and R.Z. are competent to manage the children’s health issues, and have the children’s best interests as their goal in doing so. It was not helpful for S.D. and R.A. to make a big issue out of the eczema flare-up and M.Z.’s response to it. This behaviour put undue attention on N.M.A.’s appearance, and it served to undermine M.Z.’s efforts as the custodial parent.

Educational needs

[148] The children’s academic and behavioural challenges at school were described earlier. In regard to academics, currently N.M.A. requires particular support as a result of a language-based learning disability. As well, she needs additional support to assist her in relating to her peers. N.R.A. requires assistance in regard to his behavioural issues, his focus, and aspects of his written work.

[149] Historically, R.A. has not shown much interest in working with the children’s teachers and with the school administration to ensure that the children’s special needs are being met. There are many examples.

[150] N.R.A. started to stutter when he was approximately three years of age and had significant language difficulties when he entered school. R.A. downplayed the significance of this and did not, initially, see the need for any special assistance for N.R.A.

[151] The evidence of both the Vice-Principal and the children’s grade five teacher was that R.A. took minimal interest in his children’s education. The teacher met R.A. on two occasions: on meet-the-teacher night and for parent-teacher interviews. She found that R.A. exuded so much anger toward M.Z., another female, that the teacher was uncomfortable being on her own with him. R.A. never contacted the teacher to initiate any meetings or conversations about the children and did not appear to follow-up in regard to any issues relating to the children.

[152] R.A. refused to provide any information to the school concerning M.Z. At the beginning of each year when a sheet went home asking for information regarding parents’ contact information, allergies, doctors, etc., R.A. completed the forms without mentioning M.Z. or R.Z. Instead, he referred to his parents and S.D., in addition to himself. Consequently, the children’s teachers had no way of contacting M.Z. and of seeking her assistance in regard to the children’s educational and behavioural challenges. A further result of R.A. refusing to include M.Z. on the school forms was that the school refused to provide any information to M.Z. concerning the children until 2012, when her lawyer finally got involved, provided the school with a copy of the order of Sheffield J. dated November 2008, and insisted that M.Z. receive information directly from the school.

[153] At the same time, R.A. refused to provide M.Z. with any information concerning the children’s progress at school. He did not provide her with copies of their report cards, he did not advise her of special events at the school, and he did not provide her with information concerning homework that they were expected to do on the weekends when the children were in her care.

[154] The teacher’s evidence was that, during conversations with R.A. about N.R.A. and N.M.A. not doing their homework, R.A. refused to assume any responsibility. R.A. continued with this approach while testifying. I find that, when the children were in R.A.’s care, R.A. did not adequately supervise them and ensure that they were doing their homework. Instead, he chose to blame M.Z., with whom the children were only spending alternate weekends. The children’s grade five teacher had a system in place whereby an agenda went home with a child each night indicating homework assignments. If a child did not take home his or her agenda, the teacher recommended a system of positive reinforcements to ensure cooperation. As well, the teacher was in regular contact with parents via email. With these systems in place, there was no reason why R.A. could not have been more helpful in ensuring that the children did their homework.

[155] As well, the evidence of the teacher and the Vice-Principal was to the effect that R.A. did very little to address N.R.A.’s significant behavioural problems, aside from picking N.R.A. up from school on occasion when his behaviour was so unruly that he could not remain in the classroom. R.A.’s response to N.R.A.’s outbursts was to blame them on N.R.A.’s ongoing contact with M.Z.

[156] The school has noticed an improvement with both children this year, since they have been living with M.Z. and R.Z. N.R.A. goes to school happy and is involved in fewer confrontations at school. N.R.A.’s progress report card in November 2013 showed a marked improvement over earlier years. In terms of learning skills and work habits, he received satisfactory or good grades for everything. Of significance, his “assuming responsibility” and “self-regulation skills” were considered good. He did particularly well in regard to three focused learning areas over the fall of 2013. In her November 2013 progress report, N.M.A. received the grade of “good” in regard to all of her learning skills and work habits. There were no complaints regarding the children not completing homework assignments. The children’s report cards were consistent with what M.Z. and R.Z. have been told by the children’s teachers and the Vice-Principal; namely, that the children are performing better at school and are displaying less anger and anxiety.

[157] The children’s report cards likely reflect the fact that M.Z. and R.Z. have become involved with the children’s school and are trying to work with the children’s teachers and the office staff in dealing with the children’s academic and behavioural challenges. M.Z. is in regular communication with the children’s teachers via email, has met with them, and has spoken to the children’s school guidance counsellor. According to N.R.A.’s teacher, his behaviour in class is gradually improving. N.M.A.’s teacher provides N.M.A. with a special program for English and mathematics. M.Z. is working with N.M.A.’s teacher in that regard and, in the evenings, R.Z. provides assistance to N.M.A. in mathematics. M.Z. and R.Z. have established a routine for the children whereby, after school, the children are required to complete their homework before moving on to other activities. The strategies being used by M.Z. and R.Z. seem to be helping the children’s performance at school.

