CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. H(K), 2016 ONSC 3010
COURT FILE NO.: FC-99-1007
DATE: 2016/05/24
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 S.L.H., born […], 2001 and K.H.-G., born […], 2009
BETWEEN:
THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant
– and –
K.H., Mother
R.E., Father of S.-L.H., (deceased)
W.G., Father of K.H.-G.
Respondents
Vasu Naik, for the Applicant
Joseph A. Di Iorio, for the Mother
Ezioma O. Nnorom, the Children’s Lawyer
HEARD: May 2, 2016 (at Ottawa)
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
shelston j.
Overview
[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (the “Society”) seeks a summary judgment with respect to the amended Status Review Application dated December 8, 2015 seeking Crown wardship for the children, S.L.H.(“S.”), born […], 2001 and K.H.-G.(“K.”), born […], 2009, pursuant to Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 (the “Family Law Rules”), and an order that the said children shall have access to their mother K.H. at the discretion of the Society.
[2] In the original Status Review Application, the Society sought a six month Society wardship for the three children, being S., K., and their older sibling K.H.-E., born […], 1999.
[3] K.H. (the “mother”) is the mother of all three children.
[4] The father of the children S. and K.H.-E. is Mr. R.E. who is deceased.
[5] The father of the child K. is W.G. By order dated August 10, 2015 of the Honourable Justice V. J. Mackinnon service on Mr. W.G. was dispensed with.
[6] On June 12, 2015, the Society filed a Status Review Application seeking an order that the three children be made wards of the Society for a six month period and that access to the mother would be at the discretion of the Society taking into consideration the wishes of the children.
[7] On July 21, 2015, the Society filed an amended Status Review Application amending the claim for relief by deleting the child K.H.-E., as he had turned 16 years of age on June 10, 2015 and left the Society’s foster placement. He indicated that he no longer wanted to have any involvement with the Society.
[8] On December 8, 2015, the Society filed an amended Status Review Application seeking Crown wardship of S. and K. with access to the mother at the discretion of the Society taking into consideration the children’s wishes and best interests.
[9] This matter is set to proceed to trial on June 20, 2016.
[10] In this motion, the Society relies on the affidavit evidence of two child protection workers, two child and youth counsellors, K.’s foster parent and S.’s foster parent. In addition there are various exhibits attached to the affidavits including affidavit material filed in the New Brunswick Courts, school reports, Ottawa Police occurrence reports, case plans with the Child Protection Agency in New Brunswick, report cards, and a report from Suzanne Marcotte, dated February 26, 2016, regarding K.
[11] The mother filed one affidavit dated April 28, 2016 in reply.
Positions of the Parties
Position of Society
[12] The Society seeks an order for Crown wardship with access by the children to the mother in accordance with the views and preferences of the children. Further, they seek an order that the children have access to each other.
[13] The Society states that the mother has had the same problems since the involvement of Child Protection Agency in New Brunswick up until today in Ottawa.
[14] The Society set out for the mother by letter, dated September 15, 2015, a list of programs and recommendations that the Society sought from the mother and her partner Mr. S. as follows:
(a) The mother and Mr. S. to successfully complete a parenting program by attending all sessions;
(b) The mother to attend all access and be on time;
(c) The mother and Mr. S. to complete an addictions assessment and follow-up on any/all recommendations of the assessment;
(d) Mr. S. to complete an anger management program; and
(e) The mother to attend a program/counselling for women who have experienced domestic violence.
[15] None of these programs or recommendations have been completed by either the mother or Mr. S.
Position of Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”)
[16] The OCL was appointed to represent the child, S. The OCL takes no position on Crown wardship.
Position of Mother
[17] The mother’s position is that the children should be returned to her subject to a supervision order.
Society’s evidence
[18] This family came to the attention of the Society on May 10, 2014, when the police attended at the home of the mother after receiving a call from her that she been assaulted by her partner Mr. S. When police arrived, both adults in the home were intoxicated and the child S. was present. No charges were laid. Mr. S. agreed to leave the home. Later on in the evening the police and the Society re-attended at the home. Mr. S. was back in the home and was drinking, intoxicated and belligerent. The mother had passed out. She was awoken by the child S.
