COURT FILE NO.: FC-06-1030-4 DATE: 20160516 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 W.M.J.C., dob: [...]-15

BETWEEN:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA Applicant – and – T.A. Respondent (Mother)

Julie Daoust, for the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Jason Gilbert, for the Respondent Mother

– and – P.C. Respondent (Father)

HEARD: April 4,5,6 & 7, 2016

REASONS FOR Decision

Beaudoin J.

[1] The Ottawa Children’s Aid Society (“the “Society”) seeks a finding that the child, W.M.J. C. (“W.”), d.o.b. May 29, 2015, is in need of protection pursuant to sections 37(2) (b) (ii) and 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c C.11 (“CFSA”). The Society seeks an order of Crown Wardship for the purposes of adoption. The mother, T.A., opposes the application and seeks the return of the child under supervision by the Society. In the alternative, the mother seeks an extension of the existing Society wardship order for a further period of six months.

[2] The Agreed Statement of Facts are as follows:

1. The child concerned by these proceedings is named W.M.J.C.
2. The child was born on [...], 2015, in the city of Ottawa.
3. The child is of the Catholic faith and does not have native status.
4. The child is a healthy baby and she does not have any apparent special needs.
5. The child was apprehended at birth and has been in foster care since that time, for a total of 10 months.
6. The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa is seeking an order of Crown Wardship for the purpose of adoption. The Society has at least 20 prospective adoptive families who are approved to adopt a child of this profile.
7. The Respondent, T.A., is the mother of the child. The mother is opposing the application for Crown Wardship and is seeking the return of the child to her care.
8. The Respondent, P.C., is the father of the child. P.C. was noted in default by Justice Sheard on September 22, 2015.
9. T.A. has three previous children, H., A., and K. The children all became Crown Wards in January 2015 by order of the Honourable Justice Linhares de Sousa, following a trial.
10. As part of the court proceedings relating to T.A.’s older children, the court ordered an assessment report (Rapport d’évaluation psycholégale) prepared by Patrice Pelletier dated June 28, 2014. According to that report, T.A. did not have the capacity to meet her children’s needs and, if any change was to occur, T.A. would need intensive, long-term therapy. The children were assessed as all having some form of attachment disorder and emotional needs that the mother caused and could not now meet. The mother was assessed as an individual with very weak insight, passive-aggressive personality, attachment issues and obsessive-compulsive disorder.
11. As stated in T.A.’s Answer and Plan of Care, she does not agree with the conclusions of the assessment, but she accepts that paragraph 10 above is indeed a summary of the assessor’s conclusions.
12. In April, 2015, the Society learned that T.A. was pregnant again and that the baby’s father, P.C., had one child over the age of 16 in his home.
13. P.C. has admitted to having 12 children with various spouses.
14. P.C. has had involvement with the Children’s Aid Society with respect to his older children.
15. P.C. was initially going to move in with T.A. to help her with the baby, however, he has not done so. T.A. and P.C. do not live together however, they are in a romantic relationship. They also spend their days together working for P.C.’s scrap metal collecting business.
16. T.A. takes the position that she has changed significantly since the previous assessment. The parties agree that improvements include the following aspects: (a) T.A. is happier with her life than she previously was. (b) T.A.’s home is not a fire hazard and her items have been moved around and organized to clear some previously encumbered areas. (c) T.A.’s visits with this child are calmer and more appropriate than the visits with her older children.
17. An updated assessment of T.A. was ordered by the court to determine changes in T.A.’s psychological profile. The report is dated March 21, 2016, and is filed in the trial record.
18. There are no options for care by kin. T.A.’s mother was proposed but she has health issues and a child protection history. She did not pursue her Plan to Care for the child. P.C.’s sister was also proposed, but she withdrew her Plan after the kinship assessment began.

The Society’s Involvement

Michele Thorn

[3] Michele Thorn is the child protection worker who was part of the pre and post-natal attendant care team. When the Society became aware in April 2015 that the mother was pregnant, it attempted to do a proper pre-natal assessment in order to determine if there were any special needs. The mother agreed and indicated that she would be alone in the home and that there was no other plan for the baby. The baby was born at home and Ms. Thorn received a phone call from the midwife advising that the mother had an infection and there was a risk of this infection being passed on to the baby. The baby was apprehended at birth and was immediately brought to Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario. The father was not present. The mother did not know his address and Ms. Thorn called him and informed him of the birth.

[4] Ms. Thorn was aware that three of T.A.’s children had been made Crown Wards and that there had been a recommendation that the mother engage in long-term intensive therapy which had not yet been commenced. She was aware that the father of the child had his own issues and that he was not presenting a Plan of Care. At her meeting with both parents, the father indicated his intention to move in with the mother. He denied having any history with the Society even though Ms. Thorn’s review indicated otherwise. He did not agree with the Society’s position with regard to the mother which he described as “bullshit” and he minimized what had happened to her first three children. In the course of that meeting, the father made a crude gesture and walked out. The mother did the same thing. At the next meeting, the father did most of the talking with the conversation centered around himself.

[5] When Ms. Thorn first attended the mother’s apartment, she saw that it was clean and it was not as cluttered as it had been in the past although there was a strong odor of cigarette smoke. She made some inquiries with collateral sources and understood that the mother had three sessions of counselling with a social worker although the mother would not acknowledge that this was not the form of therapy that had been recommended for her.

[6] Ms. Thorn then had a meeting with the mother alone. The father had not moved in and the mother was not sure exactly what was going on. The mother minimized her past problems with her other children. She acknowledged that she had had no routine with the children but otherwise denied harming them. The mother presented two optional Plans of Care. One of these was to place the child with the maternal grandmother but the grandmother had health problems and she was not prepared to take in the child.

[7] Ms. Thorn was aware that the father presented his twin sister as someone who could look after the baby. When the child was one month old, there was a file transfer meeting in July 2015. The new worker, Ms. Rochon was present but the father did not attend. On that occasion, the apartment was more cluttered. Ms. Rochon explained her role and the mother’s need for therapy. The mother continued to deny any problems.

[8] In cross-examination, Ms. Thorn confirmed that she did not supervise the visits. She saw no child protection concerns with respect to the state of the home when she first attended or even later. She was aware that the mother had other counsellors at the Ottawa Freedom Centre. She had no concerns about actual physical harm to the child at that point in time.

