COURT FILE NO.: FC-12-1228

DATE: 2014/12/08

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

AND IN THE MATTER OF E.C-D-S., born […], 2010

BETWEEN:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA

Applicant

– and –

K. C-D (the mother) and

E.S. (the father)

Respondents

Counsel: Karine Veilleux, for the Applicant Stephen Pender, for the mother and Cedric Nahum, for the father

HEARD: November 3-7, and 21, 2014 (at Ottawa)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

M. LINHARES DE SOUSA J.

NATURE OF APPLICATION

[1] This trial is to determine what parenting arrangement for 4-year-old E. S-D-S., born […], 2010 is in his best interests. The matter comes before this court in the context of a status review application dated November 11, 2013, brought by the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (the “Society”), seeking to terminate the existing supervision order, upon the parents signing a Voluntary Service Agreement for a period of six months.

POSITION OF THE PARENTS

[2] The termination of the Society’s existing order was not put in issue in this matter. All parties agreed that the Society’s existing supervision order should terminate. Both parents, however, dispute what custody and access order, granted under the authority of s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11 as am. [“CFSA”] should replace the existing Society supervision order.

[3] The mother, Ms. C-D, seeks an order under the deemed custody provisions of section 57.1 of the CFSA granting her the primary care of E. with generous and specified access to the father, Mr. S. Alternatively she asks for an order under that provision for the joint care and custody of the child to herself and Mr. S. with her home being designated as E.’s primary residence. During his final submissions, counsel for the mother questioned the workability of a joint custody order in view of the level of parental conflict in this matter.

[4] Ms. C-D also seeks an order restraining Mr. S. from attending at her residence.

[5] Mr. S. seeks an order under the deemed custody provisions of section 57.1 of the CFSA for joint custody with E.’s primary residence being his home with access to the mother every second weekend and one evening per week on alternating weeks. In his final submissions, counsel for the father argued for an order granting sole custody of E. to his father with the above mentioned access to the mother.

POSITION OF THE SOCIETY

[6] The Society submits that the only issue for trial is custody as between the parents and what order should be made pursuant to section 57.1 of the CFSA. At the beginning of the trial, the Society took no position on that issue.

[7] In support of that position, the Society called Ms. Mylene Forest, the Society caseworker who has been working with this family since May, 2012, to provide evidence on this matter. As a result of her evidence, counsel for the Society submits that since May of 2012, when E. went into the joint care of his parents under a Society supervision order, the parents have cooperated with the Society and the Society has had no child protection concerns which, in its submission, justify the termination of the existing supervision order. The Society further submits that it supports the continuation of both parents being involved in the care and the life of this child.

[8] At the end of the presentation of the evidence in this case, I put all parties on notice that as a result of certain evidence presented during the course of the trial, it was the view of the Court that the continued involvement of the Society with this family was an issue and that I wished to have the submissions of all parties on this question. The evidence in question was, firstly, the current ongoing deportation proceedings relating to the father, Mr. S. and, secondly, the July 1, 2014 assault suffered by Mr. S. by an individual called “Kenny”, the serious details of which the Society was not made aware. The evidence revealed that although this incident was investigated by the police, Mr. S. made little effort to advance or assist in the police investigation even with the knowledge that “Kenny” continues to look for him.

[9] In her concluding submissions, counsel for the Society submitted that the Society continues to seek the termination of the existing supervision order and its withdrawal from this matter. However, in view of the above mentioned evidence, about which the Society was not informed by either parent and in the face of Ms. C-D’s evidence that there has been at least one incident of conflict between the parents to which the child was exposed, the Society cannot at this time support an order granting the sole custody of E. to his father. The Society supports any order that will maintain the existing joint parenting arrangement under which the child, to date, has been thriving. Counsel for the Society further submits direct contact between the parents should be as infrequent, as possible to minimise parental contact and conflict.

[10] With respect to what role the Society could play at this time in the functioning of this family, counsel for the Society submits that the parents clearly chose not to communicate significant facts to the Society worker despite her involvement since the spring of 2012. Neither parent has sought out the Society for assistance. When the Society inquires of either parents if they have any concerns regarding the child or the other parent, both parents always answer in the negative. Most importantly for the Society, the child is thriving under the current parenting arrangement and there are no longer any protection concerns. The Society submits that in light of this it is time to withdraw. Its continuing involvement with this family would serve no useful purpose and no change is foreseeable at the end of another period of Society involvement.

[11] That the Society withdraw from this matter appears to also be the position of both parents. Both parents are willing to work with the Society on a voluntary basis.

Factual Background

[12] Much of the factual background of this case is not contested. On June 19, 2013, the parents signed a Statement of Agreed Facts and much of the relevant factual background is found in that document (see tab 4 of the Trial Record) and supplemented by the evidence of the parents and their witnesses.

[13] The relevant facts are the following. At the time of E.’s birth, Ms. C-D resided at St. Mary’s home. The Society had gotten involved with the family because of some concerns about the mother’s parenting capacity and mental health. While residing at St. Mary’s home, Ms. C-D participated in some parenting courses and received some medical treatment for depression.

[14] Based on the evidence presented at trial, Ms. C-D’s relationship with Mr. S. had been on and off since 2008. Conflict between the parents was also a child protection issue for the Society upon the birth of E. Mr. S. was incarcerated at the time of E.’s birth for convictions on drug related offences and was not released until the beginning of October, 2010.

[15] During the course of this trial it was revealed that because of Mr. S.’s past involvement with the criminal courts and criminal convictions, he is now facing deportation proceedings (see exhibit #4 Criminal Record of Mr. S.). Mr. S.’s evidence was that the deportation proceedings related to his “outstanding” charges in 2012. According to Mr. S. all of the “outstanding” charges have now been resolved. Despite that, the deportation proceedings are still ongoing.

[16] Mr. S. has provided no objective, nor reliable evidence concerning the status of his deportation proceedings. His credibility was seriously put into question by evidence Mr. S. gave concerning his brother’s deportation proceedings which was not confirmed by his brother when he gave evidence during this trial.

[17] It was the evidence of Mr. S. that he saw no reason to inform the Society about his deportation proceedings. He also did not want to give Ms. C-D very much information about the deportation proceedings against him. In his view, the jeopardy he may face in the deportation proceedings does not present any real problem to his having the custody of his son. If he were to be deported, it was his evidence then, his extended family would take over the care of his son. Mr. S. did not seem to have much insight into how the potential for his absence from E.’s life in such a dramatic way might be a significant consideration for this Court in dealing with the permanent custody of his son.