[158] Since the children came to live with them, M.Z. and R.Z. have worked very hard to keep the children in the same school to provide them with some continuity during this period of change. Initially, R.Z. drove the children across town to school and picked them up at the end of the day. Subsequently, it was agreed that the children could go to the home of their paternal grandparents after school and wait for R.Z. to pick them up. Due to concerns about not only R.A., but also his parents, alienating the children from M.Z. and R.Z., volunteer Society drivers now handle the transportation for the children to get them to and from school.

[159] I am satisfied that the education needs of N.R.A. and N.M.A. are being better met in the care of M.Z. and R.Z. than they were being met when in the care of R.A.

Extra-curricular needs

[160] The evidence persuades me that both N.R.A. and N.M.A. like to be active and engaged in activities. While living with their father, they enjoyed playing on a baseball team and taking martial arts classes. They also enjoyed trips to museums, outdoor activities, and learning new skills, such as those associated with camping and with pastimes such as chess. Clearly, they enjoyed the physical and intellectual stimulation provided by R.A.

[161] Since the children have been residing with M.Z., they have not been enrolled in formal extra-curricular activities. Working with the Society, preparing for this trial, taking the children to a counsellor once a month, and paying all of the bills associated with all of this has resulted in M.Z. and R.Z. having limited time and resources to enrol the children in other programs. M.Z. and R.Z. are prepared to continue taking the children to counselling once a month and to enrol them in some programs at Nepean Sportsplex once this litigation is completed. N.R.A. has expressed an interest in violin lessons. N.M.A. has expressed an interest in dance.

[162] I am confident that M.Z. and R.Z. can provide appropriate programming to keep the children stimulated, though I am also confident that the children would miss the activities that they have enjoyed in the past with their father, if they did not have contact with their father.

Children’s emotional needs

Permission to love both parents

[163] Dr. McLean observed that N.R.A. and N.M.A. share an attachment with both parents, and their interests would be served by their maintaining a relationship with both, if they are not pulled into their parents’ acrimony. Both children have been guarded in expressing any preference as to where they might wish to live, although both have been clear that they want to see both of their parents. When N.M.A. was living with R.A., she expressed sadness that she did not get to see more of her mother and baby sister.

[164] N.R.A. and N.M.A. need to feel that they have permission to love, respect, and trust both parents. While living with their father, they have not had this need met. R.A., his parents, and S.D. have systematically tried to undermine M.Z.’s role in the children’s lives. They criticize her, try to marginalize her, encourage the children not to trust her or R.Z., and model disrespectful behaviour toward her.

[165] In Fielding v. Fielding, 2013 ONSC 5102, [2013] W.D.F.L. 4496, MacKinnon J. referred to the research done by Dr. Amy Baker, an expert in the field of parental alienation syndrome, and listed seventeen alienating strategies as a useful checklist of parental misconduct which may impair a child’s relationship with the other parent. Those strategies were:

• Badmouthing;

• Limiting contact;

• Interfering with communication;

• Limiting mention and photographs of the targeted parent;

• Withdrawal of love/expressions of anger;

• Telling the child that the targeted parent does not love him or her;

• Forcing the child to choose;

• Creating the impression that the targeted parent is dangerous;

• Confiding in the child personal adult and litigation information;

• Forcing the child to reject the targeted parent;

• Asking the child to spy on the targeted parent;

• Asking the child to keep secrets from the targeted parent;

• Referring to the targeted parent by their first name;

• Referring to a step-parent as mom or dad and encouraging the child to do the same;

• Withholding medical, social, academic information from the targeted parent and keeping his/her name off the records;

• Cultivating dependency on self/undermining authority of the targeted parent; and

• Changing the child’s name to remove association with the targeted parent.

[166] Aside from the last factor, R.A. has displayed all of these forms of parental misconduct, and his parents and S.D. have displayed many as well. The problem is that none of them has any insight into the emotional harm that they are causing N.R.A. and N.M.A. through their behaviour.

[167] While testifying at trial, S.D. used very derogatory language when referring to M.Z., and the tone of her testimony was venomous. This was consistent with the sarcastic and demeaning tone of various text messages S.D. sent M.Z. regarding access pick-ups and drop-offs. It was clear that S.D. felt that she and R.A. were in control and were entitled to be in control, and that their decisions regarding the children’s timetables took precedence over what was clearly expressed in court orders or what may have worked for M.Z.

Need to not be exposed to violence, conflict, and criminal behaviour

[168] As has been chronicled, R.A. has exposed N.R.A. and N.M.A. to violence as a result of his assaults on M.Z. and S.D., and also as a result of his occasional use of violence to discipline the children. He has also exposed the children to conflict through his treatment of M.Z. in the past, through the constant fighting between himself and S.D., through the battles he wages with Society workers, and generally through the overall anti-social attitude he expresses. He has also exposed the children to criminal behaviour as a result of his use of and trafficking in drugs, and his handling of firearms and other weapons.