Melanie Rochon

[9] Melanie Rochon is the child protection worker who was assigned to work with the mother on July 9, 2015 and continued to work with the mother until the trial. Upon her review of the file, she determined that there was a parental capacity issue. The mother’s three previous children had been seriously neglected. The psychological reports indicated that the mother suffered from lack of insight and suffered from a personality disorder. The mother also had a problem with hoarding and it had been determined that she could not parent without therapy.

[10] Ms. Rochon concluded that the mother had no insight with respect to her past conduct. She blamed everything on others and she claimed that the Society’s witnesses had lied during the previous trial. The mother became increasingly anxious and would not acknowledge her anger.

[11] At the next meeting in mid-July, Ms. Rochon discussed the plan of service for the mother. This included obtaining Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for the mother to gain insight into her past behaviour; improving the clutter in her home; identifying parenting supports and clarifying her relationship with the father given his own history with the Society. Goals for the mother were set out. The mother agreed that the home needed to be addressed but she did not understand her need for therapy to address her lack of insight.

[12] Ms. Rochon initially met with the mother once each month but it became evident that the mother needed more support so she met her twice per month after September 2015. She learned that the mother needed a list of objectives in order to make any progress. In October 2015, she and the mother went through the house and identified problems in every room. They had agreed that the mother’s first task would be to address the clutter in the kitchen and dining room. When Ms. Rochon returned two weeks later, the mother had been unable to address the clutter issues. These presented safety concerns for a small child who would eventually be crawling on the floor. When the worker tried to address these issues, the mother challenged her and became very defensive. She became very possessive and angry when the worker touched some of her household items. Ms. Rochon said that the mother was unable to appreciate the safety concerns. As a result, they narrowed the mother’s task of removing the clutter to one room. Ms. Rochon had to set very specific goals. After several visits, the home was eventually considered safe and there were no safety hazards identified at the time of trial.

[13] The first psychological assessment had recommended that the mother seek insight therapy. The mother did not understand what that term meant nor did she know where to access it. Ms. Rochon was aware that the mother was seeing a counsellor but she concluded that this was supportive counselling only and not what had been recommended by Dr. Pelletier who had assessed the mother previously. She suggested that the mother contact the Royal Ottawa Hospital (“R.O.H.”) and gave her the phone number in August, 2015. On each visit, she inquired if the mother had called the hospital, and as of October 2015, the mother admitted that she had not. Ms. Rochon reminded her of the importance of the recommended therapy. Ms. Rochon could not make the referral; this had to come from the mother although Ms. Rochon could write a letter of support.

[14] Ms. Rochon learned that the mother eventually called the R.O.H. in October but did not put her name on the waiting list because the mother considered it too long. The mother eventually obtained services at the Wabano Centre which provides services to the aboriginal community. While the mother’s aboriginal status was not clear, Wabano agreed to provide her with services. At the time of trial, her counselling sessions had only recently commenced.

[15] Ms. Rochon attended a Circle of Care with the mother and the counsellors from Wabano. The mother was unable to identify her plan for the child or what would be the daily routine. The only source of support that she could identify was the father but that situation was still unclear. According to Ms. Rochon, there was no plan. The mother was working for P.C., she had no plans for child care, and she had no family or friends to help her out.

[16] The mother had an on-and-off again relationship with her own mother. The father’s twin sister had originally proposed a Plan of Care. As a result, Ms. Rochon met with her and her partner with a view of evaluating the possible kinship plan. The sister and her partner were residing in a bachelor apartment with seven cats. There was no place for a child and the apartment had a strong odor of cat urine. The sister’s partner had a history with the Society and this was a further concern. The sister eventually withdrew her Plan, but claimed that she would support the mother.

[17] The father’s role has remained unclear. According to Ms. Rochon, the mother was clearly in love and infatuated with him although she was not sure if the feelings were reciprocal. She was trying to determine what his role would be. She confirmed that the father was still married and living with his wife. The worker had only two meetings with him. She met him in March 2016 when the mother was present. At that time, the mother was under the impression that she had done everything necessary to get the child returned to her care as she was going to the Wabano Centre. The father made it clear that he would not meet with the Society unless the child was returned to the mother’s care.

[18] Throughout Ms. Rochon’s involvement, it was apparent that the mother and father were seeing each other every day as the mother was assisting him in his scrap metal business. Their work schedule was unpredictable and they started work very early in the morning. The mother indicated that she planned to continue that work if the child was returned to her care.

[19] The worker and the mother had a positive working relationship that grew over time although the mother remained angry with the Society. Ms. Rochon was able to gain some trust and as long as she focused on the “here and now”, the mother was able to make some gains. The mother was able to stop dwelling on the past and she was able to bring her home to an acceptable safety standard.

[20] The mother had nevertheless not engaged in the therapy even though she known about this recommendation for 22 months. Ms. Rochon did not consider the counselling the mother was receiving from the Freedom Centre to be the type of therapy that had been recommended for her. The worker was not satisfied that the mother knew what was required of her, nor was she satisfied that T.A. had a healthy relationship with the father. He did not support T.A.’s involvement with the Society. He would not clarify his role. He used derogatory terms to describe counsel who had represented the Society at the previous trial. He indicated that he would only testify if the trial judge asked him the questions. Ms. Rochon also had concerns about his criminal history as well as his lengthy involvement with the Society. He remained the only identified support for the mother.

[21] Ms. Rochon testified that the Society had 20 families identified that could adopt the child. The adoptive parents of the mother’s two boys were interested in adopting the baby.

[22] In cross-examination, she discussed her meeting with P.C. where he described himself as “un salaud” (a French-Canadian term that means a disreputable character) who had relationships with other women, including the mother. Even though he was part of the mother’s plan, Ms. Rochon was unable to assess him because he would not cooperate.

[23] She confirmed that W.’s supervised visits with the mother were now taking place in the home to see if the mother could make some more gains. As far as she knew, these visits were going well. She said that the access visits were not the main concern; there were four visits per week. The issue was not the mother’s relationship with an infant but the Society’s concerns focused on the mother’s ability to parent the child as the child grew older and would present more challenging behaviours.

