CITATION: The Ottawa Children’s Aid Society v. C.S., 2016 ONSC 3828
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-2704
DATE: 20160609
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990
AND IN THE MATTER OF C., born […], 2005; D., born […], 2009 and J., born […], 2014
BETWEEN:
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
Applicant
– and –
C.S.
and
P.S.
and
R.P.
Respondents
Marguerite Lewis, for the Applicant
Diana Aoun, for the Respondent C.S.
Jessica Vo, for the Respondent P.S.
Cedric Nahum, for the Respondent R.P.
Wendy Byrne, Children’s Lawyer for the Children C. and D.
HEARD: April 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and May 11, 12 and 13, 2016
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
C. McKinnon J.
Background
[1] This case involves the appropriate placement of a girl, C., age 10, a girl, D., age 6, and a boy, J., almost age 2. C.S. is the mother of all three of the children; R.P. is the father of the eldest girl, C., and the young child, J. P.S. is the father of the younger girl, D. Both C. and D. are special needs children. At this point in time, J. appears to be developing normally.
[2] As will become more apparent in the course of these reasons, the parents face significant challenges. The mother, C.S., is partially disabled by both obesity and a bad back which requires the use a wheelchair. Recently she broke an ankle which resulted in her obtaining an electric wheelchair. She suffers from ADHD.
[3] P.S. is also wheelchair bound by virtue of having suffered polio as a child. He lives in assisted housing, as do C.S. and R.P. He is dependent on the Ontario Disabilities Support Plan, as are C.S. and R.P. P.S. augments his income by panhandling. He is a professional panhandler and a member of the Ottawa Panhandlers’ Union. He has faced many outstanding charges involving many thousands of dollars in potential fines for aggressive panhandling but has apparently been successful in having most of the charges against him dismissed. He also has a serious criminal record, having been convicted of 16 offences between 1999 and 2012 including assault, assault with a weapon, uttering threats, robbery, possession of narcotics, trafficking in narcotics and failing to comply with recognizances. P.S. also has some curious interests such as keeping reptiles in his home, including a boa constrictor, although he testified that he has given that large snake away. He professes Anarchy as his political philosophy, although of the peaceful variety. He is a practicing Buddhist, which he says prohibits any violent form of Anarchy.
[4] R.P. is seriously mentally ill and has had what can only be described as a tragic life as a result of his illness. He has been seriously addicted to both alcohol and drugs from a very early age and in the past engaged in male prostitution in order to feed his addictions. He has a serious criminal record consisting of 29 offenses between 1994 and 2008, including convictions for break, enter and theft, possession of a weapon, fraud, robbery, various assaults, assaults with weapons, uttering threats, sexual assault and failing to comply with various probation orders.
[5] He is currently facing two outstanding charges of sexual assault, with his preliminary inquiry scheduled to be heard in November 2016. His recognizance of bail requires that he remain in his residence unless he is in the presence of his surety, who is C.S. That recognizance was signed on October 9, 2015, and remains in effect until his preliminary inquiry and trial. The sum and substance of the recognizance of bail is that R.P. is joined at the hip with C.S. for the foreseeable future.
[6] The Children’s Aid Society has been involved with this family since C.S. was pregnant with C. C.S and R.P. were living together at the time. R.P. was heavily involved in drugs and alcohol. According to C.S, R.P. stopped eating and drinking and became delusional. For a time, the couple lived on the streets. C.S. phoned the police due to a threat of violence from R.P. that he would burn her eye out with a cigarette. R.P. was charged and one of the conditions of bail is that he have no contact with C.S. The Society remained involved for a two year period due to concerns concerning R.P.’s behaviour and the potential danger he posed to their new daughter C.
[7] When C. was two years of age, she was placed in the temporary care of the Society for a five month period due to ongoing concerns regarding R.P.’s mental health and the belief that C.S. was using crack cocaine. Eventually C. was placed back into C.S.’s care. C.S. and R.P. separated because of R.P.’s involvement with the law and being sent to prison.
[8] While separated, C.S. met P.S. and became pregnant with D. P.S. was a very unreliable parent, disappearing for days on end, ingesting drugs and generally avoiding parental responsibilities. P.S. and C.S. were married and C.S. took P.S.’s last name, which she continues to use to this date. Although being the parent of both C. and J., she has never sought a divorce from P.S. nor married R.P.
[9] When D. was about two years of age, P.S. was demanding entry to their residence. A neighbour complained and the Society became involved once again. P.S. convinced the Society that everything was fine and the file was closed. C.S. testified that she had asked the Society on a number of occasions for help when she was with P.S. but never received any. Eventually C.S. left P.S. and went to a shelter in 2013 with both her daughters and the Society has been involved with C.S. and the children ever since.
Current Involvement with the Society
[10] Krista Pulfer is a graduate of McGill University and of Algonquin College. She received her Bachelor’s degree with honours from McGill and Diploma in Social Work from Algonquin. She has been working with the Ottawa Society for ten years. She became involved with the family in May 2014 when C.S. was eight months pregnant with J. On her first visit to C.S.’s home, she found it cluttered, messy, with bags of clothes hanging around. C.S. occupied one bedroom and the girls, C. and D., the second bedroom, which was messy. Toys and clothes were everywhere; there was no bedding nor sheets on the mattress.