[169] As Dr. McLean stated, if a parent has been involved in anti-social and violent behaviour, which R.A. has been since he was an adolescent, it is best for that parent to say to his children that he is saying good-bye to that lifestyle, and to make a point of not exposing the children to anti-social behaviour or any form of violence. What that child needs is the promotion of non-violence, not exposure to more violence. Unfortunately, R.A. does not understand that this is what his children need. It is worthy of note that, when M.A. was acting up during an observation session associated with the family unit assessment, R.A.’s method of distracting M.A. was to play aggressively with him with foam swords, all the while praising M.A. for successful hits.

[170] N.R.A. and N.M.A. are not exposed to violence, ongoing conflict, or criminal behaviour when they are in the care of M.Z. and R.Z.

Child’s cultural background

[171] R.A. is of Guyanese heritage. Traditionally, R.R. and S.R. have taken the children to the local Guyanese Festival. R.R. and S.R. asked M.Z. if the children could go to the Guyanese Festival during the summer of 2013. M.Z. agreed and made a family event of it along with R.R. and S.R. M.Z. is willing to support the children’s continued participation in Guyanese events.

Importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family

[172] R.A. has not been supportive of the children spending time with M.Z. Going forward, it is hard to contemplate how the children can have a positive relationship with their mother, R.Z., and E.Z. if N.R.A. and N.M.A. are living with their father or have unsupervised access to him. He has made it clear to M.Z., R.Z., and the children that he does not respect M.Z., that he does not consider her capable of parenting the children, and that he does not see any value to the children having her in their lives. He feels free to use demeaning and derogatory words when referring to her in oral and written communications, and will speak in this fashion in front of the children.

[173] Unfortunately, the children receive the same message from their paternal grandparents. They emphasize to the children that M.Z. was not there for them after she and R.A. separated, and that it was the grandparents who stepped in to care for the children. S.R., in particular, assigns no blame to her son, R.A., for the failed relationship between R.A. and M.Z., nor for the involvement of the Society in the children’s lives. S.R. ignores the fact that R.A. has been involved in a life of crime since he was a young teenager. She minimizes the fact that he has never assumed responsibility for his criminal behaviour – whether it be the robberies he committed as a youth, his abuse of M.Z. and S.D., his drug trafficking activities, or his illegal possession of weapons. S.R. and R.R. show no appreciation of how difficult it was for M.Z. to live with a physically and emotionally abusive partner, and of how hard it is for a person to recover from that kind of treatment. In the eyes of S.R., R.A. can do no wrong, and M.Z. is to blame for the litigation that the family is now caught up in. She has told M.Z. directly that she will never allow M.Z. to have custody of her grandchildren. In these circumstances, it is hard to see how a positive relationship between the children and M.Z. will be supported if S.R. and R.R. have unsupervised access to the children.

[174] The same comments can be made regarding S.D. While testifying, she took every opportunity to vilify and belittle M.Z. and to claim that she was the rightful mother to N.R.A. and N.M.A. At the same time, she downplayed the negative role R.A. has played in the lives of the children through his violence, criminal activity, alcohol and drug use, anti-social behaviour, and preoccupation with weapons. As well, she showed no insight into the negative effects that R.A.’s behaviour has had, not only on N.R.A. and N.M.A., but also on M.A. and M2.A. She displayed a level of anger and animosity that would be toxic for the children’s emotional well-being.

Child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community

[175] Although both children, on occasion, continue to be rude, disrespectful, and critical in their dealings with M.Z., there are signs that they love their mother and value her presence in their lives. Both children like M.Z. to cuddle in bed with them at night, before they go to sleep. N.M.A. has expressed to the OCL that she likes spending time with her mother, and she was happy when the July 12, 2013 order of Sheffield J. left her in her mother’s care for a longer period of time. N.M.A. enjoys going to karaoke night with M.Z. and her friends and joining in the singing.

[176] It has been slow-going getting N.R.A. and N.M.A. to consistently interact with R.Z. in a respectful manner, though R.Z.’s relationship with both children is improving. When the children are being rude or abusive with M.Z., R.Z. steps in, but he is met with hostility from N.R.A., who tells him to mind his own business. N.R.A. has even called R.Z. a pedophile.

[177] Despite the unstable life the children have had with R.A., and the reality that he has consistently put his needs and pastimes ahead of their needs, the children are attached to R.A. and could benefit from his ongoing involvement in their lives, if he were capable of changing his ways. There is no indication, at this time, that he has any intention of doing that.

[178] The children are also attached to S.D. and could benefit, as well, from her energy and affection if she were able to share them in a positive way with M.Z. and R.Z., and if she were able to distance herself from R.A.’s destructive behaviour. Again, there is no indication, at this time, that she is capable of doing that.

[179] I do accept the evidence of R.A. and S.D. that N.R.A. and N.M.A. have a loving relationship with their half-siblings, M.A. and M2.A. It is important to support the relationships amongst all of these children, as long as that can happen without any pressure being placed on N.R.A. and N.M.A. to withdraw from M.Z. and R.Z.

Importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity

[180] To date, N.R.A. and N.M.A. have not had a secure and stable childhood. When living with R.A. and M.Z., there were times when they had to be cared for by S.R. and R.R. because of R.A.’s criminal behaviour and M.Z.’s inability to cope with her circumstances and the care of the two children. After R.A. and M.Z. separated, the children lived primarily with their paternal grandparents for a few years, then mostly with R.A. and S.D., then with R.A. during the week and with their grandparents or M.Z. on the weekend, then at three residences (R.A.’s, M.Z.’s, and S.D.’s). Since July 2013, the children have been living full-time with M.Z. and R.Z. It is very important for their well-being that they are provided with a stable, secure, and permanent home. They appear to have that now.

[181] Returning the children to the care of R.A. would be returning the children to a life of instability. He has not renounced his anti-social ways and, therefore, it is possible that the future could hold additional periods of incarceration. Despite the claim of R.A. and S.D. that they are engaged and are planning to marry, they have been engaged for many years, and no wedding plans are in sight. In any event, whether or not married, their relationship has been marred with ongoing conflict and a pattern of being unable to live together.

[182] S.R. and R.R., although loving grandparents and capable caregivers for the children, have not put themselves forward to be the children’s full-time caregivers. In any event, considering their age, R.R.’s health problems, and their pattern of spending significant amounts of time in Florida in the winters, they are not in a position to play anything other than a supportive role in the children’s lives. That being said, the children have a strong attachment to S.R. and R.R., and it is important for them to be able to continue that relationship which, aside from the concerns already discussed regarding blind support for R.A. and alienating the children from M.Z., is a positive connection in their lives.

Child’s views and wishes

[183] It is difficult to ascertain the true views and wishes of children when they are caught in a situation where one parent is working so hard to alienate the children from the other parent. That being said, I am satisfied that, although the children want continuing contact with their father, they are content to continue to reside with their mother and R.Z.

Effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case/Merits of the Society’s plan

[184] The Society has been involved in the lives of N.R.A. and N.M.A. since 2001 through a revolving door of investigations, closed files, ongoing supervision, rotating child protection workers, and countless court appearances. Following the trial, the Society asked that a custody order be granted to M.Z. and R.Z., instead of a supervision order, so that formal Society involvement can be brought to an end, and the cloud of having further child protection proceedings six months down the road can be eliminated.

[185] There is real merit in taking this approach and leaving any support the Society can provide M.Z. and R.Z. to a voluntary agreement between them. M.Z. and R.Z. have indicated their openness in receiving any available support from the Society. My concerns in doing so are twofold.

[186] First, in my view, M.Z. needs to receive ongoing counselling to assist her in dealing with the very difficult upbringing she had - one marred by physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. This in turn led to an unstable life as a young adult, when she was subjected to further abuse and denigration at the hands of R.A. M.Z. then went through the turmoil of the last seven years of conflict with R.A. She is now coping with alienated children – and this in the context of her never having witnessed positive and effective parenting. Anyone with these experiences could benefit from professional counselling to deal with anger, grief, loss, and issues of self-esteem. Although M.Z. has had some counselling in the past, it has only been sporadic, and it has not been recent. M.Z. is reluctant to seek professional help for her own emotional needs. Instead, she is content to rely on the support of her husband, R.Z. This is problematic in a number of ways. R.Z. is not trained in any of the helping professions. In any event, he is M.Z.’s husband, not counsellor. He is already providing her and the children with all of the moral and financial support he can. To deal with the physical and psychological traumas that M.Z. has experienced, she needs the help of a trained, independent, professional who, over time, can assist M.Z. in gaining the inner strength that she needs to be a well-functioning adult, partner, and parent. I see this as an important part of any plan to have the children living with M.Z. and R.Z.

[187] Second, M.Z. and R.Z. are trying to cope with children who, due to their own past experiences, can be challenging. As mentioned already, M.Z. does not have any positive parental role models to emulate while trying to raise N.R.A. and N.M.A. She and R.Z. could benefit from parenting courses focused on parenting adolescents. Both are willing to take whatever parenting courses are recommended by the Society. Again, I see this as an important part of any plan to have the children living with M.Z. and R.Z.

[188] If a supervision order were in place, ongoing counselling for M.Z., and pursuing parenting courses for both M.Z. and R.Z., would be conditions in the order.

[189] In sum, I need to balance the benefits that could come from a supervision order with those that could come from terminating the uncertainty that hangs over the children’s lives if there is ongoing court involvement – an uncertainty that would continue to fuel R.A.’s anger and animosity toward the Society.

Risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent

[190] These risks have already been canvassed under other headings.

Degree of risk that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection

[191] The significant emotional risk that justified a finding that the children were and continue to be children in need of protection has already been fully explained.

Problems with the Father’s Plan of Care

[192] There are many reasons why R.A.’s Plan of Care would not be in the children’s best interests.

Father’s frequent clashes with and disrespect for the law

[193] As has already been mentioned, when he was a youth, R.A. had three convictions for robbery and one for being unlawfully at large. He has had numerous charges relating to domestic violence against M.Z.