[18] During the early period of E.’s life, Ms. C-D’s involvement with the Society was on a voluntary basis. The evidence was that she cooperated with the Society. The CAS file was subsequently closed on March 7, 2012.

[19] On May 19, 2012, E. was apprehended from his mother’s care when she was found to be intoxicated in a caring capacity. The child protection concerns identified by the Society at that time were substance abuse on the part of the mother, the mother’s unstable mental health and parental conflict.

[20] E. remained in the care of the Society from May 19, 2012, until October 26, 2012. During that time both Ms. C-D and Mr. S. enjoyed varying access to E. separately under the supervision of the Society. Mr. S. began to exercise his visits to E. in his parents’ home with one of his parents supervising the visits.

[21] On October 26, 2012, E. was returned to the care of his mother under a Supervision order to the Society by order of Justice Blishen dated September 26, 2012. Mr. S. was given access to his son on alternate weekends and weekly for four hours on Wednesday, which access was to be monitored by the paternal grandparents in their home or in the community accompanied by either paternal grandparent.

[22] One can see from the conditions imposed on both parents in the September 26, 2012 order of Justice Blishen (see Trial Record tab 9), that the protection concerns identified by the Society were, with respect to the mother, her parenting capacity, mental health and substance addiction; with respect to both parents, parental conflict; and with respect to the father, abusive partner and/or anger management and involvement in criminal activity.

[23] After E. was returned to the care of his mother under the supervision of the Society in the fall of 2012, the Society became increasingly concerned with the child’s safety and well-being in Ms. C-D’s care. Specifically, Ms. C-D ceased following through with the support and services deemed necessary to assist her in caring for E., such as the St. Mary’s program and her mental health evaluation with Dr. Gillis. Ms. C-D was difficult to reach by telephone because she had no cell phone or messaging system on her telephone. Although, when the Society worker would reach her unannounced on visits to her home Ms. C-D was always cooperative. The Society worker received reports that E. was frequently late and absent from the Head Start program. E.’s immunizations were not kept up to date.

[24] As a result of these concerns, the Society encouraged a more active role by Mr. S. in the care of E. which he willingly and appropriately took on. Ms. C-D delayed in registering E. in the “Head Start” program and it finally took Mr. S. to register the child in the program, who also had to obtain the necessary documentation for the registration. The observed unannounced home visits while E. was in his father’s care showed the child to be calm, joyful and affectionate with his father and his father’s extended family who were present.

[25] Mr. S. resolved all of his outstanding criminal charges. Mr. S. registered and participated in the New Directions program on a weekly basis. Mr. S. cooperated with the Society and returned all of their calls. When action was required to ensure the proper medical care of E., such as a severe diaper rash, and the child’s immunisation, Mr. S. responded quickly and appropriately in ensuring that E. got the medical help he needed.

[26] In February, Mr. S. willingly moved his residence, along with his extended family, from Ottawa to Gatineau and kept his address confidential, because he feared for his safety and that of his son when he was in his care. The evidence provided to explain this security concern was conflicting. The Society worker understood from Mr. S. that it arose as a result of his past criminal activities relating to his incarceration for drug trafficking. Apparently, a friend of his was shot in the street in the summer of 2012, although, according to Mr. S. this had nothing to do with his past criminal activities. As a result, the Society informed Mr. S. that it could not support visits with E. to take place in his home. This was followed by Mr. S.’s voluntary move to Gatineau.

[27] During the trial, Mr. S.’s evidence was that the security risk arose as a result of the past relationships of Ms. C-D. Some evidence relating to the July 1, 2014 incident when Mr. S. was attacked and seriously injured by an individual called “Kenny”, indicated that the security risk arose as a result of Mr. S.’s own relationships. In view of this and in view of other inconsistencies in Mr. S.’s evidence, I question whether Mr. S. has been completely honest with the Court on this important question that relates to the security of E. when in his care. Having said that, there is no question on the evidence that Mr. S. has always done everything that is within his own power and control to keep E. safe.

[28] On April 23, 2013, Mr. S.’s access to E., by order of Justice Beaudoin was amended to give Mr. S. access to his son every weekend from Friday after the “Head Start” program until Monday morning (see Trial record, tab 10). It is not disputed on the evidence that only when Mr. S. began, himself, to take E. to the “Head Start” program did the many lates and absences begin to disappear.

[29] On May 15, 2013, on consent, by order of Justice Trousdale, Mr. S.’s access to E. became unsupervised and extended from every week from Friday after daycare to Tuesday before daycare (see Trial Record, tab. 11). Mr. S., with the help of his family, has been essentially doing most of the transportation of E. required to get him from his father’s care to his mother’s care so as to effect the parenting arrangement. According to the evidence Ms. C-D has occasionally been persuaded by Mr. S. to do the transportation of E.

[30] Ms. C-D did eventually complete her psychiatric evaluation with the psychiatric nurse and Dr. Gillis. At paragraph 26 of the parties Statement of Agreed Facts (see page 7, tab 4 of the Trial Record) that evaluation indicated that “Ms C-D does not appear to suffer from depression but rather from anxiety symptoms. It is recommended that coaching around problem solving would be of great help for Ms. C-D as she appears to avoid problematic and stressful situation instead of facing the issues. Ms. C-D does not have a significant support network and could feel easily overwhelmed.” The Statement of Agreed Facts went on to state that Ms. C-D resumed the programs offered at St. Mary’s in June of 2013. Ms. C-D has also resumed her education, attending classes at an Ottawa high school three times per week.

[31] On June 19, 2013, E. was placed in the joint care of both his parents subject to the supervision of the Society for a six month period. The conditions imposed on both parents by that order can be found at tab 12 of the Trial Record. Under this order Ms. C-D had care of E. from Tuesday after the “Head Start” program until Friday morning. Mr. S. had care of E. for the rest of the week, from Friday after the “Head Start” program until Tuesday morning. This is the effective order when the current proceedings before the Court were commenced.

[32] It was the evidence of Ms. Forest for the Society that from her observations of the child in the care of both parents in their individual homes, E. appeared comfortable, happy, to be meeting his milestones and appropriately and lovingly cared for. He also seemed happy to move from one home to the other. Both parents were capable of providing the child with his basic needs.

[33] The report that Ms. Forest received from the “Head Start” program was equally positive. E. was reported to be healthy and with no special needs. His language, academic and cognitive skills were developing positively. He had a consistently happy personality and was always appropriately dressed.