[11] C.S. explained that she was struggling because she was pregnant and that she suffered from ADHD and was not taking medication because of her pregnancy. The kitchen was cluttered and messy with dirty dishes, leftover food, with dirty countertops. Of note is the fact that this was a planned visit. C.S. was counselled with respect to the home environment and that the girls needed sheets on their beds.
[12] The Society understood that R.P. was not present in the home and that he was the subject of a no contact order with C.S. after getting into an argument with her and assaulting her. He was being held on that charge in the Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre. C.S. assured Ms. Pulfer that R.P. would not be returning to the home. Ms. Pulfer informed her that R.P. was not permitted to be in the home. C.S. told her that she was worried that she might be assaulted again and agreed with the Society’s reservations concerning R.P.
[13] On May 23rd, 2014, the Society received information that there was a known pedophile frequenting the home of C.S. Ms. Pulfer raised the issue with C.S. who assured her that she had no concerns with respect to the individual. When Ms. Pulfer visited the C.S.’s home, she observed numerous bags of belongings including a mattress. C.S. was quite angry at the visit and told Ms. Pulfer “If you want to take the children, just take them”. D. was crying and ran into her room. Ms. Pulfer attempted to calm her down. C.S. explained at trial that the pedophile was in the process of being thrown out of the dwelling above her, including all of his belongings and she simply offered to hold the belongings for him while he found a new place to live. She testified that at no time was he present when the children were around.
[14] On June 9th, 2014, Ms. Pulfer attended C.S.’s home once again and discussed the upcoming birth of J. She asked about R.P. and was informed that C.S. had not heard from him and that he would not be around her children. She stated that R.P. had been crushing his medication and snorting it, and that she would not allow him into the home. She had no idea where he was and had not heard from anyone who knew where he might be.
[15] On […], 2014, J. was born and serious concerns developed because R.P. was present at the birth and was acting aggressively and irrationally. R.P. had to be removed by security officials. C.S. explained that she had signed a consent to permit R.P. to be in contact with her. The police were contacted and they confirmed that R.P. had been released on June 11th and had gone to C.S.’s home, just a few days following C.S.’s conversation with Ms. Pulfer.
[16] C.S. agreed that R.P. was not acting properly at the hospital. She admitted that she had reversed her position about the no contact order and wished him to be present at J.’s birth. Initially she said that R.P. simply attended at the hospital and had not been staying with her but subsequently admitted the fact he had been living with her for the few days following his release from jail and her attendance at the hospital for the birth of J. She was reminded by Ms. Pulfer about the Society’s expectation that R.P. not be permitted to be near the children.
[17] C.S. was in the hospital longer than normal because J. developed jaundice. C.S. informed Ms. Pulfer that R.P. had been brought to the hospital on a few occasions to the psychiatric unit, that he was acting strange and not making sense and she would assure that he would not be around the children.
[18] Meanwhile, R.P. was telephoning Ms. Pulfer from the Ottawa Hospital Psychiatric Unit and admitted that he had been in the home with C.S. but said he would not return without permission. On August 5th, he telephoned Ms. Pulfer to inform her that he had received a pardon from the Queen of England for all of his criminal convictions and that he was the “Third Majesty of the State”.
[19] On August 6th, Ms. Pulfer wrote a letter to C.S. starting that R.P. had been at her home from July 19th until July 20th, that R.P. was quite ill and should not have any contact with her children and warning that if R.P. were to be allowed around the children, the Society would have no choice but to apprehend all three of them.
[20] On August 8th, Ms. Pulfer met with R.P. at the psychiatric unit of the Ottawa Hospital. She found him agitated and anxious. He was insisting that he was connected to royalty, that he no longer had any criminal convictions and had received a pardon from the Queen. As proof of the pardon, he produced a renewal of an OHIP card. He stated that he was a robot and that he had been created by the doctors. He assured Ms. Pulfer that he would not attend C.S.’s home without the permission of the Society.
[21] On August 15th, Ms. Pulfer visited C.S. C.S’s back was in severe pain, and she was unable to get out of bed. The girls were helping with the daily chores. C.S. was unable to lift J., who was in a crib beside her bed. C. explained that she had prepared breakfast and made hot dogs for lunch. C.S. explained that she needed a doctor and rest and no one was available to help her. Ms. Pulfer canvassed options for assistance, including telephoning P.S.’s parents, who informed that they were unavailable to assist.
[22] The transfer of the children to a foster home for a short stay was discussed. The plan would be that the three children would go to a foster home for the weekend, and C.S. would rest and the children would be returned on Monday. C.S. signed a one month temporary care agreement. The children were quite understanding and cooperative. C.S. helped pack their belongings and wrote notes for the foster parents. It was agreed that on the following Monday, they would discuss the return of the children to C.S.
[23] On the Monday, C.S. informed Ms. Pulfer that R.P. had returned to her home and was living with her. He had discharged himself from hospital and gone to her home. She explained that she needed a couple more days “to figure things out.”
[24] On August 20th, C.S. explained to Ms. Pulfer that R.P. was still at the home. She was tearful, and wanted her children back but R.P. had nowhere to go. Subsequent conversations were all to the same effect, namely that R.P. needed her support and that he was getting better with her help.
