ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

COURT FILE NO.: FC-11-1938-5

DATE: 2015/09/14

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 K.-L.Q., D.O.B. XX-XX, 2011

BETWEEN:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant

– and –

T.Q. (Mother)
C.K. (Father)
Mother’s Band c/o Chief N.H., M.C. First Nation

Respondents

Marguerite Lewis, for the Applicant

Jessica Danvy Vo, for T.Q., the Respondent Mother

HEARD: August 31, 2015 (at Ottawa)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

kane j.

[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa [the “Society”] sought an order:

(a) of Crown wardship for adoption or other permanent plan, of the child K.-L.Q, (the “Child”) by way of motion for summary judgment; and

(b) approving the Society’s mode of substituted service of this motion on C.K. (the “Father”).

[2] T.Q. (the “Mother”), served through counsel, was not present. The Mother was represented today by legal counsel who had no instructions as to the motion and was therefore unable to participate.

[3] The Father is in default, did not attend today, was not served personally and only recently was served in a substitutional manner.

Decision

[4] The court today:

(a) Approved the substituted manner of service of the Father by the Society;

(b) Noted the Father in default;

(c) Granted Crown wardship for adoption or other permanent plan of the Child, to the Society by way of summary judgment as against the Mother, and conditionally as against the Father unless the Father within 30 days from today, with leave, serves and files an Answer and Plan of Care failing which, this order of Crown wardship shall be final as against him;

(d) Ordered that the Mother is entitled to access at the discretion of the Society;

(e) Ordered that the Child is to remain in the past and existing foster home until adoption or permanent placement, if possible;

(f) Adjourned the matter as to the Father, to October 5, 2015, at 09:30 hours; and

(g) Vacated September 8-11, 2015, being the schedule trial dates.

Motion Evidence

[5] The only evidence presented is from the Society. The Mother presented no evidence.

[6] The Mother is currently 23 years of age and believed to be currently residing in the City of Toronto.

[7] The Father is 32 years of age. His whereabouts are unknown.

[8] The Child is currently four years of age and was born on […], 2011.

The Child

[9] The Child was apprehended by the Society at birth due to concerns about parental substance abuse, mental health and transiency.

[10] On October 13, 2011, the Child was found to be in need of protection and made a ward of the Society. That wardship was extended for four months on January 23, 2012 by court order. Subsequently:

(a) On April 19, 2012, the Child was placed in the care of the Father and the Mother under a six month supervision order;

(b) On August 31, 2012, the Child was apprehended as the Society was concerned the Mother was impaired by the consumption of drugs or alcohol;

(c) On September 5, 2012, the Child became the subject of the Society’s application for Crown wardship;

(d) On October 24, 2012, the Child was ordered to be a Crown ward;

(e) By October 24, 2012, the Child had resided 10 months in a foster home, and four months with the biological parents.

[11] On July 25, 2013, the Mother commenced proceedings seeking return of the Child. With the assistance of a Circle of Care mediation program, the Child was transitioned to the care of her Mother over one year.

[12] By August, 2014, the Child was residing with the Mother. That was formalized in the form of a six month conditional supervision order dated September 3, 2014.

[13] In January, 2015, it was reported to the Society that the Mother had taken a drug overdose in an apparent suicide attempt. The Society apprehended the Child for a short period.

[14] The Society determined that the Mother was residing with a particular male individual and using marijuana regularly, both of which were prohibited conditions under a previous supervision order.

[15] The Society apprehended the Child on February 12, 2015, after a reported alcohol relapse by the Mother.

[16] Between January 26, 2015 and June 26, 2015, the Mother missed 24 out of 35 possible access visits with the Child, which were to occur two or three times per week, including in the community with supervision. The Society in June, 2015 agreed to reduce the level of supervision during access and increase the Mother’s access visits to three times per week.

[17] In June, 2015, the Mother attended a three-week substance withdrawal program. The Mother failed to provide the Society with a copy of her prevention and discharge plan. The Mother agreed to complete random drug screening.

[18] On July 14, 2015, the Mother appeared to be disoriented and unwell. The Society requested that the Mother complete a drug screen within two days. No results of such a screening have been provided to the Society.

[19] Since July 14, 2015, the Mother has not attended any access visits. She is reported to be living in Toronto.

[20] Throughout the above period, the Mother has received counselling and support from local native community organizations.

[21] The Child is attending school regularly, is healthy, happy and meeting her developmental milestones in the same foster home she has resided in for four years, or 38 of the 48 months since birth.

Analysis

[22] The court must grant summary judgment if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial pursuant to Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 and Rule 20.04 (2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194.

[23] In the absence of contradictory evidence from the biological parents, the evidence presented on this motion permits this court to make the necessary findings of fact and apply the relevant law to those facts.

[24] Given the current age of the Child, the lengthy absence of these parents in the life of the Child and the past and current consumption issues the Mother struggles with, this court concludes that there is no triable issue as to what is in the best interests of this Child. The evidence establishes that the best interest analysis indicates that the Child’s future benefit requires permanence, that adoption be a possibility and the granting of an order of Crown wardship.

[25] The Child is progressing positively under the care of the Society.

[26] The Child would benefit from continued access with the Mother, if that is possible.

[27] The Father has been absent in the life of the Child during the last four years. The conditional nature of the Crown wardship judgment, as to the Father, is intended to ensure he has an opportunity to contest such wardship.

[28] A trial of the above issues on the evidence presented is unnecessary. There is no triable issue regarding the Child’s best interests.

[29] Summary Judgment is granted of Crown wardship for adoption or other permanent placement of the child K.-L.Q.

[30] The Society is to post notice immediately on Facebook to the Father advising him that a decision has now been issued which,

(a) is available from the court or the Society; and

(b) requires his response before and attendance in court on October 5, 2015, at 9:30 a.m. including the address of the court for his attendance.

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 K.-L.Q., D.O.B. XX-XX, 2011

BETWEEN:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA

Applicant

– and –

T.Q. (Mother)
C.K. (Father)
Mother’s Band c/o Chief N.H., M.C. First Nation

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Kane J.

Released: September 14, 2015