ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-2704
DATE: 2015/09/14
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 C.P., D.O.B. XX-XX, 2005; D.S., D.O.B. XX-XX, 2009 and J.P., D.O.B. XX-XX, 2014
BETWEEN:
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant
– and –
C.S. (Mother)
P.S. (Father of D.S.)
R.P. (Father of C.P. and J.P.)
Respondents
Marguerite Lewis, for the Applicant
Diana Aoun, for the C.S.
Jessica Danvy Vo, for P.S.
Cedric Y.L. Nahum, for R.P.
HEARD: September 2, 2015 (at Ottawa)
REASONS FOR DECISION
Kane J.
[1] The Society seeks an order placing the three children, aged 9, 8 and 1, in its temporary care and custody; with access to Mr. P., to be fully supervised with frequency, duration and location at the discretion of the Society.
[2] Ms. S. and Mr. P. oppose the relief sought and seek the return of the children to the care of Ms. S. who resides with Mr. P.
[3] Ms. S. is the mother of the three children. Mr. P. is the father of the oldest and the youngest child. Mr. S. is the father of the 8 year old.
[4] The three children were apprehended by the Society on August 14, 2015. A temporary, and without prejudice, care and custody order was granted on August 19, 2015 which the Society now seeks a without prejudice continuance thereof.
[5] The issue on this motion is the state of mental health of Mr. P. and whether the Society has established that there is a likely risk of harm if the children are returned to their mother and Mr. P. The issue is not Ms. S. other than her residence with and the presence of Mr. P.
Background
[6] Ms. S. and Mr. P. were a couple in 2006. They resumed their relationship in March 2013.
[7] The Society records seven file openings regarding this family.
[8] In March 2014, Mr. P. was admitted to hospital following a cocaine overdose resulting in a seizure.
[9] In April 2014, the doctor of Mr. P. expressed concern to the Society as to his patient residing in a home with children.
[10] In response to an assault complaint by Ms. S., police contacted the Society due to the presence of children. Mr. P. subsequently pled guilty and was convicted of assaulting Ms. S. in May of 2014.
[11] The youngest child was born in […], 2014. Hospital birthing staff expressed concern as to the mental health and improper conduct of Mr. P.
[12] On July 4, 2014, Mr. P. was admitted to a psychiatric unit for psychosis where he remained for treatment until August 15, 2014, when he discharged himself against medical advice. Ms. S. at that time was recovering from an injury and overburdened with caring for the children alone.
[13] Ms. S. and Mr. P. agreed to a voluntary temporary care agreement and placement of the children with the Society between August 15 and December 10, 2014.
[14] The court made a without prejudice order placing the children with the Society on December 10, 2014.
[15] The psychiatrist of Mr. P. recommended that a family court assessment with further psychological assessments be done to consider how Mr. P.’s mental health may affect his ability to parent. That psychiatrist was concerned as to possible brain injury due to past drug use by Mr. P.
[16] On February 2, 2015 the court, on consent, ordered a Family Court Clinic Assessment which is expected on October 9, 2015.
[17] On March 11, 2015, the court, on consent, granted an interim supervision order for a gradual reintegration of the children with Ms. S. on conditions, which included a prohibition of Mr. P.’s consumption of non-prescription drugs and prohibited the children being left in the sole care of Mr. P.
[18] In June 2005, Mr. P. was placed on a new medication which he felt were causing him to have suicidal thoughts. That medication was changed with reported improvement in his wellbeing and conduct.
[19] On August 13, 2015, Mr. P.’s psychiatrist communicated concern to the Society as Mr. P. told this physician that he had stopped his medication, including a mood stabilizer which controls anxiety. Mr. P. refused the physician’s urging to restart his medication, became angry and left the doctor’s office. The psychiatrist alerted Ms. S. and recommended she call 911 if Mr. P.’s conduct became problematic. The psychiatrist was concerned Mr. P. might have resumed use of street drugs and considered an involuntary admission to a psychiatric unit.
[20] On August 14, 2015, the Society apprehended the children. Mr. P. told the Society that he might benefit from readmission for treatment to the hospital. The children reported that Mr. P. was frequently angry and impatient with them and their mother.