[25] On September 3rd, Ms. Pulfer saw C.S. and R.P. together at a meeting with the family doctor. R.P. explained that he did not believe he was on the right medication. He had not slept in days, his thoughts were racing and he was hearing voices. The voices were telling him to kill C.S. and the Mafia. Ms. Pulfer spoke to C.S. privately and asked her if she felt safe. C.S. felt she was. She was aware of R.P. hearing voices but did not feel that he would act on the commands. At that point, the temporary care agreement of one month was about to expire. C.S. stated that she was not prepared to have the children return home while she was assisting R.P. in getting better. She signed a three month temporary care agreement.
[26] Over the next three months the children remained in foster homes. There were many conversations between Ms. Pulfer and C.S. C.S. continued to insist that she was not prepared to have R.P. leave her home. She herself was suffering from pain and fatigue and she needed someone to assist her to deal with her pain. Various people were approached to determine whether a placement of the children could be made and no options were available. Ms. Pulfer had contacted Ontario Works and arranged for home management to assist C.S. In the meantime, regular access visits to the children had been arranged by Society worker, Sarah Miles.
[27] A Care and Custody Motion was scheduled for February 2015. At that time, R.P. provided a letter from Dr. Ribeyre saying that he was compliant with his drug regime and posed no danger to the children. In preparation for of the Care and Custody Motion, Ms. Pulfer had visited the home and found it significantly cleaner than on previous occasions. The Society made the decision to abandon the motion and attempt to reintegrate the children into the home, part-time during March of 2015, and full-time commencing March 28th, 2015.
[28] Everyone was cooperative in assuring that the movement of the children from the foster home back to C.S.’s home was successful. Ms. Pulfer found that R.P. appeared to be much more calm and not showing the anxiety and agitation that she had previously noted. She felt that C. and R.P. appeared to be getting along, and D. had regular access to her father, P.S., at the home of his parents on Sundays. Things appeared to be proceeding well.
[29] However, the parents were struggling financially because the Child Tax Benefit had been paid to the Society when the children were taken into care and had not been reinstated. Ms. Pulfer assured that food vouchers, including gift cards to Metro, Food Basics and Loblaws were provided to the parents.
[30] During an unannounced visit in June 2015, Ms. Pulfer became quite concerned at R.P.’s behaviour. He was explaining how the birds were watching and talking to him. Animals and squirrels were watching and listening to him. There was going to be “an animal war”. He felt that the government was listening and watching him. He was agitated, unsettled and nervous. His conversation made no sense. He explained that he was drinking beer to alleviate his anxiety. This conversation took place in a park.
[31] When they arrived back in the home Ms. Pulfer noted that the home was once again cluttered with clothes all over the floors, and the kitchen was dirty. Police were investigating an incident in a nearby unit. Ms. Pulfer received a text involving a different case that she was handling at which point R.P. became extremely aggressive and began yelling and swearing at Ms. Pulfer. She said that she was leaving. She did so, then spoke to her supervisor. It was decided to phone Dr. Ribeyre, R.P.’s psychiatrist, and ask if he had noticed a change in R.P. Dr. Ribeyre explained that he had been meeting with R.P. more frequently and was engaged in altering his medication.
[32] On August 13th, 2015, Ms. Pulfer received a phone call from Dr. Ribeyre explaining that R.P. had stopped taking his medication for one week, that he was not acting normally and that he had stormed out of an appointment. With this information, the Society decided to apprehend the children. On August 14, 2015, Ms. Pulfer attended with a co-worker and two members of the Ottawa Police Service. She spoke to C.S. who confirmed that R.P. was off his medication and feeling suicidal. She said that Dr. Ribeyre had been trying to slow down R.P.’s marijuana use, but he had been smoking frequently every day.
[33] During the apprehension the children were calm. They confirmed that R.P. had not been well. They packed with the help of C.S. R.P. explained that he would return to the hospital. C.S. explained that her plan was to meet with R.P.’s doctor and get his medication sorted out. Ms. Pulfer explained that R.P. had to be on medication to survive.
[34] Ms. Pulfer accompanied the children to the foster home. During the drive, the girls expressed their concern at R.P. yelling and screaming and using the “F word” and that R.P. and C.S. were fighting every day. R.P. was talking to the birds and the animals. C. commented that she thought that was strange. On arrival at the foster home, the girls were excited to see their new toys and happy to have their own rooms.
[35] In October 2015. Ms. Pulfer received information that R.P. had been charged with two counts of sexual assault and was in custody. She telephoned C.S. who confirmed that it was true, but that the charges were “crap”. C.S. was R.P.’s surety and they had to be together at all times. After this, access to the children was changed from semi-supervised to fully-supervised.
[36] While the children were in their first foster home, C. acted out sexually by touching another child, as result of which the foster parents insisted that C., D., and J. be moved to another home, which was done.
[37] The question of C.’s sexuality was discussed with C.S. and R.P. who acknowledged that during the summer of 2014, D. informed them that C. was touching her in her “private area” at night. They also informed her that they had seen a video on a smartphone in which C. participated in a sexual act with a boy. They were shown the video by the parents of the boy. C. appeared to be performing oral sex on the boy. The boy had his pants down. C.S. informed Ms. Pulfer that C. was the instigator. When asked what they did about it they stated that nothing was done. At the time, C. was eight years of age and the boy was about 6.