[19] The child S. was taken into care pursuant to a temporary care agreement. The mother did not take steps to address the Society’s concern and the child was formally apprehended in August 2014. She has remained in care since that date.
[20] The Society apprehended K. on September 2, 2014, after the mother returned from New Brunswick where she retrieved K., who had lived with a friend in Moncton since the summer of 2013. She has remained in care since that date.
[21] The children were placed in separate foster homes where they remain today.
[22] On March 26, 2015, with the consent of the mother, the Honourable Justice Labrosse granted an order that the children be placed in a four month Society wardship retroactive to February 23, 2015. The conditions with respect to that order were as follows:
(a) That the mother’s access shall be at the discretion of the Society;
(b) That sibling access shall be at the discretion of the Society;
(c) That the mother shall complete a hair follicle test;
(d) That the mother shall successfully complete a parenting course approved by the Society;
(e) That the mother shall attend all access consistently and follow through on the required check in protocol established by the Society; and
(f) That if the mother’s hair follicle test is positive for substance abuse, the mother shall meet with Rideauwood Addiction Centre for consultation.
Mother’s history with respect to her children and child protection agencies in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Ontario
[23] Since 1994 the mother has had involvement with a child protection agency in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Ontario.
[24] The mother has given birth to 5 children by 3 different fathers.
[25] The mother over the past 22 years has lived in Newfoundland, New Brunswick and Ontario. Some of the mother’s children were placed in care during the period 1999-2001 and returned to her in August 2001 pursuant to a supervision order while she lived in Newfoundland.
[26] The mother left Newfoundland in February 2004 after an incident of domestic violence when she was pregnant with S. and moved to New Brunswick.
[27] Between 2004 and September 2013, the New Brunswick Child Protection Agency had extensive involvement with the mother. In September 2013, the mother moved to Ottawa.
[28] The Society filed various affidavits from child protection proceedings in New Brunswick as follows:
(a) On March 2, 2005, S. was seen by a dental surgeon who stated in his affidavit dated February 8, 2007 as follows:
“The state of S.’s teeth upon initial examination are one of the worst situations of decay on the lower mandibular that I’ve ever seen in my 32 years in dentistry. I should also note that this type of decay is not very common.”
(b) In an affidavit dated March 4, 2010, Ms. Lisa Kenny, a social worker employed by the Minister of Social Development, stated in an affidavit that the family transferred from Newfoundland for reasons of domestic violence in February 2004. Ms. Kenny listed the concerns raised by the circumstances of this case:
(i) There were domestic disputes which required the police to be called twice;
(ii) S.’s teeth required dental surgery;
(iii) Concerns the children’s medical needs were not being met;
(iv) Concerns from the children’s school that the children missed a lot of school including having recurring head lice, the children have poor hygiene and arrived at school dirty, the mother was uncooperative with the school, the children were often late or absent and their homework was not getting done;
(v) A significant lack of cooperation by the mother and that she had cancelled appointments with the social worker in 2007; 10 meetings in 2008; and 10 meetings in 2009;
(vi) That she has refused services to assist her with her parenting; and
(vii) That there were concerns of domestic violence.
[29] Further, the Society provided the Case Plans filed in the legal proceedings in New Brunswick dated November 14, 2006, March 31, 2008, February 24, 2009, June 2, 2009, October 2009, November 2010 and finally March 2012. There are common themes that run through these Case Plans. There is a consistent notation about the mother failing to take responsibility for the children’s dental and medical needs, their education such as completing homework, developing routines, requiring the children to attend school on a regular basis and being on time and developing appropriate parenting skills.
Domestic Conflict
[30] While in Newfoundland and in New Brunswick the issue of domestic violence was a serious concern. In Ontario, it remained a concern.
[31] The Society continues to have a concern as it relates to the mother’s current partner Mr. S. Two police reports, one dated February 25, 2015 and a second dated October 10, 2015, indicated that the mother and Mr. S. were both drinking and intoxicated; Mr. S. had broken the door of the parties apartment on February 25, 2015 and on October 10, 2015 the mother was observed to have a one inch red mark under her left eye.
[32] The evidence from New Brunswick indicates incidents of domestic violence in May 2008, June 2009 and December 2009. In Ontario there were three police reports including May 10, 2014. In the latter incident, S. was present.