[21] Ms. S., currently in a wheelchair, has told the Society several times in the past that she needs the assistance of Mr. P. in her care of the children.
Psychiatric Diagnosis
[22] The psychiatric diagnosis of Mr. P. fluctuates.
[23] Initially, he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. In 2008, his psychiatrist noticed polysubstance abuse, traits of personality disorder and generalized anxiety disorder. Subsequently, he was diagnosed with malingering disorder.
[24] As of March 5, 2015, this psychiatrist diagnosed Mr. P. as suffering from adult ADHD, past addiction issues and anxiety with the patient reporting regular odd ideas which may be related to schizotypal personality disorder.
[25] On March 5, 2015, Mr. P.’s psychiatrist stated that “given the ongoing question marks regarding his diagnosis, Mr. P. would definitely benefit from a thorough psychiatric and psychological assessment, and I strongly encourage him and his partner to agree to meet the Family Court practitioners. To date, Mr. P. is compliant with his … follow-up and his ADHD medication. He is clinically stable and has not presented lately with ideas of harming himself or others.”
[26] On September 1, 2015, that same psychiatrist, at the request of the patient, stated Mr. P. “is now taking his medications consistently and I noticed a significant improvement. He is back to his baseline”.
[27] A resident doctor at the same psychiatric hospital on August 28, 2015 states that blood test results indicate that Mr. P. has taken his prescribed medication, however the test results show the medication is slightly higher than range and such medication therefore will require adjustment with follow-up blood test analysis to confirm the results.
[28] An assessment by the Family Court Clinic was ordered on consent, on February 2, 2015. The assessment report is expected on October 9, 2015.
Analysis
[29] The recommendations and signals of concern from this psychiatrist cannot be ignored and are in large measure driving the agenda in this proceeding. What this court needs today and does not have is the assessment ordered six months ago.
[30] Counsel for Mr. P. and Ms. S., minimize the seriousness of the events in mid-August this year. That was not the then opinion of the psychiatrist in his signal of concern to the Society. This court disagrees with Mr. P. and Ms. S.’s characterization of those events.
[31] Whatever “back to baseline” level refers to, that level previously warranted recommending that a Family Court Assessment be done to identify how the psychiatric health issues of Mr. P. might impact the children.
[32] I disagree with counsel’s position that the potential the children may be returned home today and removed again on October 9, 2015, based upon assessment results, is not a relevant consideration on this motion.
[33] It has only been two weeks since the psychiatrist again sounded an alarm and the court determined that there was likely risk to the children. With the assessment due in four weeks, I require assurance that the August 15 risk no longer exists, beyond the “back to baseline” comment.
[34] The children cannot continue to be removed from their home, returned and removed again because Mr. P. stops taking his medication, is using non-prescription drugs or is having a negative reaction to changed medication.
[35] Ms. S. currently is physically unable to care for the three children alone.
Conclusion
[36] Pursuant to s. 51(2) (d) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O.1990, c. C.11:
(a) Interim care and custody of the three children shall remain with the Society;
(b) With liberal unsupervised access to Ms. S., provided Mr. P. is not present;
(c) Mr. P. shall have full supervised access with frequency, duration and location at the discretion of the Society, taking into account Mr. P.’s mental state and the children’s best interests; and
(d) Access and supervision between Mr. S. and his daughter to be at the discretion of the Society.
[37] Default judgment against Mr. S. is set aside. He shall have two weeks from today to file an Answer and Plan of Care which shall, based on his submission, be limited to access.
[38] This matter is adjourned to Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 10 a.m., or such other time as counsel may agree upon.
Kane J.
Released: September 14, 2015
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
C.P., D.O.B. XX-XX, 2005; D.S., D.O.B. XX-XX, 2009 and J.P., D.O.B. XX-XX, 2014
BETWEEN:
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant
– and –
C.S. (Mother)
P.S. (Father of D.S.)
R.P. (Father of C.P. and J.P.)
Respondents
REASONS FOR DECISION
Kane J.
Released: September 14, 2015