[24] She repeated that the mother was unable to formulate a Plan of Care. She saw improvements but testified that the mother still had no insight as to why her other children had been removed from her care. While the mother had made some improvements in terms of her hoarding behaviours, Ms. Rochon said that this did not come about as a result of the mother’s recognition of the problem but only as a result of constant direction from the Society. The father had helped to some extent as well. Ms. Rochon had not yet followed up with Wabano about the mother’s counselling since there had not been enough sessions to provide a reliable assessment of the mother’s progress.

[25] She herself had not observed any change in the mother, and in her view, the mother still lacked any insight. She acknowledged that the mother was not sophisticated and appeared to be confused as to the type of treatment she needed, but repeated that she had had many conversations about the type of therapy the mother required and had provided her with information on how and where to access it. In her view, if the mother did not understand the meaning of insight therapy, this was an indication that she may not be able to overcome the problem on her own. Ms. Rochon testified that she could not be with the mother one-on-one throughout the life of the child. Ms. Rochon shared the psychological assessment as well as Justice de Sousa’s decision along with a copy of the Society’s Application and Plan of Care with the Circle of Care. In her view, the mother failed to recognize that her past behaviours had been abusive or wrong. Had she been able to so, the Society could of considered placing the child in her care.

[26] She concluded that the mother was presenting a plan without any specifics. The only routine that the mother could discuss was the work that she did with the father and his scrap metal business.

Marie Claude Couture

[27] M.s Couture supervised the access between the mother and child. She had been previously involved with the mother and the three other children. In her view, the mother had not changed much and she was going through the same issues although T.A. did seem to be happier because of her new relationship with the father.

[28] There had been 111 visits in total and she has supervised 56 of these. These were between two hours and three and half hours in duration and initially took place at the Society’s office. The visits later took place at the community centre in a play group environment. Access visits were moved to the mother’s home shortly before the time of the trial.

[29] Ms. Couture explained to the mother the importance of routine in alleviating the child’s anxiety. At the outset, she had to repeatedly remind T.A. to wash her hands before access visits. The mother’s hands would be dirty from working in the scrap metal business with the father. She also had a cigarette before exercising access. It took a couple of months for the mother to realize that she had to wash her hands before handling the baby. Ms. Couture had to remind the mother several times to turn off her cell phone because the father kept calling her during the access visits.

[30] The mother was able to respond to the child’s needs over time although the baby was not presenting any challenges at the time. Ms. Couture would intervene when necessary during access visits but the mother did not always react well to her suggestions and could become verbally aggressive.

[31] She referred to an incident on November 20, 2015. The mother had attempted to breast-feed the baby who started to cry. It became apparent to Ms. Couture that the mother could not manage the baby or comfort her. When Ms. Couture tried to assist her, the mother became annoyed. Ms. Couture offered to take the baby in order to calm the baby down. The mother exploded and lost control.

[32] Since the mother was breastfeeding and pumping her breasts to provide milk to the foster mother, there were concerns about second-hand smoke on her shirt. The breast feeding consultants had recommended that the mother wear a second shirt to prevent the child’s exposure to second-hand smoke but the mother refused. The consultant also offered to give the mother some help to quit smoking, but once again, the mother again refused.

[33] There was another occasion when the mother was breastfeeding and wanted to get a snack for herself even though the child was in distress. According to Ms. Couture, the mother was putting her own needs in priority to those of the child and Ms. Couture had to intervene. On other occasions, the mother would disrupt the breastfeeding in order to answer the father’s frequent phone calls.

[34] The foster mother reported that the baby had cramps after the mother breastfed during access, and there was a concern that the child was reacting to the caffeine that was in the mother’s milk. The mother always attended access with a Tim Horton coffee in hand. They had to work with the mother to get her to reduce the number of caffeine drinks that she was consuming. Her personal hygiene was poor.

[35] The father would drop the mother off for access and pick her up; he appeared to be the mother’s only support. She noted that the mother worked hard with the father and they usually got up at 3:30 in the morning to start work in the scrap business or for snowplowing. The father paid her with cigarettes, Tim Horton coffee and lunches, and gave her some spending money. He did not participate in the visits. There was only one visit where he joined in with the mother for a short period of time. He had the option to visit on his own, but he never did this.

[36] Ms. Couture said that the father appeared to be controlling with regard to the mother; telling her what to do. During one of the home visits, the father called 10 times and the mother terminated the visit early because they had a job to attend to at 1:00 p.m. The mother left in a rush and left the baby in the care of the workers. This happened on another occasion where the father became very impatient and access in the home was terminated early.

[37] In cross-examination, she indicated that the visits were going well at the present time because a routine had been created and there was now a safe environment. She cautioned that the mother did not have to deal with the same kind of behaviour that she had with the other children. As an infant, this baby did not present the same challenges.

The Psychological Assessment

Dr. Patrice Pelletier

[38] Dr. Pelletier prepared the first psychological assessment on June 28, 2014, and Justice Linhares de Sousa relied on the conclusions found in his report. He prepared an updated assessment report dated March 21, 2016 for this trial. That report was admitted into evidence pursuant to the provisions of section 54(6) of the CFSA. At page 8 of that updated assessment, he reports:

Following the clinical and psychometric assessment of the mother, as well as the observations of the mother-child interactions, it is concluded that significant concern is legitimate and supported by the data as to the capacity of the mother to identify and recognize that children’s needs, her ability to mobilize herself in meeting those needs, her insight into the problems and recognition of her responsibility for her actions.

The report of June 2014 describes significant disturbances in personality functioning as well as attachment capacities in T.A. that are severe enough to consider a diagnosis of Personality Disorder with mixed features of Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder and Passive-Aggressive Personality Disorder. The assessment suggested an individual with marginal social adjustment, displaying difficulties establishing interpersonal relationships and social contacts. Significant discomfort is indicated in the report in terms of the ability to form close and intimate attachment with others. T.A.’s personal history and clinical interview suggested that she had personal attachment issues with probably some behavioural issues in her own childhood and adolescence likely in the form of an oppositional/defiant disorder.