[194] According to the disclosure made by R.A. in September 2011, at that time, he had twenty outstanding charges against him. He was charged with assault, uttering death threats, mischief/damage to property, and careless storage of ammunition arising out of his behaviour at S.D.’s home in August 2009. In September 2009, he was charged with nine weapons offences, including possession of a loaded firearm, possession of a firearm obtained through crime, possession of a firearm with an altered serial number. In November 2010, he was charged with failure to comply with the conditions of judicial interim release. In February 2011, he was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking, mischief/damage to property, and two counts of failure to comply with the terms of judicial interim release. In August 2011, he was charged with possession of marijuana for the purpose of trafficking and two counts of failure to comply with the terms of judicial interim release.

[195] For much of the time between 2005 and the present time, R.A. has been subject to various recognizances of bail. From the terms of the recognizances that were produced by R.A. and that were in effect from October 9, 2009 to late 2011 or early 2012, it would appear that R.A. was prohibited from possessing any weapons, including but not limited to any knives, firearms, cross-bows, long-bows, prohibited or restricted weapons, prohibited devices, and ammunition. From August 2010 forward, he was also prohibited from consuming alcohol, being in possession of drugs, associating with anyone whom he knew possessed or trafficked drugs, and being in possession of equipment associated with drug trafficking. I find that R.A. breached all of these conditions.

[196] Although subsequent to September 2011, R.A. pled guilty to a number of the charges outstanding against him, he did not produce an up-to-date criminal record clarifying his convictions and the sentence he received for those convictions, nor did he testify with any clarity in regard to these issues. All that he produced was an eight-month probation order dated February 10, 2012 relating to the charges emanating from the February 15, 2011 events at S.D.’s home. By that time, R.A. and S.D. had reconciled. The probation order prohibited R.A. from communicating with S.D. or attending at her home, without her consent, which was revocable at any time.

[197] The recognizance of bail in effect as of August 17, 2011, in regard to the incident near London, Ontario, required R.A. to live at his parents’ home and be subject to a 24-hour curfew unless he was at court, with his lawyer, or with his surety (his mother). The next recognizance produced in regard to these charges was dated March 2, 2012 and required R.A. to live at his apartment and to obey a curfew from 11:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. daily. Both recognizances prohibited R.A. from driving a vehicle. The other conditions referred to above in regard to weapons, alcohol, and drugs were also imposed. Based on the evidence of both R.A. and S.D., I find that, during the period when these recognizances were in place, R.A. was in possession of weapons at his apartment at a time when he was prohibited from possessing them, he drove a vehicle when prohibited from doing so, and he did not abide by the curfews that had been placed on his movements. In fact, from the fall of 2011 forward, R.A., N.R.A., and N.M.A. spent on average three nights a week at S.D.’s home in Stittsville.

[198] In the spring of 2013, R.A. was charged with speeding in another rental vehicle. He did not pay the fine and, as a result, in October 2013, his licence was suspended. Despite the suspension, and contrary to his evidence given at trial, I find that R.A. continued to drive his vehicle as if no licence suspension had occurred.

[199] R.A.’s disrespect for the law creates an unsafe and insecure environment for children.

Father ignoring court orders, and other directions, in child protection proceedings

[200] On November 3, 2008, Sheffield J. ordered telephone access for M.Z. on Tuesdays and Thursdays evenings and at any other time the children wanted. Although the children were allowed to call their mother at these times, R.A. or one of his parents would be in the background criticizing M.Z. or telling the children their time was up. After M.Z. testified against R.A. in December 2010 in regard to threats he had made against her, R.A. discontinued her telephone access. He advised the child protection workers that he did not consider it beneficial for the children.

[201] Sheffield J. also ordered M.Z. and R.A. to communicate regarding access to the children and the children’s well-being through use of a communication book that would travel back and forth with the children on access visits. A communication book was used when R.A. was residing with S.D. S.D. assumed responsibility for that, though her communications with M.Z. were not always respectful. When R.A. and S.D. ceased cohabiting, M.Z. started another communications book; however, R.A. did not return it. This is another example of his not following a court order.

[202] After R.A.’s arrest on February 15, 2011, following an altercation with S.D., the destruction of cabinets in her kitchen, and marijuana being found on the premises, and after N.R.A.’s disclosure to school authorities that his father had thrown a lunch bag at him, the Society obtained an interim order dated June 15, 2011, returning the children to the care of R.A. subject to Society supervision. R.A. was required to abide by the following conditions, but failed to do so:

• Refrain from engaging in any criminal activity. He continued trafficking in drugs.

• Refrain from exposing the children to adult conflict involving verbal or physical aggression. He continued through to the start of the trial to expose the children to verbal attacks on their mother. He also engaged in frequent verbal arguments with S.D. in earshot of the children.

• Successfully complete an addictions assessment and follow through with all resulting recommendations. He did not obtain an addictions assessment.

• Successfully complete a parenting program approved by the Society regarding appropriate child management techniques. He did not complete a parenting program.

• Allow Society workers unimpeded access to the children. As of the summer of 2013, he was not allowing the child protection worker unimpeded access to the children.