[38] After the children were brought back into care in the fall of 2015, the focus of the Society was on preparing plans to return the children to their home. The gravity of the potential of crown wardship was explained to them as well as to their friend A.R.. Ms. Pulfer explained the Society’s serious concern about R.P.’s mental health. C.S. continued to insist that she was unable to cope with the children unless R.P. was present. She believed that both the girls, C. and D. should be able to do more tasks.
[39] A.R., a friend of C.S. and R.P., expressed an interest in proposing a plan of care but never followed through, notwithstanding numerous invitations to complete the paperwork to present a plan. At the present time, she it apparently in the province of British Columbia and it is unknown when or whether she might return.
[40] C.S. was not completely deprived of assistance. A worker provided by the province was attending her residence every Saturday in order to clean and change the sheets. The Society paid for a crib for Jacob and also paid for summer camp for the girls. Food vouchers were regularly provided, as well as other benefits.
[41] The evidence establishes that C.S. is a good and caring mother who has at all times ensured that the girls receive quality education considering their special needs, that they attend all of the medical appointments and are generally well fed. C. and D. have individualised education plans including tutors where necessary.
[42] Unfortunately, the constant perplexing issue facing C.S. is her insistence that she is unable to care for the children without the assistance of the R.P. This was a source of numerous discussions between C.S. and Ms. Pulfer. Throughout all discussions relating to the reintegration of the children, C.S., insisted that she was unable to take the children without the assistance of R.P.
[43] Even with the issue of access, C.S. is insistent that R.P. be present. The evidence reveals that C.S. has been offered very liberal access to the children in the absence of R.P. but she has opted to see the children three times a week with R.P. present and also on Saturday mornings when the girls have a swimming lesson.
[44] Sarah Miles has worked with the Ottawa Children’s Aid Society for 14 years. She graduated with a Bachelor of Social Science with majors in Psychology and Sociology from the University of Ottawa and also has a Bachelor of Social Work from York University. She has overseen the foster parenting of C., D. and J. She confirmed that C. missed her mother, which was confirmed by D. who stated that she didn’t wish to share a room with C. because she was “so teary”.
[45] Ms. Miles oversaw the move of the children from the first foster home to the current foster home because of the inappropriate touching of a young child in the first foster home. The young child was three years old and C. was nine when the touching occurred.
[46] J. has adjusted very well into the foster home and is developing both physically and emotionally in the normal range. He eats and sleeps well. D. is described as a sweet, fun loving, energetic little girl who is always happy see Ms. Miles and hugs her. She likes school although she struggles with language and mathematics. Although she says she does not have friends, she appears to interact with her school friends easily. C. is described as a much more anxious child who constantly seeks reassurance and struggles academically. Ms. Miles testified that C. and D. get along very well and are protective of each other. They are not overly involved with J., because he is so young, although if J. is doing something cute, they will notice it.
[47] C. has the benefit of a volunteer tutor to assist her with her academic challenges. The medical needs of the children are all being attended to. C. is prescribed Concerta to control her ADHD. D. and J. are not on medication. D. has some bedwetting issues which are slowly being overcome. The foster parents and parents share a communication book.
[48] Ms. Miles agreed with the suggestion that C. might need counselling for her sexualized behaviour. Meanwhile, the foster parents are aware of the need for heightened supervision of C. with respect to her sexual acting out and the school authorities are told to assure that there are appropriate boundaries between C. and other students. She agreed that C. had been prone to having angry outbursts and temper tantrums in the foster home and that counselling might be of assistance to alter her behaviour. Ms. Miles said that she was monitoring the situation and had observed that C.’s behaviour had improved in the foster home and that therapy was an option in the future.
Access Visits
[49] Initially P.S. did not respond to the Society’s application for crown wardship but was subsequently successful in having the file reopened so that he could present a plan of care. Access to D. on the part of P.S. was switched from his parents’ home on Sundays to a supervised setting at the Society on Fridays for one and half to two hours after school. The visits have all gone well.
[50] Andre Pitre is a child and youth counsellor with the Society and has extensive experience in working with children, including children in group homes. He was assigned to assist P.S. in supervising his access to his daughter D. and found that P.S. at all times was appropriate and positive. D. was always happy to see him. P.S. is primarily interested in what is best for D. He talked about wanting to clean his life up from drugs and that he had been as of February 2016 free from crack cocaine about two months. He was taking marijuana for pain management. P.S. and D. are affectionate together, showing signs of affection including hugs and kisses and kind words. D. never speaks negatively about her father. At all times during access visits P.S. appeared to be drug free.
[51] Tarah Pugh is a child and youth councillor and has worked with the Society for four years. She has a diploma in Corrections from Algonquin College and worked for 12 years with high needs youth with mental health issues. She supervised the access for the family from September 2014 to April 2015, then from September 2015 to mid-December 2015. She also was engaged in the reintegration of the family in a April 2015. Generally she found all visits to be very positive from C.S.’s point of view. R.P. would assist as best he could although he was often in a world of his own, staring into space, taking frequent breaks in order to have cigarettes and generally exhibiting anxiety. He did attempt to integrate with the children, assisted with cooking and cleaning although periodically he would become angry and upset. He was upset that he had to be supervised at all times. On occasion he believed he was being watched by a camera and by other people and felt he was being judged.