The report of June 2014 also describes T.A. as an easily belligerent and frustrated individual when confronted with problems. She then appears rather unable to articulate meaningfully the source of those problems, will easily externalize blame and project it on others, will display no insight as to the need to change her own behaviours. Excessive use of defence mechanisms such as denial becomes obvious and related to the need to maintain in her eyes an adequate social image therefore revealing in fact a very poor self-image and self-esteem. T.A. was described in the report as a very rigid individual rejecting any opinion different than her own as well as any criticism. A certain degree of stubbornness but also of defiance is noted in regards to being open to recommendations and suggestions. A significant degree of passivity was also suggested terms of getting actively involved in resolving issues with indications of a tendency to rely on others as well as hold the belief that things will resolve themselves in some way over time.

Several elements of being over-controlled in terms of expression of emotions, interpersonal interactions and therefore discipline with the children were noted. A marked tendency to repress her own emotions and feelings was noted. Poor positive emotional involvement with the children was concluded from the clinical interview, the psychometric measures and the observation of the mother child interactions. Control of the children’s behaviours, total submission of the child to the expressed rules and expectations, absence of flexibility or warmth and even the use of psychological intimidation to obtain the child’s submission, were noted. Personality dynamic of over controlled hostility was suggested implying that both positive and negative impulses in the children were being repressed. In such a dynamic, the hostility is still expressed through episodes of acting out of anger but not recognized by the individual as such. The combination of domineering attitude during interactions with the child while displaying poor structuring effort in terms of routine and meeting the current needs was concluded.

In the report of June 2014, T.A.’s personality characteristics and attachment issues were deemed to be impacting significantly on her parenting capacities and ability to adjust to change. They were also deemed to be long-standing, well ingrained in difficult to address as noted by the poor progress despite several interventions over an extended period of time. The overall resulting parenting style appeared rather autocratic, that is based on a very strict and rigid discipline while demonstrating poor organization and structure of the daily routine.

In terms of impacts to the personality characteristics in the parenting capacities, it was noted poor motivation on T.A.’s part to implement and sustain her efforts in providing an appropriate structure and routine to meet physical needs of the children (hygiene, security). This was linked to her difficulty in planning, foreseeing what needs to be done and act accordingly, her passivity in resolving problems, and rejection of any personal responsibility when encountering problems T.A. appeared to be focused on concrete and present issues with no overall view of her situation with the situation of the children. It was also concluded that T.A. was displaying very limited awareness of the psychosocial needs of the children and even less so of the special needs associated with their particular problems. Lack of empathy on her part, poor mentalization capacities of emotional states and effective needs, poor understanding the possible underlying dynamic issues of her children were noted. T.A. appeared unable to identify needs in children other than in very general terms of “affection” and the need to “control” their behaviours. She was unable at the time to articulate any positive needs and children that would implicate a positive mother-child interaction such as the need to feel reinforced about some personal competence, the development of a positive social image.

[39] Later at page 11 he added:

In regards to possible improvement on the mother’s psychological functioning that would translate into more adequate parenting capacities, it was mentioned that the prognosis of benefit from psychotherapy was poor mostly because of the intensity of the denial and rejection of responsibility on others. Insistence was put on the fact that forced therapy was useless in such a context. A need for long-term intensive psychotherapy therapy aimed at exploring personal issues of attachment and improving insight in her own behaviours was necessary if any change was to occur.

[40] Dr. Pelletier interviewed T.A. and discussed his previous assessment, the results of the previous trial and the Society’s continuing concerns. At page 18 of the latest Report, he set out his conclusions:

Conclusions

The purpose of the assessment was to determine if anything had changed in the mother’s psychological profile as it relates to parenting capacity since the initial assessment June 28, 2014.

The assessor makes the following observations:

a) The condition of the apartment has significantly improved. It is not as cluttered and although there are a lot of items, they seem to be organized. Criteria is not being met for hoarding.

b) T.A. demonstrates some openness to opinions different from her own and to some form of criticism.

c) T.A.’s mental state seems to be better in terms of being satisfied with her current condition and having adjusted to it.

d) Formal psychotherapy has not started yet. In fact, it seems that different misleading information was presented to T.A. Intervention (such as participation in a program Buns in Oven) as well as counselling are not formal psychotherapy. Formal psychotherapy implies the use of a specific set of methods and tools addressing some personal issues in order to bring personal long-standing change in the areas that are being addressed such as perception of self and others, interaction with others etc. It is not a meeting when it is discussed current issues to allow the person to vent her feelings and look at possible solution to resolve the current problems.

The assessor makes the following conclusions:

The mother’s psychological profile does not appear any different than it was in June 2014 although improvements are noted in the apartment and in life satisfaction, those do not reflect any change in the underlying personality disturbances described in the first part of this report. T.A.’s lack of empathy, her difficulty establishing attachment, a lack of insight into her limitations, the rejection of any personal flaws, her overcontrolled hostility remain and will still impact on her parenting capacities in terms of being oblivious to the child’s psychosocial needs, to her ability to respond to the child’s needs before her own, to establish positive interactions with the child. Although T.A. shows some openness to criticism and improvement of her behaviours (tone of voice), she still quickly rejects all responsibility about the concerns upon questioning. In fact she still resort to the same excuses she has been using over the years about the different issues.

The mother’s capacity to mentalize mental states remains very poor. This translates in very limited understanding several issues addressed with her. It makes it so that T.A. can hardly sustain an overall picture of the situation and deals with situations and issues in a concrete, immediate way. T.A. understands that she is working on her “insight” but at the same time has very little understanding of what is “insight” and do not apply her learning to other similar situations without some form of prompting. There is no apparent generalization of her learnings.

[41] Dr. Pelletier expanded on his report at trial. He did not observe the mother’s interactions with the baby, but he did not anticipate that he would observe any problems between the mother and the child of that age since there would be no need for discipline and the degree of attraction between the child and the mother was quite different. He had hesitations about future risks that could arise with respect to the child once the child started to demonstrate a personality or identity; once the child starts to say “no.” He testified that the likelihood of future psychological harm remained significant. In his view, the mother had difficulty relating to children, and he saw no changes in her personality. She remained ill equipped to respond to the needs of her children. He anticipated that her discipline will likely become more rigid as it was in the case of the other three children which led to oppositional behaviours on their part.