[34] According to Ms. Forest, Ms. C-D complained to her about the conflict between herself and Mr. S. and told her that Mr. S. dealt with her belligerently, in person and in his telephone calls and texts to her. Mr. S. did not deny that he has called Ms. C-D some extremely offensive names. Ms. C-D identified those as “fucking cunt” and “whore”. Ms. Forest’s advice to Ms. C-D was to minimize the communication between herself and Mr. S.

[35] According to Ms. Forest, Mr. S. complained to her that Ms. C-D was involved in prostitution but that his allegations were very vague, nor could he in any way support his allegations. In her unannounced visits to Ms. C-D’s home, Ms. Forest never saw anything that might support Mr. S.’s allegations.

[36] Ms. Forest testified that she informed both parents that if the parental conflict continued or intensified then the Society would see that as a child protection issue.

[37] On November 11, 2013, the Society brought the current Status Review Application, seeking the termination of the existing Supervision order. In response to the Society’s Status Review Application, both parents filed an Answer and Plan of Care found at tabs 2 and 3 of the Trial Record.

[38] Commencing in the fall of 2014, Ms. C-D registered E. in an Ottawa local catholic school, Prince of Peace, in a French immersion kindergarten program where the child has been attending since September of 2014. This was not with the consent of Mr. S. whose plan of care involves having E. live with him in Gatineau and attending a local daycare during the day while his father works. The evidence was conflicting as to whether Ms. C-D informed Mr. S. of her intention to register E. at Prince of Peace school.

[39] On August 25, 2014, a motion for summary judgment, brought by Mr. S., seeking sole custody and primary residence of his son was heard by Justice Mackinnon and dismissed because, as she found, there were genuine issues requiring a trial. She identified those issues in the following way, “as to whether the child’s living arrangement in place for 15 months should be changed now.” In Justice Mackinnon’s opinion, the “outcome of this issue will also depend on the court’s determination of whether the child’s best interests are better served by attending daycare in Quebec and living with his father, or attending school in Ontario under the current residential arrangement”.

[40] Justice Mackinnon went on to identify and direct the following issues for trial:

(a) Whether the parents should share joint legal custody or whether either of them should exercise sole custody;

(b) Whether the child’s best interests is furthered by attending school in Ontario or daycare in Quebec as of September, 2014; and

(c) Whether the child’s residential arrangements need to be changed to accommodate whatever determination is made of the second issue above (see pages 3-4, tab 14 Trial Record).

[41] Justice Mackinnon also directed that the child be registered at and attend Prince of Peace junior kindergarten, commencing September 3, 2014, without prejudice, for the reasons given by her. It was not disputed that all of these issues form part of the consideration of the issue before this Court.

MOTHER’S PLAN OF CARE

[42] Ms. C-D’s perception of her relationship and working relationship with Mr. S. is an extremely negative one. According to Ms. C-D, throughout their relationship Mr. S. physically abused her. The police were called a number of times in the past but Ms. C-D did not cooperate with any criminal follow-ups.

[43] Ms. C-D testified to a recent incident in September, 2014, when according to Ms. C-D Mr. S. pulled her hair and threatened to spit at her on a bus while E. was present, because Ms. C-D refused to let Mr. S. go home with her after a parenting exchange. According to Ms. C-D, Mr. S. recently asked her to resume the relationship and she refused. Two weeks ago, according to Ms. C-D, Mr. S. attended at her home unannounced at night.

[44] According to Ms. C-D, Mr. S., in his communications with her, has also verbally and psychologically abused her and continues to do so when she does not agree with what he wants.

[45] It is for this reason that she seeks a restraining order against Mr. S. except to the extent that it is necessary to effect the parenting arrangement for E.

[46] With respect to parenting exchanges, Ms. C-D has testified that these have in the past been problematic. According to the mother, Mr. S. is responsible for the transportation of E. for the parenting exchanges by court order. However, Ms. C-D testified that Mr. S. has “insisted” that she transport E. between the two provinces on the bus. According to the mother she has done this at least five times already. She would also ask the Court to stipulate where and with whom the parenting exchanges will take place. She requests that direct contact with Mr. S. be minimised and take place, for the purpose of parenting exchanges, in a neutral location such as E.’s school.

[47] Ms. C-D is content with the existing parenting arrangement but wishes to have primary residence of E. According to the testimony of Ms. C-D, Mr. S. has missed at least two or three visits with his son because of his work schedule. She had no difficulty caring for E. during those times and is confident she is capable of caring for E. for more than the three days she cares for him under the existing parenting arrangement.

[48] Ms. C-D acknowledged, on questioning, her limitations. She has a learning disability and recognized that she has attempted to resume and progress with her education a number of times in the past. However, she denies that this interferes with her ability to appropriately parent E.

[49] There was no evidence to indicate that Ms. C-D has a drug or alcohol problem. Her explanation for the incident that brought E. into care was her reactive depression to Mr. S.’s mistreatment of her. The absence of any problem with drugs and alcohol on the part of Ms. C-D was consistent with the evidence of Ms. Forest.

[50] Ms. C-D denies the allegations of Mr. S. that she is involved in any kind of prostitution and counter alleges that it was Mr. S. who posted her photographs on the Internet.

[51] With respect to the issue of her mental health, Ms. C-D acknowledged her propensity to suffer from anxiety in stressful situations which she characterized her ongoing interactions with Mr. S. to be. It was her evidence that she concluded, in consultation with her doctor, that she would not take medication for this on an ongoing basis, but that she would consult her doctor, as she did very recently, if she felt she needed such help. On cross-examination Ms. C-D acknowledged that when she feels under stress her tendency would be to shut down in her communications. She has also not pursued her personal counselling because she did not find them useful and because of the changes she has made to her life and because she is feeling better than one or two years ago.

[52] Ms. C-D testified that she has substantially changed her lifestyle since the Society has been involved in her life. Her home has been inspected by Ms. Forest and found to be appropriate for the care of E.

[53] Ms. C-D exercises regularly and finds herself to be more energetic and happier. She sleeps well and some to the physical ailments she suffered when E. was returned to her care no longer plague her. She is in a new relationship but has no plans to cohabite with this person who plays more of a supportive role.

[54] According to Ms. C-D, by reaching out to her sister and some other members of her own family she has tried to expand the social network that might be available to support her in the care of E.

[55] Ms. C-D’s plan for E. is that he remain at Prince of Peace School in his current program. While E. had some initial adjustment problems when he began at the school in September of 2014, he is now doing very well. He is learning art work, to print his name, numbers, alphabet and colours with much progress in this learning. E. has also made a number of friends at the school and interacts well with his peers.