[52] When the children were reintegrated into the family home in March 2015, initially the house was clean and acceptable, although Ms. Pugh was concerned about the amount of time the children were permitted to watch television. On a visit on April 1st, 2015, Ms. Pugh was concerned about of the state of the house. The girls’ room was very messy, she could not see any flooring, there were toys and clothes everywhere. C.S. expressed concerns about her ability to budget and so Ms. Pugh provided food vouchers and offered to do shopping with C.S. but she was not interested and said she knew how to budget.
[53] During the supervised visits when the children were in care, C.S. would perform appropriate activities. She brought the children healthy food and gifts for special occasions such as birthdays. The interaction between C.S. and her children was loving with no inappropriate discipline nor conversations. On occasion she would help C. with her mathematics and read to the children.
[54] Stephanie Beamish has been a worker with the Society for the past three and half years. She previously worked in group homes for five years. She has a Honours B.A. in Psychology from the University of Ottawa and has dealt with many people with mental health issues. She supervised a few visits in December 2015 and has supervised the visits full-time since January 2016. Her observations are similar to the other workers, namely that C.S. engages with the children much more than R.P. does. She brings appropriate food for the children and interacts with them positively. At times R.P. disengages from the children. He does a number of chores, including assisting with setting up the table for eating and assisting with the cooking. He periodically leaves in order to have a cigarette. During visits C.S. will write in the communication book which is returned to the foster parents.
[55] Sarah Jarvis is another worker with the Society, having worked with them for seven years. She has a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology from the University of Ottawa. She worked ten years with Operation Come Home and coordinated programs for low income families at the York Street Public School in the City of Ottawa. On occasion she shadowed visits with Tarah Pugh from December 2015 until March 2016. She noted that A.R. attending approximately six visits of the 18 visits that she monitored. Ms. Jarvis testified that the children reacted very positively to A.R. and that Ms. A.R. was very good at arts, crafts and puzzles.
[56] She testified that C. and D. were not permitted to use the washroom together unless there was an adult present. She noted that R.P.’s behaviour was inconsistent. At times he was affectionate and engaged and at other times would keep to himself and state at the floor or stare at other people. He was often disengaged. R.P. explained to her that he was on medication but would be discontinuing the medication and start a new medication, although he was anxious about the effects.
[57] Ms. Jarvis noticed that C. seems to be sensitive to her father and how he responds to the environment. She confirmed that at all times C.S. and R.P. brought appropriate games, crafts and food. C.S. is focussed on the children. She and the children always sit and eat together. R.P. sometimes eats with them, and sometimes not. R.P. comes and goes for cigarette breaks. He cleans the dishes, at all times he was appropriate with Ms. Jarvis and spoke to her about wanting to help people and get employment. He felt he was restricted because of the conditions of his bail.
[58] At all times C.S. and R.P. were on time for their visits. Her actions with the children were positive and age appropriate. There was no inappropriate discipline. When R.P. shuts down and disengages, the children simply ignore him and concentrate on C.S. D. does not interact with R.P. to any degree.
Court Ordered Assessments
[59] A court in Ontario can order assessments pursuant to section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act (“CFSA”) or section 30 of the Children’s Law Reform Act. These reports are usually conducted by medical practitioners and in the City of Ottawa by the Family Court Clinic of the Royal Ottawa Hospital.
[60] Both sections of these statutes provide that the report generated is admissible as evidence at trial. Any party is free to call the assessor as a witness. It is unnecessary to serve to serve notice pursuant to section 52 of the Evidence Act when an assessment is ordered.
[61] Because they are admissible as evidence means that these reports are admissible for the truth of their contents and form part of the trial record. This is important because it is only in this fashion that the views, comments and preferences of children can be ascertained by the court. The Office of the Children’s Lawyer is often asked to conduct investigations and provide reports to the court pursuant to section 112 of the Courts of Justice Act. That statute also provides that the reports are admissible as evidence. I shall be relying on both the trial testimony and the court ordered assessments in determining the facts in this case.
C.S.
[62] C.S. was born on […], 1981. She is 35 years of age and is the mother of the three children. Her history was detailed both in court and in the court ordered assessment prepared by Dr. Floyd Wood.
[63] C.S. was born in Elliot Lake and moved to Brockville with her mother, her half-sister and her stepfather at the age of two where she resided for seven years before moving to Ottawa at age 10 with her mother and her mother’s new common law husband. There had been domestic violence between her mother and her stepfather with the police having to attend the residence. She was bullied and physically assaulted by her younger sister. She felt that her mother did not care for her and favoured her sister. She did not feel that anybody cared for her or made her feel special. She did not experience physical abuse as a child although when she was 19 years of age her mother’s current common law husband hit her, which resulted in her leaving the home. This man was also verbally and emotionally abusive when under the influence of alcohol. The history of abuse made her timid and anxious and she cried very easily. She is hyper-vigilant and distrustful of others and submissive in her personal relationships. She has blocked out a lot of her childhood memories because she does not want to deal with them.