[42] He defined insight as the capacity to look at what is going on in one’s life and the ability to generalize and learn from that examination. He indicated that T.A. was unable to do that, she saw things in very concrete terms. He did see some changes. At the time of his first report, the mother would not accept any responsibility for the children’s behaviours and she now appeared to accept some. She was able to recognize that the children had problems, but she was unable to relate those difficulties to her own behaviours.

[43] She reported to him that attending any kind of therapy was psychotherapy. It was clear to him that she had no understanding of what would be required to help for developed insight into her own behaviours. She was capable of doing what was expected of her in terms of things that were immediate and in taking concrete steps. If someone else started something, she was able to follow, but she was unable to motivate herself to change.

[44] In cross-examination, he agreed there was no current risk of harm to the child but he felt the future risk was significant in terms of emotional harm. Given the apparent improvements of the home, the risk of physical harm did not appear to be as much of a concern.

[45] He agreed that the fact that T.A. had sought treatment at the Wabano Centre could be considered a positive step. He said that her relationship with P.C. had some positive aspects in that he was able to help her put her apartment in order.

[46] He indicated that the mother’s ability to plan was still poor and that it could take as long as two years for her to address her personality disorders although he agreed that theoretically some progress could be made even in a few months. According to him, the person had to be ready to engage in therapy and he noted that the mother was unable to respond to her own children in the past despite guidance. He felt that the mother had made some improvements but only at an intermediate level. If she was criticized, she reacted negatively and became confrontational. He conceded that the mother was open to some criticism but he insisted that she lacked any insight. He concluded that the mother had some confusion as to the form of therapy she was to receive, but he was unable to identify the source of that confusion. In response to my question, he believed that the mother needs external support to engage in therapy. At the present time, the only support seemed to be coming from the father who is not residing with her.

The Case for the Respondent

Jennifer Letang

[47] Ms. Letang is an Addictions Counsellor and does general counselling at the Ottawa Freedom Centre. She does not deal with mental health issues since she does not have an MSW degree. These matters are referred to her supervisor. She helps with resume writing and housing issues; and she described what she does as “brief stuff.” She has a Community Services and Addictions Worker diploma. She has been at the Freedom Centre for two years and she has known the Respondent mother since February 2014 as T.A. was one of the first people she encountered in her new job. She did a quick assessment of T.A., and noted a significant number of issues. She then referred her to other trained Social Workers at the Centre. Eventually, T.A. was seen by her supervisor, Hilary MacKenzie.

[48] When Ms. McKenzie became ill, T.A. began seeing Ms. Letang again for six to seven months. They would meet weekly and their sessions would last approximately one hour depending on what T.A. wanted to talk about. T.A. was seeking assistance in accessing insight therapy or cognitive behavioural therapy. Ms. Letang conceded that she could not provide that form of therapy. She was aware that T.A. had recently accessed these services from the Wabano Centre. She still had an ongoing relationship with the mother and acknowledged that there is very little that she could provide to her in terms of therapeutic assistance.

[49] In her view, there were no issues with T.A.’s appearance or hygiene. There were no addiction issues. In general, she did not ask questions and she let T.A. tell her about her visits with the baby and the status of the Society’s application. She did not discuss in depth what would happen if the child would be returned to the mother’s care although she did make a recommendation about another parenting class. She felt that the Freedom Centre could provide the mother with help in establishing a routine for the child.

[50] In cross-examination, she conceded that she was not qualified to provide mental health counselling and that she was not a social worker. She acknowledged that she herself had a child protection order made against her until 2014 and that her own children had been taken away by the Society in the past. She acknowledged that this was perhaps the reason why she felt that she could relate to T.A.

[51] She was then taken to a letter that T.A. had asked her to send to the Society before trial. Apart from the grammatical errors, that letter raises a number of concerns. The letter is undated and addressed to “to whom it may concern” and is stamped “The Ottawa Freedom Centre” on the bottom right-hand corner.

[52] In that letter, Ms. Letang states that she has been following T.A. since January 15, 2015, and that she had, at that point only met her three times. This is at odds with the evidence she gave at trial. She wrote:

I have seen her ups and downs and the struggles she has faced. I have seen all her progress and things that had been done for herself and her children and her home. T.A. is a strong person and hard worker. I am writing this to advocate for my client T.A. T.A. is doing a parenting program, and CBT therapy at one of our fellow agencies. She has shown so much progress and improvement since the first day she entered our agency. T.A. has been attending all her sessions with me, on time and willing to share all the good and bad. I have been helping T.A. with some general counseling and daily life stuff. The past few months have been very productive and positive. T.A. has been getting increased visits up to 4 days a week, 2-3 hours each visit. That is a lot of improvement, since the first week at only two visits.

I do not believe T.A. is a flight risk to her children, I believe that T.A. will continue in counselling will be good with W back in her home. T.A. will continue to see myself and I will continue to help her, I can assist T.A. with, budgeting, bills, home support, general counselling anything that she may need or is recommended for her. I am going to attend a circle of care with T. there will find all the different support systems will get to understand what is going to or is helping Tina and her process of growing and continue being a great parent. T. and I are in agreement to a home supervision order from C.A.S., to make sure all is going well and stays going well, with the home. Mental Health has improved since the beginning, not an issue with being able to care for her child. Emotions and feelings have been easier for T.A. to express herself without all the anger and emotions especially when talking about her parents. Tone of voice is regulated and not up and down, she can control it better.

T.A. is holding down the little job with a friend of hers, picking up scraps and doing plowing salting in the winter. Which supplies her with any extra things needed for her home?

In all this I believe by my experiences and finding that T.A. will be great and I support her to have her child back in her home. She will continue to see me on a regular weekly basis to continue to grow and be the best she can be.

[53] She admitted that she had written this letter shortly before the trial with an expectation that it might be read by the Court. She acknowledged that T.A. had not provided her with the psychological assessment she had undergone in the previous proceeding. She agreed that she was not qualified to make any diagnosis with respect to T.A.’s mental health and blamed the language in her letter on a poor choice of words. She acknowledged that she was not sure if T.A. had commenced CBT therapy even though she had said as much in her letter. She further acknowledged that she had not observed any visits between T.A. and the child nor had she visited her home. She agreed that she was simply reporting what T.A. had told her. She also acknowledged that she was not telling the full story about T.A.’s little side job and that she knew about P.C. In answer to my question, she confirmed that she had sent the letter to the Society with the approval of her supervisors at the Freedom Centre.