[203] Throughout 2011, both Elissa Haimovitz and Ben Forson advised R.A. to take an anger management program. At first R.A. refused to do so, saying that he did not have the time. Subsequently, he said that he would attend through the John Howard Society; however, he never followed through to do so. I find that he never really had the intention of doing so. He was a master at delaying and misleading the child protection workers.

[204] On September 12, 2012, Polowin J. ordered that counselling had to be made available for N.R.A., with the parents sharing the cost. Despite this order being made, it took an inordinate amount of time for R.A. to arrange counselling for N.R.A. R.A.’s lawyer wanted to choose the counsellor and eventually proposed Jennifer Williams. M.Z. met with Ms. Williams and made arrangements for the children to be seen, but counselling started only in March 2013 due to delay on the part of R.A. R.A. paid for the first visit. M.Z. and R.Z. have paid for all subsequent visits.

[205] As part of the Family Court Clinic assessment, Dr. McLean asked R.A. to provide a drug screen. R.A. refused on the grounds that such screening infringed his privacy rights. M.Z. complied, and the drug screen was negative. The Family Court Clinic also asked R.A. to provide a CPIC printout for purposes of the assessment; he did not do so.

[206] The order of Polowin J. specifically stated that the parents were not to discuss the litigation with the children. I find that, following this court order, R.A. did discuss issues relating to the litigation with the children. The children were aware that the court had ordered R.A. to do certain things. They expressed the concern that everyone was against R.A. – something they would have heard from R.A. or his parents. The children knew that the court had ordered that counselling be made available for N.R.A., and their impression, again gleaned from R.A., was that this had been ordered because M.Z. thought that he had a “mental issue”.

[207] Even though the order of Polowin J. dated June 18, 2013 stated that M.Z. would have access to the children from pick-up at school on June 27, 2013 to July 12, 2013, and R.A. was in the courtroom when this order was made, R.A. did not tell either S.D. or his parents that M.Z. would be picking up the children from school. Instead, he let his parents and S.D. think that the children would be going to their grandparents’ home after school and from there to the closing baseball game of the season. As well, R.A. had chosen not to tell M.Z. about the baseball game. S.D. texted M.Z. to ask if the children were with her or whether R.A. had to file a missing person’s report. At the same time, she instructed M.Z. to take N.M.A. to her final baseball game. When M.Z., R.Z., and the children arrived at the game, R.A. swore at M.Z. in front of the children, saying that she had kidnapped them – a blatant and inflammatory misrepresentation of the circumstances. He also took N.R.A. away from the game in his vehicle for a lengthy period of time without first asking M.Z.’s permission, ignoring M.Z.’s legal right to have N.R.A. with her.

[208] R.A. was late for 15 of the 24 access visits that he attended at the Society’s offices between July 17 and September 13, 2013. R.A. stopped coming for access visits effective September 19, 2013 – his reason being that he did not like the quality of the supervision provided by the Society and he saw no need for such supervision. At trial, R.A. advised that he would be prepared to attend for supervised access visits with another supervision provider, such as the Supervised Access Centre. In the light of the difficulty experienced by Society staff in ensuring that R.A. did not engage the children in adult issues and in issues relating to this litigation, it is doubtful that the staff at the Supervised Access Centre would fare any better in ensuring the goals of the supervision.

[209] In the fall of 2013, R.A. instilled fear in the children by providing them with inappropriate documentation and sending them inappropriate messages, as documented above. On November 5, 2013, I made an interim restraining order prohibiting R.A., R.R., S.R., S.D., and other members of R.A.’s family from communicating with N.R.A. or N.M.A. by any means directly or indirectly, except as arranged and supervised by the Society. R.A. was in court when this order was made. R.A. did not bring this order to the attention of his parents until weeks later.

[210] On December 10, 2013, N.R.A. told M.Z. that he was going to a friend’s after school; instead, he went to his grandparents. They did not call M.Z. to advise that he was there. Instead, S.R. gave him $30 and let him go to his friend’s house to be picked up by R.Z. and M.Z. On December 16, 2013, N.R.A. again lied to M.Z., saying he was going to his friend’s home. Instead, he went to his grandparents. This time, M.Z. was called, and R.Z. picked N.R.A. up at his grandparents’ home, taking N.M.A. along so that she, as well, could see her grandparents. When N.R.A. got home, he told his mother that he had wanted to be with his “real” family, and that he knew that M.Z. would not let him visit them. N.R.A. told M.Z. that she had lied about his grandparents and that they had raised him – she had not. N.R.A. was referring to testimony that M.Z. was giving in court. The only person in court who could have passed on that information to N.R.A. was R.A. According to N.R.A., any time he had told his mother that he was going to his friend’s home after school, he had been going to his grandparents.

[211] During the course of the trial, R.A. asked for a lengthy lunch-time adjournment so that he could attend his son’s Christmas concert at a school in Stittsville. I obliged. R.A. returned late from the event. Subsequently, under cross-examination, he stated that he had not gone to the school, but instead, had seen S.D. and the children at their home. He claimed that he had been driven there and back by a friend, whom he named. When S.D. testified, she confirmed that R.A. had not gone to the school but, instead, had gone to her home. According to S.D., he drove himself there. In fact, throughout the holidays, he was driving either his own car or her car. At the time, R.A.’s driver’s licence had been suspended.