[56] According to Ms. C-D her meetings with E.’s teachers and the reports she receives from the school have all been positive. According to Ms. C-D she invited Mr. S. to attend one of these meetings but he did not reply, nor did he attend the school.

[57] According to Ms. C-D, she has managed to successfully establish a daily school routine for E. which involves waking him and getting him ready for school on time, taking him to school and picking him up after school, something she found difficult to do when her son started at the “Head Start” program. At the drop-offs and pick-ups from school Ms. C-D regularly speaks to E.’s teachers to see how he is doing.

[58] Ms. Naque was called by Mr. S. to testify to the school program in which E. is currently enrolled at Prince of Peace School. His day is structured and there will be a progress report as to his development in the new year. With respect to E., Ms. Naque testified that he continues to arrive at school frequently late by a few minutes. On one day Ms. C-D was late to pick him up from school. There have been no absences.

[59] Ms. Naque testified that in the beginning E. had some difficulty with complying with the teacher’s directions, not listening, not wishing to share toys with the other students and screaming and crying when frustrated. He also attempted to hide and take toys from the school. Nonetheless, Ms. Naque has seen some progress for the better in his school behaviour. To her observation, E. arrives well and appropriately dressed with healthy snacks. Her interactions with Ms. C-D have always been respectful with the mother being receptive to her information. Ms. Naque has never met with E.’s father nor has he requested a meeting with her. There is nothing in this evidence to indicate that E. has not adapted well to being in a school setting and structure and that he is not progressing.

[60] Out of school Ms. C-D, although she has not enrolled E. in any extracurricular activities, attempts to engage E. in a number of activities such as walking, playing in the park, arts and crafts, games and reading.

[61] It was Ms. C-D’s evidence, that, despite Mr. S.’s abusive attitude towards her, she does respect his role in and contribution to the well-being of her son. To the extent possible she has tried to inform him and involve him in issues relating to their son. She would continue to foster and encourage that valuable relationship. She does not, however, believe the same is true of Mr. S. concerning her role in and contribution to E.’s life.

FATHER’S PLAN OF CARE

[62] Mr. S.’s home, a two-bedroom apartment, which he shares with his twin brother, F., is in a residential area in Gatineau. It too has been inspected by Ms. Forest and found to be appropriate for the care of E. There is no question that Mr. S. has made every effort to keep his home a secure and safe place for E. His extended family, Mr. S.’s parents and his sister and her family also have apartments in the same building.

[63] In his evidence Mr. S. is entertaining the possibility of getting his own subsidized housing, for himself and E., either in Quebec or in the Kanata area in Ontario. He is currently awaiting a reply to his request. If he does move, he foresees that his parents will also move so as to continue to help him with the care of his son.

[64] Mr. S. and his family came from Côte d’Ivoire in October of 1997 on diplomatic status based on his father’s employment. Since that time the family has remained in Canada on obtaining refugees status. Mr. S. completed his secondary education but could not go on because of the lack of financial resources. He has taken some English classes to improve his English. He plans to return to complete his education at some time in the future but right now his priority is the care of his son.

[65] With respect to his past criminal activities, Mr. S. indicates that he made some bad decisions in the past which landed him and his brother in difficulties with the law. Mr. F.S. also has a criminal record and testified that he followed his brother in his criminal activities.

[66] According to Mr. S. he is currently employed with an employment placement agency, travelling from work site to different work site. According to Mr. S. he can work as many as 40 hours per week to as few as 8 hours per week. He is sometimes asked to work on weekends. He anticipates that his earnings are under $22,000 to $25,000 per annum. Mr. S. does not know what his final income for 2014 will be. Mr. S. testified that when he has to work and is responsible for the care of his son, his extended family; his brother, his parents and even his sister are more than willing to take care of E. while he is at work.

[67] Mr. S.’s plan for the care of his son involves the active involvement of his extended family who have already supervised and assisted, economically and in every other way, his care of his son since he was released from prison in October of 2010. The evidence showed that the S. family is a very close and supportive one. E.’s relationship with them is also an extremely close one. He sees all of them when he is cared for by his father.

[68] Mr. F.S. testified at the trial and indicated that he treated E. as his own son. When his brother was incarcerated he made himself available to assist Ms. C-D when she requested it or when she needed baby supplies. He spends time with E. and is more than willing to continue to help his brother care for his son, however, he can and given the fact that he has a full-time job.

[69] Mr. F.S. is aware of the difficult relationship between his brother and Ms. C-D. He is not personally aware of any arguments that have taken place between them. Nor, has he seen any physical altercations between them. He has heard his brother arguing with Ms. C-D on the telephone in a raised voice but never heard any bad words used by him. Mr. F.S. is willing to act as a communicator between his brother and E.’s mother.

[70] Mr. S.’s mother, Mrs. T.S., also testified at the trial. She confirmed the closeness she and her family enjoy; how E. is also very close to all of the members of the S. family and an integral part of that family.

[71] It was also clear from the evidence, however, that her sons have spared Mrs. S. knowledge of the true nature of their criminal proceedings and the extent of Mr. S.’s injuries as a result of the July 1, 2014 altercation with “Kenny”. Mrs. S. believed that Mr. S.’s incarceration at the time of E.’s birth was due to the problems he had with Ms. C-D. Mrs. S. was not aware of any charges made against her son relating to Ms. C-D. Mrs. S. was also not aware of the deportation proceedings involving her son.

[72] The evidence further revealed that Mrs. S. has had some health issues and should be spared any stress and worry as was recognized by Mr. S.

[73] Mrs. T.S. is clearly emotionally attached to her grandson E. and him to her. He is clearly an integral part of that extended family. Mrs. S. described her grandson’s happy personality as well as the many stimulating things she does with him while he is in her care, while Mr. S. is at work, which appears to be every Friday. She speaks to E. in the French language and is also teaching him her native language. Mrs. T.S. takes E. to church regularly.

[74] It was the evidence of Mrs. S. that all of the extended family members are more than willing to care for E. when his father cannot do so because of his work. If her son had sole custody of E., she would be more than willing to ensure that he was taken to daycare and picked up after daycare while his father works.

[75] When questioned about whether she ever witnessed disputes between her son and Ms. C-D she replied that she never has seen such disputes. She does not believe that her son would ever hit Ms. C-D. Nor did she have any knowledge of her son verbally abusing Ms. C-D.

[76] Mr. S. acknowledged that E. is currently a healthy boy with no major medical issues. He is happy and thriving, consistent with his personality.