[54] This letter presents a number of significant concerns. First, Ms. Letang has confused her role as counsellor and has clearly become an advocate for T.A. Instead of reporting accurately on the services that she has provided to T.A., she has misstated the facts and has provided opinions on matters without having the necessary qualifications. She has overstepped her role to such a degree that I cannot give much weight to her evidence. I conclude that she merely provided T.A. with a sympathetic ear. This letter leads me to question whether or not Ms. Letang was the source of T.A.’s confusion about counselling services referred to in Dr. Pelletier’s report. By becoming T.A.’s advocate instead of being her counsellor, Ms. Letang may have contributed to T.A.’s delay in finally accessing the services she is now receiving at the Wabano Centre. That this letter would be directed to the Society and to the Court with the apparent approval of her supervisors raises serious questions.

The Mother, T.A.

[55] The mother resides alone in a three-bedroom apartment and she no longer has any animals or pets. She described her counselling that she is receiving from the Freedom Centre with Jennifer Letang since August 2015. She said that they discuss everyday issues. She claimed that her relationship with her mother has improved, but that her mother could not be a source of support. She indicated that she accessed services through the Wabano Centre in August or September of 2015.

[56] Her referral for CBT therapy was deferred because she disclosed that she had previously been diagnosed with a cyst on her brain. Her counsellors wanted an update on that situation before proceeding further. Ultimately, she was able to get the information about an MRI from her family physician. This demonstrated that the cyst was benign and small and had no impact on her emotional behaviour. She had only recently begun her long-term therapy and had her first session on the Thursday before trial. She expected to continue that once every week.

[57] She discussed her plan to have the child at her home. She said that she would try to keep the same routine as the foster parents. She intended to stop working for P.C. She believed that there would be no day care available for the child until the child was at least 18 months of age. She believed that P.C.’s sister could provide babysitting services and that his sister was now willing to be assessed. She also expected P.C.’s family to assist if necessary. Her intention was to take the baby to the Vanier Centre where she could participate in play groups. She had done this when she had the care of her other three children. She was willing to be subject to the supervision of the Society and she was prepared to follow any conditions that the Society might reasonably impose. She had no issue with continuing to work with Ms. Rochon. She was prepared to accept unannounced visits. She believed that she had gone a long way in improving the condition of her home but acknowledged that there was still some work to be done. The condition of the home did not present any dangers to a child. She had a bedroom set up waiting for the child. She would remain in contact with the foster parents.

[58] She admitted to being romantically involved with P.C. and acknowledged that he was still living with his wife and his youngest son. She testified that their plan is to move in together but she did not know where. She acknowledged that the Society had concerns about P.C.s access to the child and said she would place her daughter first and she would not move forward with the plan to move in with P.C. if the Society objected. She would attend her sessions at the Wabano Centre and take part in any other form of therapy recommended by the Society.

[59] While she did not agree with the findings of the court with respect to her other three children, she testified that she had to accept the court’s conclusions and now try to focus on her new child.

[60] In cross-examination, she conceded that Melanie Rochon had regularly recommended that she contact the R.O.H. to access the recommended therapy at that time. She acknowledged that she still had not done so by October 2015. She had no clear answer as to why she did not put her name on the waiting list.

[61] She felt that her apartment was well organized and she denied being attached to her possessions. She claimed that she would be able to maintain the state of her apartment but acknowledged that Ms. Rochon had a hand in helping her out and that P.C. had also been instrumental in helping her maintain the apartment in an orderly state. She was taken to the problems that she had with her other children and she denied any responsibility for their behaviours.

[62] She agreed that eventually she had to learn to wash her hands after work before having access to the child. She denied spending a lot of her free time at Tim Horton’s although she acknowledged that she did so in the past. She discussed her working relationship with P.C. She acknowledged that he provided her with cigarettes and coffee and a bit of cash every now and then. She did not feel that she was being taken advantage of. She claimed that her cigarette smoking has been reduced.

[63] She was challenged about her relationship with P.C. She acknowledged that he had 11 other children. She was not worried that the Society was involved with him in the past. Although he was far from perfect, she claimed that he was always there for her. She acknowledged that there might be an issue about the way he talks to her and that he can be aggressive. She was questioned about his other relationships and his own acknowledgement and that he had other girlfriends. She acknowledged that as recently as February 24, 2016, she and P.C. had a loud argument in front of the Catholic Family Services offices and that one of P.C.’s girlfriends was the source of that argument. She acknowledged that she had difficulty controlling her anger when she got mad.

[64] Asked why her other three children have been removed from her care, she was able to identify problems with hygiene, a lack of routine, the children always being late for school; their homework not being done. She acknowledged that her behaviour “was not great.” She was unable to identify that the children had attachment issues but she was very emphatic in denying any primary responsibility for these issues; she blamed others.

Vanessa Stevens

[65] Ms. Stevens is the mental health walk-in counsellor at the Wabano Centre. She is trained as a psychotherapist. T.A. came to the Wapato Centre on October 22, 2015, looking for “insight” therapy. They had a total of six meetings; either face-to-face or on the phone. She discussed the forms of therapy that were available. Therapy was delayed as they awaited the results of the MRI. She indicated that T.A. had commenced therapy but she was not the one providing the services. She described other programs that were available.

The Society’s Position

[66] The Society maintains that nothing has changed since 2015 when Justice Linhares de Sousa removed the other three children from the mother’s care. The Society maintains that the risk of future harm is still present as set out in the evidence of its witnesses and the further expert report of Dr. Pelletier. The Society maintains that while the home is currently being maintained, these improvements are only temporary as a result of the constant insistence on the part of Ms. Rochon. The Society emphasizes that these changes did not emanate from the mother. The Society maintains that the mother remains very attached to her possessions and becomes very uncomfortable and angry when anyone attempts to take these away. The Society maintains that the child will be at risk in the future if the child ever interferes with her mother’s things. The Society also expresses concerns that the clutter will return and that the risk of physical harm to the child will be present as was found to be the case with her other three children.