[212] The psychological testing done of R.A. as part of the Family Court Clinic assessment showed that R.A. has his own strong sense of right versus wrong and will act according to his views. He will not be dictated to by anyone else, regardless of the authority that the other person has in the circumstances.

[213] It is impossible to imagine a supervision order to R.A. being of any benefit. Court orders are meaningless to him.

Father’s difficulty with authority figures

[214] R.A. has difficulty accepting directions from any authority figures. He cooperates with them only if they agree with him and are furthering his goals. The moment anyone stands up to R.A., he reacts aggressively and alleges that the person does not know what he or she is doing or that the person is biased against him. There are many examples of this.

[215] R.A. turned on both Nathalie King and Leigh Ann Sterritt when they obtained information from the children that was not favourable to him and when they started to make demands on him with which he was not prepared to comply. At first, he was happy with the involvement of their supervisor, Robert Godman but, when Mr. Godman supported the approach of his staff, R.A. turned on him as well. At first, R.A. accepted the involvement of Keith Davis, the access supervisor; however, when Mr. Davis repeatedly advised R.A. that he must stop implicating the children in the court process, R.A. turned on him and stopped attending access visits. The Society, whose involvement R.A. had initially not fought when the Society was supportive of his being the custodial parent, became the villain when it imposed a supervision order, sought a change of residence for the children, and then insisted on supervised access.

[216] To date, R.A. has complained to the Office of the Independent Police Review Director in regard to the conduct of the police at the time of his arrest near London. He has complained to the Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy about the Society. He has complained to the Office of the Children’s Lawyer about the children’s counsel and has reported her to the Law Society of Upper Canada. R.A.’s approach to authority figures further confirms Dr. McLean’s assessment that R.A. does not take responsibility for his own actions and decisions and, instead, puts the blame on others. This was the recurrent theme throughout R.A.’s testimony.

Fuelling of children’s alienation from their mother, M.Z., by father and father’s family

[217] The children’s behaviour when they are with their mother is frequently rude, abusive, and out-of-control. Both have said that she is not their mother and that S.D. is. N.R.A. was particularly upset when he learned in July 2013 that he would not be returning to his father’s care, as had been expected. He was angry and yelled at his mother. He threw a Gatorade bottle at her and hurt her lip. He called M.Z. white trash and accused her of lying in court and of paying off the judge. His outbursts were constant. Such talk does not come out of the mouth of a child without influence from an adult. N.R.A. repeated that M.Z. was not his mother and that she had no right to speak to him or to N.M.A. N.M.A. also yells and swears at her mother and throws things at her.

[218] In August 2013, the children locked M.Z. in the bathroom and would not let her out. She had to kick open the door. N.R.A. was particularly cruel that day, laughing at his mother and telling her that he was glad that her friend had just died of cancer. On another occasion when Leigh Ann Sterritt, the Child Protection Worker was visiting, N.R.A. yelled at M.Z., calling her a liar, and then locked M.Z. out of the house when she went outside to speak in private with Ms. Sterritt.

[219] It is clear that, part of what fuels the children’s aggressive behaviour toward their mother, is the attitude R.A., S.D., S.R. and R.R. display toward her. Their attitude gives the children permission to treat their mother so poorly. As long as the children are exposed to that attitude, it will be very difficult for M.Z. and R.Z. to parent them as effectively as the children’s needs require.

Father’s antagonism towards the Society

[220] Since the involvement of Natalie King and Leigh Ann Sterritt as the child protection workers working with R.A. and M.Z., R.A.’s focus has been on challenging everything that the Society has done, or has not done, on their file. He criticized Ms. King for meeting with the children at school, even though she had valid reasons for doing so. He refused to work with her and insisted on having another child protection worker assigned. When he did not like what Ms. Sterritt said to him or reported in her affidavits, he acted in a controlling and threatening manner with her during her last visit to his home. During a subsequent meeting, he refused to acknowledge her presence and would not listen to her or make eye contact with her. He effectively shut out any possibility of communication between the two of them.

[221] Once supervised access was arranged, R.A. showed his open disrespect to the Society by repeatedly showing up late for his visits, and by not following the instructions of the child protection workers and access supervisors. He then escalated his opposition by making formal complaints about the Society’s work, by surreptitiously encouraging the children to complain about the Society, and by refusing to attend any further visits – despite the harm that was done (and that continues to be done) to the children. His own oppositional behaviour came ahead of his children’s needs.

[222] Considering this historical pattern, it is hard to imagine how the best interests of the children could be promoted if they were returned to R.A.’s care – even if a supervision order were put into place. The court cannot have any confidence that a supervision order would be respected and followed by R.A.

Problems with the Society’s/Mother’s Plan of Care

[223] I have already reviewed potential problems with the Society’s/Mother’s Plan of Care. The most significant problem associated with placing the children in the joint custody of M.Z. and R.Z., without a supervision order, is M.Z.’s reluctance to seek personal counselling to deal with the trauma she has suffered in earlier stages in her life. In my view, such counselling would be invaluable to strengthen M.Z.’s self-confidence, self-esteem, and judgment.