[64] She disliked attending school, had very few friends and was bullied. She knew she was in special education classes and had behavioural difficulties. She recollected being sexually active by providing oral sex to boys in grade 3. She recalls being frequently sent to the principal’s office for misbehaviour such as having physical fights with other girls or becoming angry with peers and teachers. She believed her behaviour improved when she moved to Ottawa where she attended high school. Although she did not participate in school activities, she had trouble reading. She believed she was going to graduate but on the day of graduation learned that she was short one and one-half credits. She attempted to make up the credits required by attending an adult high school but her daughter C. was born, requiring her to quit.
[65] C.S. was employed only once for a six month period when she was 19 years of age. This was with a security company. She was working long hours and believed that she got the flu which resulted in her ending up in hospital where she believes she slept for about a week. She has not sought out further employment because she cannot bear the stress of being out in the world. She has been on and off Ontario Works since the age of 19, other than the times when she was receiving financial assistance from either P.S. or R.P. She has been receiving financial assistance from R.P.’s ODSP payments for the past year and a half.
[66] C.S. had a high school boyfriend whom she dated for five years between the ages 15 and 20 but he was controlling and abusive, both emotionally and verbally. She stated that he treated her “like a dog”. The relationship ended when she discovered that he was cheating on her with another woman and so she retaliated by openly cheating on him.
[67] She has known R.P. since she was 21 years of age. They developed a relationship shortly after meeting. She explained that R.P. was “the love of my life” and that she was “addicted” to him. They dated about three years prior to her getting pregnant with C. It was while she was pregnant that the Society became involved in their relationship. R.P. started using more drugs and assaulted her while she was pregnant which resulted in a no contact order. He was subsequently in and out of jail and they separated for about a seven year period during which time she had no contact with him although she kept in touch with his father, who remains a friend. About two years ago, R.P. returned to Ottawa wishing to renew their relationship. She agreed and subsequently became pregnant with J. in late 2013.
[68] With respect to P.S., the father of D., C.S. has known him for a long time because he practically raised her sister by teaching her how to live on the street. They developed a relationship after he visited her home while her sister was staying with her in January 2009. The OC Transpo buses were on strike at the time and he was unable to leave so he eventually simply stayed with her and she became pregnant with D. within a few days. They were in a relationship for about a year before they married. She now regards P.S. as a manipulative individual who takes advantage of persons and situations. He actively abused substances in the home and would invite his friends over to do drugs. She eventually left him and went with the children to a shelter. The precipitating event was after a car hit P.S. while he was riding in his wheelchair with C. on his lap, proceeding across the street against a red light.
[69] She documented her difficulties in living with P.S. and spoke about his temper tantrums, frequent absences, drug use, sleeping all day, being out all night and being absent for days on end. She testified that she puts on a “big act” for D. so that D. does not become affected by her views of P.S. She acknowledges that D. loves her father. In explaining why C. was taken into custody by the Society at age two, it was because it was alleged that C.S. was smoking crack cocaine.
[70] C.S. stated that her mother is 52 years of age and in poor health, which C.S. believes is due to long standing alcohol abuse. She also has asthma which is made worse by smoking cannabis and hash oil. She cleans houses for the elderly. She stated that her mother and sister don’t talk to her and she received a very nasty email from her sister on Facebook. At 11 or 12 years of age her sister ran away to live on the street where she met P.S. She regards her family as being R.P., R.P.’s father and A.R..
[71] The seven year separation from R.P. was due to the fact that R.P. was at times incarcerated, at other times living in group homes and at other times out of town, although she is unsure of the exact details of his lengthy absence. She describes her relationship with R.P. as being very positive. He provides great support to her and encourages her. He consoles her. She described him as her “soul mate”. “He is everything I have, I don’t know how I would survive without him”.
[72] Both C.S. and R.P. suffer from anxiety. C.S. stated that their communication was excellent, that R.P. is good at manual stuff such as putting out the garbage, walking the dog, cleaning the bathrooms, reaching to high places, doing odd jobs around the house and playing music on his electric piano. He is very good at taking instructions.
[73] She explained that after R.P. was charged with the two counts of sexual assault she became his surety and must be with him at all times, unless he is visiting his lawyer, doctor or attending court. She states that R.P. is very good at following the routine that she has established. She says that she would instantly call the police if he did not abide by his conditions, or threatened her in any way.
[74] I have previously commented on the physical challenges facing C.S. She hurt her back when C. was two years of age. She broke her ankle while stepping onto a bus and fell on her tail bone. She did not realize that permanent damage had been caused until D. was born, which resulted in her being in chronic pain for two years, describing the pain as being “everywhere” including her lower back but mostly around her left hip and knees which required her to maintain the use of a wheelchair. For a time she was able to take the odd walk at the insistence of R.P. but since her most recent broken ankle, she is back in an electric wheelchair.
[75] With respect to the severe back pain, Dr. Westley, the family physician, was contacted and advised that her pain was “subjective”. An MRI was scheduled for March 2012 but C.S. failed to show up for the appointment.