[67] The Society emphasizes the mother’s difficulties when exercising access and occasionally putting her own needs before those of her child. According to the Society, the mother failed to take steps to obtain the counselling recommended in the first assessment and that she waited until October 2015 before taking any action. The Society identifies concerns about the mother’s relationship with P.C. The Society maintains that there is no basis for any extension of the Society wardship pursuant to section 70 (4) in that the mother does not present a great plan nor is there any evidence of any good progress. The Society maintains that the only option is an order for Crown Wardship for the purposes of adoption.

The Mother’s Position

[68] The mother maintains that she has made significant improvements to the home and that the risk of physical harm is no longer present. She argues that the Society has not established the evidentiary burden for finding of need of protection pursuant to section 37 (2) (b)(ii) or (g).

[69] With respect to the risk of emotional harm, the mother argues that no problems can be anticipated until the child is two years of age; some 14 months away. The mother claims that she is showing progress and is cooperating with the Society. The mother is actively engaged in therapy and programs and is obtaining support. The mother stresses her willingness to follow conditions and to work with the Society in the future and assures the court that she will be able to put the child’s needs first. She refers to all of the things that she has done to get help as proof of that fact.

[70] While she did not start therapy until recently, the mother maintains her efforts were misplaced. She has achieved small degrees of insight so far without any form of therapy and she believes there could be more changes as she continues with the therapy that has just begun. The mother maintains that if there is any risk, it will only manifest itself in the child when the child is older and she argues that she deserves the privilege of raising her own child.

The Previous Findings

[71] Section 50 of the CFSA provides:

50. (1) Despite anything in the Evidence Act, in any proceeding under this Part,

(a) the court may consider the past conduct of a person toward any child if that person is caring for or has access to or may care for or have access to a child who is the subject of the proceeding; and

(b) any oral or written statement or report that the court considers relevant to the proceeding, including a transcript, exhibit or finding or the reasons for a decision in an earlier civil or criminal proceeding, is admissible into evidence.

[72] I turn now to the findings of Justice Linhares de Sousa as set out at paragraphs 208 and 209 of her decision of January 6, 2015.:

[208] There is no question, on the preponderance of evidence, that the personal hygiene of the children, despite evidence of Ms. A to the contrary, was neglected by her. A number of witnesses testified to their observations of the children’s clothes, the person and their body odour. The evidence overwhelmingly establishes a pattern of neglect, a lack of structure, routine consistency on the part of Ms. A, all of which, together with the state of the home leads to the conclusion of physical harm and risk of physical harm to the children.

[209] The evidence establishes that all three children have suffered emotional harm in the care of Ms. A. This conclusion is supported by the evaluation and expert opinion of Mr. Pelletier, who found that Ms. A, because of her own attachment difficulties and personality traits, had little insight into her own parental style and its impact on her children, the catastrophic relationship she had with her three children and little empathy for the emotional needs of her children.

[73] After reviewing the best interests factors found in section 37(3) of the CFSA, Justice Linhares de Sousa noted that the mother had begun to unclutter her house even then she concluded that the underlying cause for the state of her home had not been addressed by the mother in any meaningful way. She was not satisfied that there was any evidence to support the conclusion that these minor physical changes will continue and be sustained. In her view, the risk of physical harm, while diminished in certain rooms of the home, remained a concern.

[74] With respect to the mother’s parenting capacity and the mother’s ability to relate to her children’s very specific emotional needs, Justice Linhares de Sousa had not noted any improvements and concluded that the mother had not made any efforts to address her own psychological difficulties. At that time, the mother had stated many intentions of future actions. Justice Linhares de Sousa concluded that they remained just that, intentions. As a result, she concluded the risk of continued emotional harm to those children remained high. She said this at para 248:

Ms. A.’s own personality disturbance and attachment issues, according to Mr. Pelletier, has prevented her from understanding, in a real way, her children’s emotional needs and respond to them. In this regard her parenting of the three children has been seriously deficient. Not understanding the emotional needs of her three children, she has not been able to respond to those needs as she should have. Indeed, according to Mr. Pelletier this has contributed to the emotional difficulties of H., A. and K.

[75] At paragraph 291, she concluded:

The many future stated intentions of Ms. A, of what she “will” do if the children are returned to her, which is part of her plan of care for the children cannot help but be viewed in the context of this long history of passive inaction and resistance. Mr. Pelletier concluded his evaluation of Ms. A on the possibility of a real change in her that the following hopeful words:

Change is not impossible, but [it would be] over the long-term, in a context in which Ms. A agreed to address her own situation and her own attachment disorder which are compromising her relationship with her children. This type of psychotherapy takes time and it would be based on her exploration, insight, and acknowledgement of her own feelings of inadequacy and of being imperfect. This process must be spontaneous and come out of suffering; it would be futile to expect results if she were forced to do this.(page 25 of English Translation)

[76] After weighing all of the evidence, Justice Linhares de Sousa made a final order making the mother’s three previous children crown wards for the purposes of adoption. She made no order as to access.

Applicable Statutory Provisions

[77] The Society seeks a finding of need for protection pursuant to two sections of the CFSA:

37()(b) (ii)there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by that person’s pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child.

[78] The Society relies on the past findings of Justice Linhares de Sousa that the children were likely to suffer physical harm due to the state of the mother’s home. Although I share the Society’s concerns that T.A. will be unable to maintain the current safe conditions in the home without the constant supervision of a protection worker and Dr. Pelletier confirmed that the mother no longer met the criteria for being diagnosed as a hoarder, I am not satisfied that the evidence justifies a finding of protection under this ground.

(g) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described is demonstrated by serious anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or delayed development resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.

[79] This risk arises from the mother’s lack of insight as to why her other children were removed from her care. The evidence of Ms. Couture and of Ms. Rochon as well and the updated assessment and evidence of Dr. Pelletier confirm that there has been no appreciable change in the mother’s mental health. Dr. Pelletier concluded that the mother presented a significant risk of future emotional harm to her child. While the mother has been faithfully attending her access visits, the visits remain fully supervised. She still shows signs of preferring her own needs and those of the father over those of her child. While the mother has recently accessed the type of therapy that was recommended 22 months ago, she waited a long time before seeking out this help. She promised to do this during the trial in November 2014 and Justice Linhares DeSousa noted the mother’s history of promises and her failure to follow through.