[33] When the Society became involved, they had expectations for the mother that she would attend counselling for women who had experienced domestic violence and that Mr. S. would attend and commit to an anger management program. This has not occurred.
[34] Despite domestic violence remaining an unresolved issue, the mother’s plan of care is that she would reside with Mr. S.
Educational Issues
[35] The mother moved to Ontario in early October 2013 with her daughter S. She left her daughter K. with a friend in New Brunswick. The child S. attended Evergreen Park School in New Brunswick. Her report card from that school dated December 6, 2013 indicates that the school was unable to provide marks for S. because she was absent so often that no mark in any subject was possible. The report card indicates that the child was absent 51 days.
[36] It took the mother until December 18, 2013 to register the child in school in Ottawa. She did so and the child started to attend Cairine Wilson Secondary School. According to an attendance tally sheet filed in these proceedings, from December 18, 2013 to April 22, 2014, S. missed 23 days of school and was late 39 times. However, the attendance tally does not tell the whole story. During the relevant period of time, the school was closed for two weeks at Christmas, one week at March break and for various professional development days. The amount of 23 absences and being late 39 times is extraordinary if one considers the actual days when the school was open.
[37] S. has been in care with the Society since August 2014. An elementary provincial report card was provided for S., dated June 19, 2015, which shows that for the 2014-2015 school year she did not miss one day of school and was late four times in the entire year. The report card shows that she has achieved grades of between good and excellent in grade 9.
Parenting Issues
[38] The New Brunswick Child Protection Agency and the Society have attempted to provide the mother with assistance for her lack of parenting skills.
[39] The mother commenced the parenting course in April 2015, but by June 2015 has only attended four out of nine possible sessions. She plans to take a course in April 2016.
[40] There is no evidence that her partner is also taking such a course.
Alcohol Issues
[41] Considering that the mother was intoxicated and passed out on May 10, 2014, it is not surprising that the Society requested that she deal with her alcohol abuse. The mother attended one of two sessions of drug and alcohol education at the Sandy Hill Treatment Centre in August 2014.
[42] The mother has not produced any evidence that she is taking remedial steps to deal with her issues concerning alcohol.
[43] In 2014, a sample of the mother’s urine tested positive for marijuana but negative for alcohol. In 2016, the Society attempted to set up a random drug urine test for the mother and Mr. S. without success through no fault of the mother.
[44] Alcohol issues were raised in New Brunswick without resolution.
Lack of Cooperation
[45] Since December 2013 the mother has resided with her sister, moved to an independent home, resided with Mr. S., moved to Gatineau and then returned to live with Mr. S. in Ottawa. Her constant moving has made it difficult for the Society to maintain contact with her.
[46] Despite efforts by the Society to have the mother address the issues identified requiring remedial work, she has failed to do so.
Access
[47] The mother has not attended access on a regular basis since the four-month Society wardship made by the Honourable Justice Labrosse dated March 26, 2015. The mother has given excuses such as having severe menstrual pain, car trouble, financial trouble and on occasion, no explanation at all.
[48] The mother has had various schedules for access. At the beginning it was twice per week but she did not attend on a regular basis and it was reduced to one time per week. From March to May 2015, the mother was consistent and attended weekly.
[49] Prior to commencing the Status Review Application in June 2015, the Society sought to increase the mother’s access to three times per week to give her an opportunity to have additional contact with her children.
[50] Unfortunately, the mother was not able to maintain such access and between July and November 2015, she cancelled 20 out of 30 visits. In the months of September and October 2015 alone, she visited the children only 2 out of 16 possible visits.
[51] Faced with such deplorable attendance at access, the Society reduced the visits to twice a week. Again, the mother could not meet that schedule. The Society implemented a check-in time and reduced the access to once a week. Again, even with these new requirements the mother missed 85% of her visits.
[52] Left with no choices, the Society decided in October 2015 to reduce the visits to bi-weekly. Even with this very limited access, the mother missed a visit on December 17, 2015.
[53] Finally, the Society offered to the mother that if she was able to make four consecutive visits they would remove the check-in requirement. Up until April 6, 2016, the mother had not been able to make four consecutive scheduled visits.
Kin Placements
[54] The Society has reached out to the mother’s maternal aunt, but in July 2015 she indicated that she would not present a plan.