[224] In addition to requiring M.Z. to obtain such counselling, a supervision order could also contain a provision requiring M.Z. and R.Z. to attend parenting courses to assist them in parenting challenging children who will soon be heading into their teenage years.

[225] A supervision order would maintain the Society as a source of support and guidance for M.Z. and R.Z. That being said, M.Z. and R.Z. could also work voluntarily with the Society so as to benefit from its expertise in these situations.

Disposition

[226] After balancing all of these considerations, I conclude that it would be in the best interests of the children to be placed in the joint custody of M.Z. and R.Z. under s. 57.1 of the Act. No supervision order shall be made because, to do so, would merely continue the dispute between the Society and R.A., and continue the instability in the children’s lives.

[227] R.A. shall not have access to the children. There is too high a risk that, even if the access were supervised, R.A. would undermine the children’s placement with M.Z. and R.Z., as he has done at every opportunity in the past. The children need a stable, secure, and conflict-free environment. That can only be accomplished at this time if their father is not an influence in their lives. I would not anticipate R.A. ever being granted access in the future unless he took the following steps which, to date, he has not been prepared to take:

• Attend individual counselling with a qualified professional to deal with issues of anger, violence, and anti-social behaviour;

• Attend individual counselling to deal with his alienating behaviour regarding M.Z. and R.Z.;

• Attend individual counselling to better understand the harm done to the children by his previous behaviour and to assist him in assuming responsibility for his actions;

• Provide random drug screens;

• Successfully complete a parenting program recommended by the Society;

• Commit to not exposing the children to any criminal activity; and

• Commit to not exposing the children to any weapons.

[228] N.R.A. and N.M.A. shall have regular access to M.A. and M2.A., on the following conditions:

• M.Z. and S.D. shall agree on the frequency of such visits;

• M.Z. and S.D. shall agree on where the visits shall occur;

• R.A. shall not be present during the visits;

• Members of R.A.’s family (including S.R., R.R., O., and R.) may be present during the visits, provided they act in the children’s best interests and do nothing to undermine the children’s relationship with M.Z. and R.Z;

• The visits shall be supervised by an adult (other than R.A. or S.D.) acceptable to M.Z. and S.D.;

• M.Z. and S.D. (or her designate, other than R.A.) shall meet with an independent professional qualified to prepare them for organizing and managing the visits to the benefit of all of the children;

• N.R.A. and N.M.A. shall be transported to the visits by R.Z. or a neutral designate; and

• M.A. and M2.A. shall be transported to the visits by S.D. or a neutral designate.

[229] N.R.A. and N.M.A. shall have access to S.R. and R.R. as can be agreed upon by M.Z., R.Z., S.R., and R.R., on the following conditions:

• R.A. shall not be present during the visits;

• S.R. and R.R., and any other family members present, shall act in the children’s best interests and shall do nothing to undermine the children’s relationship with M.Z. and R.Z.;

• M.Z., R.Z., S.R., and R.R. shall meet with an independent professional qualified to prepare them for organizing and managing the visits to the benefit of the children; and

• N.R.A. and N.M.A. shall be transported to the visits by R.Z. or a neutral designate.

[230] R.A. and S.D. are restrained from communicating with N.R.A. and N.M.A. by any means, either directly or indirectly, including, but not limited to: by mail, by courier, by any other written communication, or via telephone, cell phone, the Internet, email, texting, Twitter, Facebook, XBOX, Skype, or any other electronic media or mechanism whatsoever, whether in existence at the time of this order, or whether coming into existence in the future.

[231] Except as stated in the previous paragraph, the interim restraining orders I made on November 5, 2013 and November 6, 2013 are terminated.

[232] R.A. shall be restrained from attending within 500 metres of the home of M.Z. and R.Z., any school attended by N.R.A. or N.M.A., or any other location where the children are then present, including the home of S.R. and R.R.

[233] The goal of these ancillary orders is to facilitate normal and healthy relationships between N.R.A. and N.M.A. and M.A. and M2.A., and between N.R.A. and N.M.A. and their paternal grandparents, S.R. and R.R., and other members of the R. family, without the children’s relationship with M.Z. and R.Z. being undermined. Above all else, these children need a peaceful, secure, and stable home, free of conflict. At the same time, they would benefit greatly from the continued involvement in their lives of their paternal grandparents, whom they love very much, as long as that involvement in no way undermines the role of M.Z. and R.Z. as custodial parents. It has, and will continue to be, a hard adjustment for these children to have lost their father in their lives – due to his apparent inability to put their needs ahead of his own. It would be tragic for them to also lose other relationships that they value. I urge all of the adults in these children’s lives to put aside past conflicts and to work together in a cooperative fashion to give these children some peace.

Aitken J.

Released: March 27, 2014

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa

Applicant

– and –

M.P. and

R.A.

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Aitken J.

Released: March 27, 2014