[77] Mr. S. has taken his child caring role very seriously from the beginning of E.’s life. While in prison he took parenting courses as well as an anger management course (see exhibits #1 and #2). Even while Mr. S. was incarcerated after E.’s birth, Ms. C-D made efforts to have Mr. S.’s extended family visit with E. They in turn were more than willing to help Ms. C-D with the care and support of the new born in any way possible to them.

[78] After being released from prison, Mr. S. testified that he attempted to see E. as much as possible. After being charged with assault on Ms. C-D his visits became more restricted until E.’s apprehension. Mr. S. admitted to having contact with Ms. C-D, at her request according to him, in breach of his criminal conditions.

[79] With respect to Ms. C-D’s allegations of physical abuse, Mr. S. denies that he ever physically abused E.’s mother. If he did physically touch her, it was, according to his evidence, in self-defence and this only before E. was born. It was Mr. S.’s evidence that Ms. C-D has frequently reported to the police that he has assaulted her but that she was never able to provide any proof of her allegations nor did she cooperate with the prosecution. Mr. S. did not deny that during some of these police reported incidents, and there appears to have been many following Mr. S.’s release from prison, as revealed in his cross-examination, E. was present.

[80] With respect to the recent incident at the Blair station mentioned by Ms. C-D, it was Mr. S.’s evidence that this arose as a result of a “misunderstanding” on E.’s desire to see ducks. He denies that he pulled her hair or that he pretended to spit on her during that incident.

[81] Mr. S. does not deny verbally abusing Ms. C-D and calling her derogatory names in his telephone conversations or telephone texts to her. Mr. S. testified that he did this out of frustration because of Ms. C-D`s lack of communication with him relating to E. According to his evidence, Mr. S. genuinely appears to believe that the use of such verbal abuse against E.’s mother seems to be the only way he can get her to respond even though, as he testified, he does not like to do it and is working on it.

[82] I am reminded here of Ms. C-D’s evidence that one way she deals with stressful situations is to shut down and not communicate with Mr. S. It does not take much to conclude that such verbal abuse may be a source of stress to Ms. C-D. That Mr. S. would not see the connection is surprising. If he truly does not like to do it, he should not do it.

[83] In his evidence, Mr. S. described his engagement with E. when he is in his care as well as the types of meals he gives his son. Based on this evidence there is no question that E. is well cared for by his father, who is quite capable of meeting the child’s physical, intellectual and emotional needs. E. always appears happy to see his father and his extended family.

[84] According to Mr. S., his brother F. is like a second father to E. and cares for him as Mr. S. would. Mr. F.S. gave evidence at the trial and confirmed this.

[85] It was Mr. S.’s evidence that there is no kindergarten in Quebec and E. will have to wait until he is 5 years old before he can start school there. In the meantime, Mr. S.’s plan for E. is that he attend a local cooperative daycare centre very close to Mr. S.’s home. It would take a 5 minute drive or a 15 minute walk from his residence. E. would be taken there by him or by a member of his family if Mr. S. could not do it himself.

[86] Mr. S. has visited the daycare centre and observed the children involved in many of the activities E. participated in while he was at the “Head Start” program. Mr. S. was confident that E. would adapt very well to the daycare program. I was given no reason to question Mr. S.’s statement.

[87] On cross-examination Mr. S. acknowledged the progress his son has made since being registered in his current school. He denies that he was informed by Ms. C-D about the meeting with E.’s teacher to deal with his behaviour. He did not arrange, subsequently, his own meeting with E.’s teacher but made sure the school had his correct telephone number so that they could call him if necessary.

[88] One very major problem Mr. S. has with E.’s current attendance at Prince of Peace school in Ottawa, and why, in his view, it would be in E.’s best interests that he have his primary residence with him during the week, is the distance and time it takes to pick his son up at school on Friday afternoon and Monday afternoon and to return him to school on Monday morning and on Tuesday morning, under the current parenting arrangement. According to Mr. S., uncontested by Ms. C-D because she herself has undertaken the trip, it takes a one-and-three-quarter hour bus ride to get E. between his father’s home in Gatineau and his mother’s home in Ottawa. During these bus trips, E. often eats his breakfast on the bus. By car, when he can borrow his brother’s or father’s car or can rent a car which he often does on the weekends, it is approximately a 30 minute trip.

[89] Mr. S. was aware of the Court order indicating that failing any other agreement between the parents, parenting exchanges were to take place at E.’s school. It was Mr. S.’s evidence that Ms. C-D has, on her own initiative, agreed to make the trip with E. to Gatineau or to meet Mr. S. half-way, so as to share the travel with him or so as not to have to wait when Mr. S. cannot get to E.’s school on time. Mr. S. did not deny that sometimes his family is not able to help him with the parenting exchanges when he cannot make it himself. He denied that he pressured the mother to do this. According to Mr. S. it was the Society worker who asked that this not be done.

[90] Mr. S. admitted to missing two parenting periods with E. and a third due to a misunderstanding with the mother since September of 2014. During those periods Mr. S.’s family was not able to help him.

[91] On cross-examination, Mr. S. admitted that there still exists some difficulty between the parents concerning their communication and the parenting exchanges.

[92] Mr. S. genuinely believes that Ms. C-D, given the obvious deficiencies in her past care of E., (such as her failure to register E. in the “Head Start” program in a timely fashion, her failure to promptly provide medical care for E. when he needed it, her failure to maintain his immunisation shots and her inability to get E. to the “Head Start” program on time, as well as her intellectually limited ability to stimulate E. and to generally cope with stress in her life) is not capable of caring for their son more than three days at a time. Mr. S. also complains that in the past Ms. C-D has been uncommunicative with him and has failed to inform him of important facts relating to the well-being of her son.

BEST INTERESTS OF E.

[93] Both the decision as to whether the Society should be allowed to withdraw from this matter and the question of what parenting arrangement should be ordered for E. are to be decided in the best interests of the child and whether he remains in need of protection. Section 37(3) of the CFSA enumerates a list of circumstances that ought to be considered in the making of such a decision. An examination of the list, based on the facts of this case, leads me to the conclusion that the following factors are relevant to this case:

(1) The child’ physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.

(2) The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.

(3) The child’s cultural background.

(4) The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.

(5) The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.

(6) The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community.

(7) The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.

(8) The merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent.

(9) The child’s views and wishes, if they can reasonably ascertained.

(10) The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.

(11) The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned or allowed to remain in the care of a parent.

(12) The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

[94] I intend to deal with each of these factors individually.