[55] In July 2015, the mother’s brother and his partner, living in Newfoundland, indicated they could be a potential kin placement for K. By February 2016 they withdrew their plan.
[56] In March 2016, a friend of the mother who resides in Newfoundland indicated she may wish to adopt K. Pending adjudication of this Court, the Society has indicated to that individual that after successfully obtaining Crown wardship for K. they would consider placement with her.
Children’s Progress and Care
[57] S. is doing extremely well in school. Her grades are excellent, she demonstrates a positive attitude and strong performance and she has confidence and self-esteem. The concerns about her inappropriate sexualized behaviour, academic struggles and being chronically absent from or late to school no longer exist.
[58] K. is seeing a sexual abuse counsellor at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario on a bi-weekly basis to deal with the disclosures of sexual abuse. K. has demonstrated anxiety about access and frequently is distressed on access days as she expects the visit will be cancelled by the mother. K. was doing well but she is struggling at this time. Her anxiety issues and the lack of stability in her mother are causing this difficulty.
Permanency for the Children
[59] S. has been in care since August 2014, nearly two years; and K. since September 2014, for one and a half years. K. has remained in care beyond the legislative timeline.
[60] In these circumstances, the Society has sought permanency planning and Crown wardship is part of that plan.
Mother’s evidence in response to the Society’s motion for Summary Judgment
[61] The mother argues that there are two issues that require a trial: the credibility of the Society workers and the determination as to whether the children remain at risk if they return to the mother and her partner Mr. S.
[62] The mother submits that allegations in the evidence provided by the Society may be inaccurate, false or not relevant. Further, a trial is required to test the credibility of the Society’s evidence.
Allegations Regarding Proceedings in New Brunswick
[63] Despite very specific allegations raised by the Society with respect to the mother’s involvement with the Child Protection Agency in New Brunswick, the mother’s evidence in her affidavit is a combination of bald and unsupported statements denying that she ever neglected her children; that she failed to cooperate; that she was addicted to drugs and drinking; or that she was in violent relationships.
[64] She questioned the veracity of the affidavit of the dental surgeon as to his observations in March 2005 with respect to S.’s teeth.
[65] The mother does admit that she used marijuana but denies that she had any dependency on other illicit drugs.
Domestic Violence
[66] With respect to the allegations of domestic violence on May 10, 2014, February 25, 2015 and October 10, 2015, the mother does not respond to the latter two allegations but only says that the incident of May 14, 2014 has been effectively exaggerated by the Society. Specifically, in response, the mother states at paragraph 34 of her affidavit as follows:
- With respect to statements by the Applicant in regard to our demeanour and our alleged degree of intoxication their stated expressed and/or implied description of the incident is wholly disproportionate to what actually transpired at the time. The alleged state of intoxication claimed and description regarding our demeanour of May 10 is a disproportionate description of what actually occurred. It is deliberately prejudicial. Our alleged demeanour described by the Applicant, had it actually been as addressed the police would not have proceeded to conduct matters the way they did upon their arrival. In fact they merely asked for Mr. S. to leave for the night and then they left. They noted no concern for S.
[67] The mother asserts that the physical confrontations with her partner Mr. S. are not incidents of domestic violence but are domestic disputes because they have never resulted in any physical injury or emotional harm to her.
[68] The mother admits that she is unable to provide the Court with any documentation to contradict the evidence from the New Brunswick child protection proceedings.
[69] With respect to credibility, the mother states at paragraph 42 of her affidavit:
- The question of credibility is very much germane to this proceeding and I am aware that despite any and all effort on my part to contest the disproportionate cited allegations with a mere denial is not sufficient. I therefore am subject to the fairness of this Court despite all efforts on my part to present my position without the additional support documentation. The cross-examination required to establish and expose such inaccurate and deliberate exaggerations can only take place during a trial.
Educational Issues
[70] There is nothing in the affidavit filed by the mother that contests the material facts alleged by the Society with respect to S.’s school report from New Brunswick, the attendance record from the Cairine Wilson Secondary School and S.’s report card dated June 2015. Consequently, this evidence is uncontradicted.
