Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: C1478/05-11 DATE: April 28, 2016 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO FAMILY COURT
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
RE: CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF LONDON AND MIDDLESEX, applicant AND: J.W. and J.P., respondents
BEFORE: MITROW J.
COUNSEL: Christine McLeod for the Society Paul Lepine for J.W. Robert Cunningham for J.P.
HEARD: April 25, 2016
Endorsement
[1] This protection application involves the child, C., born in 2013.
[2] The Society seeks to place C. in the care of the parent, J.P. (“Ms. P.”), pursuant to a six month supervision order with terms and conditions.
[3] The respondents are C.’s mother (“Ms. W.”) and the father (“Mr. P.”).
[4] Ms. P. and Mr. P. reside together. They have a child together, K., born in 2015. Ms. P. and Mr. P. have resided together since November 2014 in a stable relationship.
[5] Ms. P., and all the parties, support the order sought by the Society. The mother, Ms. W., is not in a position to parent C.
[6] This matter first came before me as a consent order request on March 31, 2016. As a result of concerns I expressed about the proposed order, this matter was adjourned before me to April 25, 2016 for a brief hearing, the purpose of which was to receive further evidence and submissions as to whether the order sought should be granted.
[7] The issues centred around historical concerns involving Mr. P. that related to domestic violence, including a criminal record that contained convictions in respect of former partners, anger management, mental health and his ability to adequately parent and protect his children. One of the conditions sought by the Society was that Ms. P. at all times had to supervise Mr. P.’s interactions with C. and not leave him alone with C.
[8] While incarcerated in London in 2013, Mr. P. was diagnosed with bi-polar disorder by the facility’s psychiatrist. Mr. P. is currently not on any medication, nor is he receiving any treatment for this disorder. Despite being urged by the Society, Mr. P. has yet to see a psychiatrist for follow-up.
[9] While living in British Columbia, Mr. P. fathered five children. According to his evidence, his eldest child was placed for adoption; Mr. P. states he was 15 when this child was born; his next two children, born in 2007 and 2008, reside with their mother. The last two children, according to Mr. P., were apprehended from their mother by the Society in British Columbia; of those two children, the youngest was apprehended from the mother at birth but died from “SIDS” while in foster care. The elder of those two children now resides with Mr. P.’s mother in British Columbia.
[10] The Society did obtain and review records and information regarding Mr. P. received from the British Columbia society, including both as a child and in his role as a parent. Although the Society did not file any records and information obtained from the British Columbia society, the Society did not dispute Mr. P.’s account of the history involving his five children born in British Columbia.
[11] Mr. P. has failed to complete the Caring Dads program through Changing Ways and an anger management program.
[12] While I remain concerned about Mr. P.’s history as set out above, and about the long-term viability of his relationship with Ms. P., I am prepared, albeit reluctantly, to approve the order sought as being in the child’s best interests, for the brief reasons that follow, although with some changes as mentioned below.
[13] The Society was quite forceful in its submissions to approve the order. The updated affidavits of the Society workers, Ms. Wilkinson and Ms. Glen, both spoke very positively of the cooperation of both Mr. P. and Ms. P. with the Society; Mr. P. was described further as showing financial responsibility by obtaining and maintaining employment. The home visits between C. and Ms. P. and Mr. P. were quite positive.
[14] In relation to K., the Society concerns were addressed via a voluntary services agreement which the parents successfully completed. Mr. P.’s interaction with K. was required to be supervised by Ms. P. Both parents were cooperative with the Society in completing the voluntary services agreement. C. was described as having a good relationship with his half-sibling K.
[15] Ms. P. had no prior history with the Society; further, the Society was quite confident in Ms. P.’s commitment to supervise all interactions between Mr. P. and C. Also, the relationship between Mr. P. and Ms. P. was described as positive and stable, with no episodes of violence by Mr. P.
[16] Ms. P. was very committed to assuming a parental role in relation to C., and to comply with all proposed terms and conditions of the supervision order. Mr. P. expressed a sincere willingness to work with the Society; he deposed that he had no further criminal convictions after 2012 and that he had requested, but not yet received, an updated police records check. Subsequent to the hearing, Mr. Cunningham did provide an original, clear police records check for Ms. P., which has been marked as Ex. #3.
[17] Although the kinship assessment of Ms. P. is still in progress, the Society explained that the transition of C. from his long-term foster home to Mr. P. and Ms. P., had to be expedited because the foster parent, who had wanted to adopt C., had stated it would be too difficult for C. to remain in the foster home during the transition period. Accordingly, C. was facing a move to a new foster home if the order sought was not approved.
[18] I find that C. is a child in need of protection pursuant to sections 37(2)(b)(i) and 37(2)(b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.11. I make the statutory findings as set out in paragraph 1 on page 2 of the statement of agreed facts forming part of Ex. #1 filed on March 31, 2016 at tab 32 of the continuing record.
[19] The terms and conditions need to include specific requirements in relation to Mr. P. being assessed by a psychiatrist and completing Caring Dads and anger management programs.
[20] There should also be a condition requiring Mr. P.’s contact with K. to be supervised by Ms. P. The potential risk to C. – that requires supervision – applies equally to K.
[21] In relation to access to C. by his mother, Ms. W., the order sought provides that such access may be supervised by Mr. P. and Ms. P. together, as approved by the Society. In my view, Mr. P., even together with Ms. P., should have no supervisory role in relation to Ms. W.’s access, given that he is not to be left alone with C. and has to be supervised. A person whose contact with children is being supervised should not be supervising other people’s contact with children.
[22] This is a case where the Society must be vigilant in enforcing the terms and conditions, in particular the requirement that Mr. P. is not to be left alone with either C. or K.
[23] For reasons set out above, I make the following final order:
- A six-month supervision order placing C. with the parent, Ms. P., is granted as asked in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of the “order sought” in the statement of agreed facts, forming part of Ex. #1 filed at tab 32 of the continuing record with the following changes: a) Condition (viii) is replaced with the following: “That the parent, J.P., shall supervise the father, J.P., at all times in his interactions with the children, C.R.T.W., born in 2013, and K.M.M.P., born in 2015, and shall not leave him alone with either or both children.” b) The following conditions are added: “(xii) The father, J.P., forthwith shall make an appointment and attend for an assessment with a psychiatrist and shall follow any treatment recommendations, and shall provide an authorization allowing the Society to obtain a report and/or information from the psychiatrist. (xiii) Mr. P. shall provide his updated criminal record to the Society within 60 days.” c) The last sentence of paragraph 2 is deleted and replaced with: “The access may be supervised by the parent, J.P, if approved by the Society, or any other adult, other than the father, J.P., as approved by the Society.” d) Paragraph 3 is re-worded and replaced with the following: “The father, J.P., and the parent, J.P., shall not move the primary residence of the children, C. and K., from the County of Middlesex without further court order.” e) The following paragraph 4 is added: “The Society shall complete the kinship assessment for Ms. P. and shall file this assessment in the continuing record within three months.”