The child’ physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs

[95] Based on objective evidence, namely, the observations of the Society worker and the reports from E.’s current school, E.’s physical, mental and emotional needs are being met by the current parenting arrangement. He is reported to be a happy, well-cared for and a thriving child. He appears absolutely loved and comfortable in both parental homes. Emotionally and psychologically he moves seamlessly between both homes despite the very different environments. His mother’s home is a single parent home and his father’s home appears to be more like an extended family village where all S. family members willingly and lovingly care for E. as their responsibility when required and when they are able.

[96] The parents’ own evidence relating to how they live out their daily routines with E., how they feed him, how they care for him and what activities they engage in with him, indicates that both parents are equally capable of meeting E.’s physical, mental and emotional needs.

[97] There is no question on the evidence that in the past, Mr. S. was quicker off the mark to ensure that E.’s medical and school needs were met while Ms. C-D slowly grappled with her own mental health needs as she withdrew from what was clearly a very conflictual relationship with Mr. S., entailing serious allegations of physical abuse, albeit contested, as well as uncontested serious verbal and psychological abuse, continuing into the present. The evidence indicates that she has made substantial progress on her personal issues and has demonstrated herself to be capable, at this time, of meeting E.’s physical, mental and emotional needs together with Mr. S.

[98] Mr. S. argues that the mother cannot care for E. for more than a few days before she begins to psychologically shut down and withdraw from her responsibilities. Ms. C-D testified to her past physical difficulties and the challenges establishing a childcare routine presented to her. However, the evidence indicated that there has indeed been a notable change in her life. She has cared for E. for extended periods, a few times, when Mr. S. could not take over care of E. and his family could not help. There were no reported difficulties or adverse effects suffered by E. during that time. Ms. C-D has responded appropriately to any school concerns relating to E.’s conduct communicated to her by E.’s teachers and made time to meet with school officials. She has attempted to seek the engagement of the father in these matters and has not hesitated to call on Mr. S.’s help in the past when dealing with E.’s behaviour when she felt she could not do it on her own.

The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development

[99] Much of what applies to this factor has already been discussed in point (1). E. is a very young child. Both parents, based on their efforts to be better parents through the programs each engaged in the very early years of their son’s life, and based on their individual evidence of how they care for E. are attuned to the development level of their son. They engage him in healthy and stimulating activity. They have both succeeded in making him feel loved, secure and stable in both homes which a child the age of E. needs.

[100] The Society worker in this matter, as have the parents, has provided evidence that the conflict level between the parents, and the effect parental conflict would have on the development of such a young child continues to be of concern. In fact, it was the evidence of the Society, that if the question of parental conflict was not satisfactorily resolved, the Society might see a need to continue to be involved or re-involved with this family. High parental conflict poses a risk of emotional harm to a child.

[101] Mr. S. is an intelligent individual and seems to be able to recognize the potential risk to his son of continued and prolonged high level parental conflict, verbal or otherwise, at an intellectual level. On his own evidence, Mr. S.’s perception of Ms. C-D’s parenting and intellectual deficiencies in the past and current parenting style frustrate him, to the point of being unable to control his unacceptable verbal abuse. Interestingly, and misguidedly, he seems to think it is the only way to get Ms. C-D to respond to him. He indicates that he is working on it, which perhaps indicates that he, himself recognizes that his conduct towards his son’s mother has not been, perhaps, the best.

[102] On the evidence, Ms. C-D has recently come to deal with Mr. S.’s abuse by withdrawing from any more contact with him than she has to have. I must conclude that Ms C-D’s choice of potential options, given the parties’ past interactions, is the preferable one in the circumstances of this case, while Mr. S. continues to work on it.

[103] Clearly, in the best interests of E., in order to manage more effectively the level of parental conflict in this matter, direct contact between the parents should be as little as possible but still permit the parenting arrangement which is best for E. If circumstances improve this imperative may change in the future.

The child’s cultural background, and

The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised

[104] I deal with these two factors together because in the circumstances of this case they are closely related. E. is a product of parents who come from different cultures. In his father’s home he speaks French and from his grandmother is also learning his paternal grandmother’s mother tongue, which his father and the rest of the S. clan also speak.

[105] Religion is also an important feature of his paternal grandparents’ lives which is also shared with E. on a weekly basis. By this, E. benefits from a rich cultural dimension to his life.

[106] Mr. S.’s plan of care would maintain the cultural, linguistic and religious development of E. If the father’s plan of care were to be accepted, E.’s exposure to the French language would substantially increase. His father and his extended family care for him in the French language. He would be attending a French speaking daycare and eventually a French speaking school.

[107] In his mother’s home E. speaks English. The evidence presented by the Society worker was that during the time of the Society’s involvement with this family, Ms. C-D did not appear to have a close, supportive extended family network available to help her with the care of E. Ms. C-D testified that her extended family experienced a separation of her parents and she is not as close to her siblings as that seen in Mr. S.’s family. However, she has recently reached out to some of her siblings and E. is getting to know some of his aunts and cousins and enjoys being with them.

[108] If his father’s plan of care were to be accepted and his father’s home became his primary residence in the way suggested by Mr. S., E.’s exposure to his mother’s language would be reduced.

[109] Ms. C-D has endorsed E.’s bi-cultural and religious heritage from his father’s side of the family. As she testified she has sought out a school that can offer E. a French immersion academic program to reinforce and develop his linguistic development. The school is Catholic and consistent with the religious worship and exposure E. is receiving while in the care of his paternal grandparents. In this regard Ms. C-D, in her proposed plan of care for E., has made choices that are consistent and respectful with E.’s cultural, linguistic and religious development, in his best interests.

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

[110] How the parents regard each other, how the parents deal with each other, how the parents involve the other in the important decisions relating to the child and how the parents manage their differences, are clearly all factors contributing to the discussion of this important point.

[111] Firstly, it is important to note that both parents have not been without their successes in this regard. The S. extended family, on behalf of Mr. S., certainly not against his wishes, reached out and provided whatever assistance they could to Ms. C-D as the mother of their grandson. This occurred before E. was born and after E. was born.

[112] Mr. S., upon his release from prison, quickly and appropriately responded when the parenting abilities of Ms. C-D were not up to the level of meeting E.’s needs in the early years of his life. He took on more parenting responsibilities in order to meet those needs and to permit Ms. C-D to do the parenting she was capable of and to develop her parenting capacity. He continues to play a significant role in the parenting of his son which also supports and complements Ms. C-D’s role in the parenting of E.

[113] For her part, despite the conflict between her and Mr. S., Ms. C-D has sought out and worked with the assistance of Mr. S. and his extended family when she felt it was in E.’s best interests, although this has happened less often recently. Ms. C-D denies that she failed to inform the father about her intentions to enroll E. in his current school. She gave the school Mr. S.’s name and telephone number as a contact for E. On the evidence, she recognizes the significant role Mr. S. and all of his extended family plays in the life of E. and more significantly, its importance to E.’s well-being.