Parenting, Alcohol and Lack of Cooperation Issues
[71] Despite the Child Protection Agency in New Brunswick and the Society in Ontario requesting that the mother deal with the perceived parenting shortcomings by taking a parenting course, she has failed to do so as of the date of this motion. She is supposed to start a course in April 2016.
[72] At paragraphs 57 to 60 of her affidavit, she states as follows:
The Society following their apprehension has outlined assessment of my parenting ability by focusing primarily on whether I attend visits, by focusing whether I attend parenting classes, whether I undertake to attend alcohol and drug or domestic violence classes and last but not least that fact that I continue in an adult relationship by Mr. S., who is an unacceptable person to them.
How does such limited observation conducted in close quarters at the Telesat Centre or the fact that I missed visits attest to whether I can feed, clothe and responsibly care for S. and K.?
In addition and with respect to Mr. S., what parenting information exactly does the Society intend to glean, which they seemingly already appear they have plenty of, once C. and I were to attend and complete a two or three week course held one day per week? Such parenting or alcohol designed class sessions in order to satisfy with some assurance that we both are compatible responsible adults and capable of parenting.
I have been a mother since 1993. I have given birth to the children who have been mentioned in the Society’s material file for this motion. To date and of course with some difficulties, my children have grown up and though some live some distance away from me, I know they are working and are productive community individuals.
Access Issues
[73] Despite very specific records by the Society regarding the significant problems with the mother having access to her own children, she alleges that the Society deliberately scheduled the access to frustrate her attendance. She alleges that she advised Society workers about her time constraints given that she was employed as a driver delivering flowers. She alleges that the Society refused to work with her.
[74] Her evidence is contradicted by the affidavit of Brittney Carter, one of the Child and Youth Counsellors, dated December 8, 2015, indicating the lengths that the Society went to in order to accommodate the mother’s requests for access. Even though this evidence predates the mother’s affidavit, she fails to respond to the facts in her affidavit.
The Law
[75] On a motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the question is whether or not there is a genuine issue that requires a trial.
[76] The party making the motion shall serve an affidavit or other evidence that sets out specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial as set out in Section 16(4) of the Family Law Rules.
[77] In response to the affidavit or other evidence served by the party making the motion, the party responding to the motion may not rest on mere allegations or denial but shall set out, in an affidavit or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial as set out in Section 16(4.1) of the Family Law Rules.
[78] The Court is directed that, if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial of a claim or defence, the Court shall make a final order accordingly as set out in Section 16(6) of the Family Law Rules.
[79] The Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 SCR 87, stated that there will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for Summary Judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows a judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows a judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.
[80] It is not an option for the Court to speculate as to possible evidence the parents may call at trial. To suggest that the Society’s evidence must be tested through cross-examination is not enough. The parents must put their “best evidentiary foot forward” to demonstrate that material facts are in dispute and/or there is an issue of credibility and thus, summary judgment is precluded (Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. A.(M.), 2007 CanLII 23334 (Ont. S.C.)).
[81] The responding party is not entitled to sit back and rely on the possibility that more favourable facts may develop at trial. To avoid summary judgment, a party is required to put its best foot forward (Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. A.C., 2007 CanLII 11311 (Ont. S.C.)).
[82] The best interests of children include a consideration of the time requirements in the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11, as amended (the “CFSA”), in a resolution that does not prolong the uncertainty of a child’s future (F.B. v. S.G. (2001), 2001 CanLII 28231 (ON SC), 16 R.F.L. (5th) 237 (Ont. S.C.)). The relevant considerations are set out in section 37(3):
Best interests of child
Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:
The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.
The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.
The child’s cultural background.
The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.
The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.
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.
The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.
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.
The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.
The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.
The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent.
The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
Any other relevant circumstance.
Analysis
[83] The Society has the initial burden of proof to show that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial. I find that the Society has met that initial burden and the mother has the burden to show that there are specific material facts in dispute that require a trial.
[84] The Society has provided significant evidence corroborating the historical concerns regarding the mother’s parenting, the children’s exposure to domestic violence, the abysmal educational history of S. while in her mother’s care, the significant problems regarding alcohol, the lack of cooperation by the mother, the lack of the mother properly attending to the children’s medical needs and finally a very sad history of the mother not exercising access to her children to such an extent that it is having an effect on the mental health of K., as evidenced by the report from Ms. Marcotte.