[76] C.S. was diagnosed with depression at age 15 and prescribed an anti-depressant. She had attempted to jump out of her bedroom window in an attempt suicide. She remained on the anti-depressant for a year and was again prescribed an anti-depressant after C. was born. She was going through a lot of stress at the time and receiving minimal support because R.P. was in jail. She believed that she went “psychotic” while on the anti-depressant and had bad thoughts and urges to hurt C. She was then diagnosed with ADHD and prescribed the drug Concerta which she took for about four years, but stopped when she became pregnant with J.
[77] She reported to Dr. Wood that R.P. had told her that she should go back on the medication because she was “all over the place”. She describes numerous stressors in her life, including R.P. overdosing and having drug induced seizures and experiencing delusions. She suffers a lot of anxiety daily and is constantly on guard. Dr. Westley reported to Dr. Wood that C.S. had been diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder and ADHD. She had been referred to the Anxiety Disorders Program at the Royal Ottawa Hospital on July 11th, 2013, but declined to attend for an appointment.
[78] Medical records from the Ottawa Hospital include a number of emergency department psychiatric consultations from October 5th, 2004, indicated that C.S. was having suicidal thoughts involving overdosing on medication or walking into the middle of traffic with R.P. She admitted to smoking cannabis daily and using crack cocaine weekly and also living in the woods for a week with fear of returning home due to outstanding debts owed to drug dealers. It was noted in the report that C.S. has chronic passive suicidal thoughts with a history of self-harm involving burning and picking at her skin and banging her head. She had been placed on Zoloft, an anti-depressant with no perceived benefit. C.S. presented with a poly-substance abuse and a chaotic personality structure but it was concluded that she was at a low risk for suicide.
[79] Medical records from the Queensway Carleton Hospital included a mental health out-patient consultation dated May 2nd, 2012, relating to C.S. reporting that she had anxiety and panic attacks and that “literally everything stresses me out”. The reporting physician concurred with the previous conclusion that C.S. met the criteria for a generalized anxiety disorder and ADHD and recommended that she be placed on ADHD medication.
[80] C.S. stated that she had her first drink of alcohol when she was 15 but never had problems with alcohol. She started smoking cannabis at age 15, initially smoking a gram every day during high school with friends, after which she smoked about four grams a day for about three years, reducing that to one “joint” a day when pregnant with C., staying at that amount until she reduced it to one “joint” a week and then again beginning to smoke daily when she was in her relationship with P.S., and eventually reducing it to one “joint” a night until she quit when she got pregnant with J. She currently reports smoking about a gram a week or half a joint a night. She smoked crack for a three year period with R.P. prior to her pregnancy with C. but quit when she discovered she was pregnant and stated that she had not consumed crack cocaine since that time. However, she is well aware that the Society alleged that she was smoking crack cocaine when C. was apprehended at age two. She denies using it at that time.
[81] She denied using any medication or drugs at time of trial. Another challenge facing C.S. is her obesity, which appears to impair normal movement.
[82] At the time of her examination by Dr. Wood, he observed no suicidal of homicidal ideations, no gross disturbances of memory, nor any delusions, hallucinations or evidence of psychotic or manic symptoms. The various psychological tests revealed that C.S. seemed to feel sad, unhappy and blue, has feelings of hopelessness and pessimism about the future, tends to feel insecure and lacks self-confidence and is likely to act helpless and give up easily when faced with stress. Making decisions, even simple ones, may be difficult for her. She is withdrawn and introverted and she feels shy, nervous and uncomfortable in social situations and prefers to be on her own. She avoids social activities. She has a tendency to over-report problems, she leans on others for security and guidance and is apt to assume the role of submissive and self-sacrificing partner in close relationships.
[83] When threatened with the loss of support, she likely becomes very insecure and may place herself in an inferior or demeaning position, perhaps even allowing others to exploit or abuse her. Because she fears abandonment from those who provide her with support, she is reluctant to express feelings of hostility, resentment or anger. She tries to present herself in an overly positive light and she scored in the “at risk” range for the potential of physical child abuse. She obtained an elevated abuse scale score due to her reporting a high degree of personal distress and personal adjustment problems. She admitted to feeling misunderstood, lonely, fearful, mixed up, rejected, worthless and upset. She apt to feel easily overwhelmed by the responsibilities and stresses that accompany parenting.
[84] This profile becomes particularly apparent in C.S.’s relationship with men where she has remained in abusive relationships for significant amounts of time, exposing herself and her children to unsafe situations, and most recently allowing her children to remain in care in order to allow R.P. to live in her home. Dr. Wood concluded that this appeared to be driven by more self-serving motivations to support her own psychological needs rather than acting in the best interest of the children. He also identified as a concern the fact that she unable to parent the children alone without the support of R.P, despite a history of domestic violence and legal involvements on the part of R.P., together with his significant substance abuse and mental illness.
[85] In her testimony, C.S. described the most recent assault on her by R.P. which resulted in criminal charges. He was acting erratically and aggressively, grabbing clothes and throwing things out onto the porch. She tried locking the doors, but he came back in. She grabbed her cell phone to call 911 and he pulled it from her hands, scratching her fingers. The girls overheard the entire interaction from their room. Eventually police attended and arrested R.P. who was kept in jail and eventually pled guilty to assaulting C.S. She states that she would never fail to call the police if R.P. was acting in a similar manner.