[114] One indication of all of this is how seamlessly E. moves from his mother’s home to his father’s home and back and how he is positively emotionally attached to both parents. E. clearly needs the love and care of both of his parents.

[115] Where the parents have had a little less success is in their interpersonal relationships which has continued to be conflictual, and on the part of Mr. S., at least, verbally abusive if he is not happy with Ms. C-D’s response to his particular request at the time. It is fair to conclude from the evidence that Mr. S. has been shown to exert psychological and emotional pressure on Ms. C-D to get her to comply with his wishes. Ms. C-D’s tendency to withdraw from such conflict, rather than confront it, appears to be necessary for her mental health, but can create difficulties if real issues of co-parenting in the interests of the child have to be dealt with jointly. Disrespectful treatments of a person versus withdrawal from personal interactions are both unhappy options.

[116] For his part Mr. S. testified that Ms. C-D knew how to “push his buttons”, but was extremely vague about what that meant.

[117] In the face of all of the evidence and the fact that the parents have not disclosed to the Society worker, any major complaints about the other as a parent during its involvement, I am persuaded that Ms. C-D more readily and willingly recognizes Mr. S.’s worth and value as a parent in E.’s life than he does of her. Mr. S. has little respect for the mother’s intellectual capacity and he has not treated her in a respectful way whenever conflict arises between them.

[118] All of Mr. S.’s evidence relating to the question of his deportation proceedings, I also found troubling in this regard. Mr. S. saw no reason why he should have disclosed this to either the Society or give Ms. C-D details of it. His sudden absence from his son’s care, according to Mr. S. would be filled by his extended family, his own mother, Mrs. T.S., who has had serious health problems of her own and who is not told about significant aspects of Mr. S.’s life and the other members of his family who appear to work full-time and have their own lives to lead. Mr. S.’s perception of what the consequences to E. would be and of what the new role for his family in the care of E. would be, in the event of his deportation from Canada is indicative of the little value he places on Ms. C-D’s co-parenting of his son, at worse. At best, it is indicative of his total lack of confidence in Ms. C-D to act as an appropriate parent to E. in his absence.

[119] In my view, all of the above evidence is extremely important when one considers, as one has to under this factor which parent would nurture, more genuinely and ably, a positive relationship between the child and a parent and a secure place as a member of a family. I must conclude, on the above mentioned evidence that Ms. C-D would be the parent who can best do that in the circumstances of this case.

The 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

[120] The evidence presented during this trial clearly indicates that E. has a strong relationship and emotional ties with both parents, in addition to the extended S. family. He is just now beginning to know the extended family of his mother. These strong relationships and emotional ties of E. have developed and been nurtured under the current joint parenting regime with both parents playing a significant role in his day-to-day care.

[121] The parenting arrangement that will permit, sustain and develop more deeply these strong relationships and emotional ties would be in E.’s best interests.

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

[122] Given the fact that E. is a happy, intelligent, and loving and thriving child, it would be hard to take issue with the fact that the parenting he has been receiving from both parents has been a good parenting arrangement for the child. The long bus rides, four times per week, between Gatineau and Ottawa, that Mr. S. finds so problematic for E., while no doubt tiring for a child the age of E., does not seem to have interfered with his progress at school and his loving and happy personality recognized by all who care for him. His response to the exchanges of parenting are reportedly equally positive, although Ms. C-D testified that there is always an adjustment period for E. when he returns to her from his father’s care.

[123] The mother’s proposed plan of care would essentially maintain the status quo. The disruption to the continuity of E.’s care would be almost negligible if that plan of care were to be accepted and minimal of E. were to be in his mother’s care for all of the school days of the week.

[124] Mr. S.’s originally proposed plan of care would introduce a much more significant disruption to the continuity of E.’s care by significantly minimizing the amount of time he would be in his mother’s care, to alternate weekends and some limited time during the week in a two week period. In the father’s alternately proposed plan of care Ms. C-D would have care of E. every weekend, if according to Mr. S., Ms. C-D believed she could cope with it.

[125] The father’s plan also introduces a disruption of E.’s schooling and the progress he has made there. Returning to daycare would be a regression.

The merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent

[126] This factor is clearly not relevant to the facts of this case. The Society submits that it is in the best interests of E. to remain in his parents’ care under an order pursuant to s. 57.1 of the CFSA and that they withdraw. It is the position of the Society that they cannot support the father’s proposed plan of care for exclusive custody of E. because of the outstanding deportation order that he is facing, because of the real serious risk to his safety that may exist given the father’s criminal antecedents as played out in the recent assault incident of July 1, 2014, and because of the nature of the conflict that continues to exist between the parents. Essentially, the Society supports an order that will keep E. in the care of both parents, in any parenting arrangement that is comparable to the existing parenting arrangement. Anything else, counsel for the Society submits would be “untried” in the circumstances of a little boy who is doing well and thriving. The Society endorses the status quo that has existed since June of 2013. The Society’s plan aligns with that of Ms. C-D.

[127] The lack of disruption in the continuity of E.’s care now carried out by both parents has obvious merit. The benefits that E. has clearly enjoyed in his development to date from the strong and substantial parenting of both of his parents have merit. What also has merit, is the preparation that maintaining the status quo gives to Ms. C-D to possibly become a sole parent to E. in the future if the contingency of Mr. S.’s absence from E.’s care ever materializes by permitting her to continue to play a substantial and strong parental role in E.’s life, rather than to be relegated now to a weekend access parent.

[128] The merit of Mr. S.’s plan is that it would give him complete control of E.’s day-to-day care and the major decisions relating to E.’s well-being. How active Ms. C-D would be in those decisions would essentially be up to him. If access exchanges were arranged in a way so as to not permit any contact between Mr. S. and Ms. C-D, and any exchange of information relating to E. were to be done electronically or through third parties, then the conflictual and abusive interactions between the parents which take place will be substantially reduced. That has merit. Finally, the need for E. to take the long bus rides between Gatineau and Ottawa, as often as he does, would be substantially diminished. That has some merit.

[129] When one takes account of all of these merits, I must agree with the Society submissions that the status quo of parenting is a proven thing shown to be in E.’s best interests.

The child’s views and wishes, if they can reasonably ascertained

[130] E. is too young to be able to reasonably express his views and wishes in this matter. What is clear from the evidence is that E. loves both of his parents and is happy to see both parents when the parenting exchanges take place.