[85] The mother’s affidavit filed in reply to the Society’s motion is one of bare denials with no supporting evidence to contest the material facts advanced by the Society. The mother’s affidavit does not respond to the various detailed affidavits filed by the Society which set out very specific material facts.
[86] I find that the mother’s affidavit confirms the Society’s position that the mother lacks the required insight to deal with her own children.
[87] I find that the affidavit evidence from the mother raises no material facts that require a trial. Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules requires the Court to weigh the evidence, assess credibility and draw inferences. The court has the power to take a hard look at the evidence to determine if there is a genuine issue requiring a trial.
[88] In this case, being a Status Review Application, the Court is to consider the best interests of the children. Section 37(3) of the CFSA provides a legislative framework to consider in determining the best interest for children. I have considered the following factors:
A. The children’s physical, mental and emotional needs and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs
While the children were in the care of the mother either in New Brunswick or in Ottawa, their needs were not being met. The children were exposed to domestic violence; S. was not going to school; and S.’s medical and dental care was not attended to by the mother. Since the children have been in care, all of their needs have been met.
B. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of support
K. has special needs that require a parent with special skills to provide her with the emotional support that she needs to succeed. I find that the mother does not have those skills.
C. The child’s cultural background
The Society advises that they have discovered that the children have native heritage, but that the mother never applied to have the children registered as aboriginal. The Society has made the necessary applications.
D. The religious faith if any in which the child is being raised
In this case, this factor is not relevant.
E. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent in a secure place as a family member
The OCL counsel has indicated that S. does not want to be a Crown Ward and wants to return to live with her mother. However, she has provided mixed messages. At the same time she prefers to stay at the foster home rather than go and visit her mother. Also, recently S. indicated that she wants to change the access on Tuesday because she is now involved in soccer.
Further, even though she has made significant improvements in education, she has recently been voicing concerns about not wanting to go to school. In arriving at my final disposition I have considered S.’s wishes, her actions and her comments.
F. 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
The OCL has also indicated that the sisters have a close relationship and that they should have access.
G. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity
Both children have been in care since late August or early September 2014. Both children have been stable in foster care. S. has blossomed and is doing extremely well at school while K. is seeing a counsellor to deal with her emotional issues related to the sexual abuse.
H. The merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by the Society compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent
The mother’s plan is that both children will return to live with her under a supervision order. I have considered the concerns raised by the Society, the mother’s response to these concerns and the current state of the children in foster care. I find that the mother’s plan demonstrates no insight into the issues raised by the Society. I have no confidence in the mother being able to develop basic parenting skills, to deal with the educational issues related to the children, K’s mental health issues, the domestic violence history, the abuse of alcohol and her lack of cooperation with the Society dating back to her time in New Brunswick.
To return the children to the mother would expose the children to the situation that they were living in in New Brunswick and what S. was living in in Ottawa up to August 2014.
I. The child’s views and wishes
The OCL is representing S. alone in this matter. She does not want to be a Crown Ward and wants to go home with her mother and sister, but she gives contradictory messages.
With respect to contact with her mother, it is very important to her not to lose contact with her mother.
Regarding her sister K., she wants to see her as well and would like it to be more flexible such as being in the community.
The Society agrees that the mother should have access to the children and that both children should have access to each other.
J. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case
K. has been in care longer than the legislative timetables permit and S. is coming very close to the two-year limit. The children need stability.
DISPOSITION
[89] I find that the best interests of the children require that I make the following order:
a. The children S., born […], 2001 and K., born […], 2009, are made wards of the Crown and placed in the care of the Society;
b. Access to the mother shall be at the discretion of the Society taking into consideration the children’s wishes and best interests; and
c. Access between the two children shall be at the discretion of the Society taking into consideration the children’s wishes and best interests.
Shelston J.
Released: May 24, 2016
CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. H(K), 2016 ONSC 3010
COURT FILE NO.: FC-99-1007
DATE: 2016/05/24
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 S-L.H-E., born […], 2001 and K.H-G., born […], 2009
BETWEEN:
THE CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA
Applicant
- and –
K.H., Mother
R.E., Father of S-L.H-E., (deceased)
W.G., Father of K.H-G.
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Shelston J.
Released: May 24, 2016