[80] Dr. Pelletier stated that T.A. needed long term intensive treatment to address her own issues. The fact that the mother believed that she had already accessed the necessary therapy by attending the supportive counselling at the Freedom Centre reveals her continued lack of insight as to her parenting skills. This leads me to conclude that her need for intensive therapy will be ongoing for a long period of time. I do not expect P.C. to be supportive of that need. Dr. Pelletier’s conclusions about T.A.’s lack of empathy, her difficulty establishing attachment, her lack of insight and rejection of any personal flaws will impact on her parenting abilities in terms of being oblivious to the child’s needs before her own, lead me to conclude that W. is likely to suffer emotional harm in the same way that her siblings did if she is returned to her mother’s care and I make a finding of a need for protection under this section of the CFSA.

[81] In determining what order should be made with regard to W., I must consider section 37 (best interests) of the CFSA. In considering the best interests test, I must be satisfied that no less disruptive order would provide the child with adequate protection.

Best interests of child

(3) 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:

1. The child’s 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 be 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 to 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.
13. Any other relevant circumstance.

[82] Section 57(2) of the CFSA further requires me to ask what efforts the Society has made before intervention. Finally, I must consider the time limits set out in section 70 of the CFSA and whether an extension of Society Wardship is appropriate under section 70(4).

[83] Given that W. was apprehended at birth, I conclude that the following section 37 factors are the most important.

Factor 1: The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.

[84] W. is not quite one year of age. She is a normal child and has the potential to have a happy and healthy childhood if adopted. Having regard to the mother’s parenting history, and the expert evidence presented at trial, it is unlikely that the mother will be able to meet W.’s emotional, physical, and mental needs as she grows out of infancy.

Factor 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.

[85] W.’s three other siblings have been successfully place in adoptive homes with no access to T.A. The brothers’ adoptive parents have expressed an interest in adopting W. In any event, the Society proposes an openness order between W. and her siblings if she is adopted. It is highly unlikely that W. will have any contact with her siblings or any sense of family if she remains in her mother’s care. The father has not seen the child even though an order was made permitting such access. The child’s contact with her mother has not expanded beyond the weekly supervised visits. The maternal grandmother has health issues and her sister-in-law’s partner has his own history with the society. The mother has no real support from her family.

Factor 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.

[86] The evidence discloses that there are 20 approved families who could adopt a young child like W. These also include the adoptive parents of her two brothers. The mother’s plan is not viable. She has no family members, friends or external supports to assist her with the growing challenges of raising a child on her own. The father’s continued role in her life remains a serious question. He refuses to cooperate with the Society. He made sporadic attendances at trial. It is clear to me that he still has a great deal of control over T.A.’s life. I note the evidence of his constant phone calls interrupting her access with W. and the mother’s decision to terminate access early on at least two occasions so that she could assist P.C. with his business.

[87] I do not believe the mother when she states that she will exclude the father from her life if that was made a condition of a supervision order. I accept the evidence of Ms. Rochon and Ms. Couture that the mother is infatuated with P.C. The mother has already sought out day care for W. and she testified that she had not found any service that was available for a child under 18 months of age. This leads me to conclude that W. will be put into day care as soon as possible so that she can continue to work with P.C. and that relationship will be the more important one in her life. The father’s twin sister did not follow through with her kinship plan and an early meeting with her revealed other concerns about her ability to look after W. in the mother’s absence. She did not testify and I cannot conclude that she will be of any assistance and I put no weight on Ms. Letang’s evidence as to how she may able to assist T.A. in any meaningful way.

Factor 10: The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.

[88] There are families currently available who can adopt W. W.’s future should not be put on hold while we sit and wait to see if her mother will finally address the many challenges that impair her ability to parent. Dr. Pelletier testified as to the need for long term intensive therapy that could take at least two years. Any delays at this stage will only impede W.’s ability to attach to a new adoptive family and increase the risk of emotional harm. For these reasons, I reject the mother’s request for an extension under section 70 (4) as I do not find that the six month extension to be in W.’s interests. In Children’s Aid Society of Thunder Bay (District) v. K. (K.), 2006 ONCJ 158, [2006] OJ No 1786, the trial judge reviewed the case law and adopted the reasoning of this court in Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Carleton v. K.(F.) sets out the criteria for considering a section 70(4) extension. He concluded at para 64:

I can find no unusual or exceptional circumstances in this case to exercise my discretion to permit the extension. If a realistic plan were in place, good progress were being made and there were a likely positive outcome, then an extension of time to allow that plan to play out might very well be appropriate and in the child’s best interests. Those factors do not exist here. Rather, Ms. K.K.’s proposal is wishful thinking and the chances of success are slim. Granting an extension and delaying this matter further would not be in D.F.’s best interests. A timely resolution to these matters is critical and indeed mandated by the legislation. A few months in the life of a child may be extremely significant as compared to that of adults.

I conclude that the mother’s plan is not realistic, insufficient progress is being made and there is no likely positive outcome.

Factor 11: 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.

[89] I have already canvassed this factor making my finding of need of protection where I found a strong likelihood of emotional harm if W. were to be returned to the care of her mother.

Decision

[90] Having regard to these factors, I conclude that it is in W.’s best interests that she be made a Crown Ward for the purposes of adoption and that no less disruptive order can be made. I am satisfied that the Society has made significant efforts over time to work with the mother since the birth of her first child in 2006. The mother has not put forward any evidence that her continued access would be meaningful and beneficial to W. and there will accordingly be no order for access. I am satisfied that the Society will facilitate openness between W. and her siblings and that formal order to that effect is not necessary at this time.

[91] The child, W.M.J.C., shall be made a Crown Ward without access and shall be placed in the care of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa.

Mr. Justice Robert N. Beaudoin

Released: May 16, 2016

COURT FILE NO.: FC-06-1030-4 DATE: 20160516 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 W.M.J.C, dob: [...] 16 BETWEEN: THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA Applicant – and – T.A. Respondent (Mother) – and – P.C. Respondent (Father) REASONS FOR decision Beaudoin J. Released: May 16, 2016