The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case

[131] It is in the interests of every child that decisions regarding their security and stability be decided quickly, rather than prolonged by litigation. Delaying this matter will not benefit E.

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

[132] It is not necessary to repeat the analysis of the evidence found under factors 8, 7, 6, 5, 1 and 2 above. But, clearly all of the factors discussed under those headings apply to this factor as well.

The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection

[133] The evidence indicates that parental circumstances that led to E. having been found to be a child in need of protection included such factors as the mother’s excessive alcohol consumption in a caring role, her mental health issues, the criminal antecedents of Mr. S. that created a security risk for the father and potentially endangered the child while in his care, the very dysfunctional and abusive relationship between the parents leading to parental conflict as well as further criminal proceedings and finally the parenting capacity of both parents.

[134] The evidence presented at trial relating to how both parents responded to the Society being involved with their family is generally positive. Both parents have worked voluntarily with Society as well as under its supervision leading to the current order in place. Although having said that, it is also clear that both parents have not been completely open and candid with the Society worker.

[135] Given the progress both parents have made in addressing all of the circumstances that led to E. being found to be a child in need of protection and the overall cooperation both parents have demonstrated with the Society, it is accurate to conclude that the degree of risk that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection is at this time quite low. Both parents have shown themselves to appropriately parent E., and to, together, parent E., very well.

[136] The risk is not, however, completely eliminated. The conflictual relationship between the parents remains a concern. The potential absence of the father through the final outcome of his deportation proceedings remains a concern.

[137] Both of these continuing concerns, in my view, support the continuation of the status quo parenting arrangement.

CONTINUED INVOLVEMENT OF THE SOCIETY

[138] Finally, in view of the substantially reduced continuing risk, which can be dealt with by way of a custody and access order addressing those continuing concerns, I am persuaded that it is in the best interests of the child that the Society withdraw from this case. As Ms. Forest testified there are no services which the Society can offer the parents at this time and neither parent has sought the assistance of the Society for some time. The parenting of E. is working well and his needs are being met. If circumstances in the future were to change, the Society can always get involved with the family again either on a voluntary basis or on a less voluntary basis. I must conclude that with the appropriate custody and access order, there will be no protection concerns at this time.

DISPOSITION

[139] After taking account of all of these factors, as discussed above, I come to the conclusion that a parenting order that preserves the current parenting arrangement, as much as possible, is in the best interests of E. To that end the Court makes the following order:

(1) The existing supervision order is terminated and the Society is permitted to withdraw from this matter on the condition that both parents continue to cooperate with the Society and work with the Society on a voluntary basis, as both parents indicated they would do.

(2) There shall be an order for joint legal custody to both parents pursuant to section 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act.

(3) The primary residence of the child shall be with the mother. The child shall continue to attend Prince of Peace School in the mother’s neighbourhood. Neither parent shall be permitted to take the child outside of Canada without the written consent of the other parent or by further order of this Court.

(4) The day-to-day parenting of the child shall alternate between the father and the mother in the following way during each week:

(i) from Friday after the commencement of school to Monday at the commencement of school, E. shall be in the care of his father. If there is a long weekend or a PD day attached to a weekend of any given week, the father’s care of the child shall expand to include that extra time;

(ii) from all other times during the week, namely, Monday, after the commencement of school until Friday morning, at the commencement of school, E. shall be in the care of his mother.

(5) Drop-off and pick-up for the parenting exchanges during the school year shall take place only at the school. Mr. S. shall be responsible for the drop-off and pick-up of E. at school at the commencement and ending, respectively, of his weekly parent time with E. In the event that Mr. S.’s work schedule does not permit him to personally drop-off or pick-up E. from his school, he is permitted to make arrangements directly with the school to have another member of his extended family, either of his parents, his brother, Mr. F.S. and his sister to pick up and drop off E. at his school. Ms. C-D will sign any authorizations with the school which might be necessary in order to permit these alternate people to pick up or drop off E. at his school. Both parent and third parties will attempt to respect the times for the drop-off and pick-up at all times.

(6) Both parents are entitled to know what professionals are involved in their son’s life and to seek information concerning their son from any school professional, medical professional and any other professional who may deal with E., directly from the school, medical or other professional. Both parents are to cooperate, including signing any authorization, in order to permit the other parent to obtain direct access to information relating to their son.

(7) Both parents shall communicate with each other only as it relates to the well-being of their son and for the purpose of facilitating this court ordered parenting arrangement. All communication between the parents shall take place in writing or by telephone. Both parents are obligated to communicate with the other parent any substantial matter touching on the well-being of their son. Mr. S. is obligated to disclose, in writing, to Ms. C-D, any and all significant development in his deportation proceedings, including the dates of all hearings.

(8) All major decisions touching on the well-being of E., such as religious, medical, scholastic and the activities he is registered in shall be made jointly after the parents have had an opportunity to exchange their views on the decision in question in writing and in a respectful manner. If after this process there is still no agreement between the parents, the parent with the primary residence, Ms. C-D, shall make the final decision.

(9) Any decision, touching on the well-being of E., that requires an immediate decision, such as a medical emergency, shall be made by the parent who has care of E. at the time. That parent shall fully inform the other parent of the circumstances of the emergency situation and emergency decision as soon as is practical.

(10) The parents shall share equally all of the school holidays during the school year and shall arrange the parenting exchanges, as much as possible, at the child’s school where both parents need not be present at the same time. In the event that E.’s school is not in session, and both parents need to be present for the parenting exchange, such exchange shall take place with minimum communication between the parents to effect the exchange in a harmonious and respectful manner. In those instances, if the parents could arrange a third party to be present for the parent exchanges, it would be preferable.

(11) The school summer holidays, enjoyed by E. shall be shared by the parents on an alternating weekly basis from Friday afternoon to Friday afternoon, commencing the first Friday after the school year terminates in June and ending on the last Friday before E.’s next school year commences, unless the parents can otherwise agree in writing.

(12) The restraining order requested by Ms. C-D is granted and Mr. S. is prohibited from attending at the residence of Ms. C-D. His attendance at her home will not be necessary as all parent exchanges will take place at E.’s school.

(13) Mr. S. is to return forthwith the original copy of E.’s birth certificate given to him by Ms. C-D for purposes of copying.

M. Linhares de Sousa J.

Released: December 8, 2014

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

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990

AND IN THE MATTER OF E.C-D-S., born […], 2010

BETWEEN:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA

Applicant

– and –

K. C-D (the mother) and

E.S. (the father)

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

M. Linhares de Sousa J.

Released: December 8, 2014