[86] In describing the time of the re-apprehension of the children, she agreed that she knew that R.P. had stopped taking his medication but that he had agreed to resume the mood stabilizing medication. She confirmed that the children were not upset when they were re-apprehended. She testified that she made it seem easy and tried not to voice her feelings not wanting to unduly upset them. She complains that with the current foster family, she does not enjoy much of a relationship. She does not have their phone number nor email address and does not feel comfortable speaking to them.
[87] The plan for the future is to try to secure a larger three bedroom home through Ottawa Housing which will hold her dog, their cats and her kids. She would care for the children and attend to all their needs, make all major decisions. “Childcare is what I do best”. A.R. would be of help to her and R.P. would provide continuing support for her in order to look after the children.
[88] She agreed that R.P. exhibited temper tantrums in front of the girls and would sometimes scream at them. He would scream every day. He was extremely frustrated when they would not tidy up. The kids did not like it. He would often take the dog for a walk to cool down. She said that D. “did not like Daddy yelling.” She acknowledged that C.’s temper tantrums also affected R.P. and that they would feed off each other and C.S. would have to separate them. R.P. would leave every day for a few hours. C.S. explained that all this was due to the fact that he was not getting appropriate medication at the time and that he was now stabilized due to the intervention of Dr. Ribeyre.
[89] R.P. still suffers from delusions and believes that everyone is out to get him and that he communicates with animals and birds and being the “Third Majesty of the Realm”. C.S. believes that R.P. suffered a traumatic brain injury which causes this behaviour. When asked what she might do if R.P. became dangerous, she stated that she would do the same thing as she did to P.S., namely move herself and the children to a shelter. She described R.P. as being “like a big kid in the home”. She believes that things will only get better due to her involvement with Dr. Ribeyre.
[90] She testified that she gets along well with P.S.’s parents and has no problem providing access to P.S. through his parents. She testified that C. does not like P.S. at all.
[91] C.S. reiterated that “R.P. and I need each other. We thrive on each other. We work well together under stress. We need each other”. She believes that R.P. is working much harder on his problems than P.S. ever did and that is the reason she accepted him back into her life.
[92] With respect to the outstanding charges of sexual assault against R.P., she testified that R.P. had admitted to being sexually involved with one of the women, but she was not upset by that because at the time he was out of his mind on medication and consequently had no responsibility for what happened. She also said that one of the complainants was a known crack addict.
[93] She stated that D. loves C. and they support each other which is very different than herself and her younger sister who bullied her. “I envy them, I’ve never seen siblings so close”.
[94] Dr. Wood testified that C.S. refused additional visits to her children unless R.P. could be present. He described the relationship between C.S. and R.P. as being co-dependent. The fact that C.S. has completely forgiven R.P. for his relationship with one of the women who is a complainant in a sexual assault case against him indicated that C.S. minimizes R.P.’s serious drug use. As R.P.’s surety, she is completely dedicated to him. It was Dr. Wood’s view that this spoke to the fact that C.S. is unable to place the interests of her children ahead of those of R.P.
[95] With respect to the drug use on the part of both R.P. and P.S., Dr. Wood allowed that past behaviour is the best indicator of future behaviour and that there was a very real concern that both could relapse into addiction to dangerous drugs.
R.P.
[96] R.P. was born on […], 1978. He is 38 years of age. His testimony was at times highly confusing and incomprehensible, no doubt as a result of his serious mental health issues. He recalls as a child living in “the white house” with his parents who later separated. He was never happy without alcohol. He had no friends and had to work in the sex trade industry to fund his drug habit, exchanging sex for money and drugs with various men that he would meet in bars or on the streets. He described that this was a nightly habit for about ten years, then he formed two long term relationships, first with a teacher and then with a soldier.
[97] He stated that he heard voices in the “white house” and that it was populated with ghosts. He recalled being physically abused by his parents, but felt it was not their fault. He was placed in foster care for four months when he was about eight years of age, then returned to live with his father. He was admitted to hospital at age 11 after seeing scriptures written on the ceiling and hearing voices telling him to kill his father. He related these experiences as being “the old R…He died and went to hell and came back”. This relates to an episode where he overdosed on his ADHD medication, Concerta, and crack cocaine, where he believed he died and then came back to life as a new person under the guidance of Dr. Moise, a physician at the Ottawa Hospital.
[98] As a child he was bullied and he quit school at age 14, at grade eight. He recalled being employed at a company that his father worked for packing candy for distribution. He had had no employment for a lengthy period of time due to his heavy drug use.
[99] His first serious relationship was with a woman with whom he had a daughter in 1996. He described the relationship as being unhealthy because both he and the woman were abusing crack cocaine. He lost touch with her after he was incarcerated and then moved to different group homes in areas around Ottawa.
[100] His next major relationship was with C.S. which was on and off due to his times in jail, including an assault charge against her. They dated prior to C.S. becoming pregnant with C. He recalled being incarcerated when C. was a toddler, then reconnecting with C.S. after being released from jail for a robbery. He believes that currently his relationship with C.S. is going well, although he testified that at times he feels completely stifled by the relationship because he is unable to be apart from C.S. due to his bail conditions.
[101] R.P. is close to his father. His father is also close to C.S. and the children. He has a brother and a maternal half-sister. He does not know what his brother is doing, nor is he in touch with his half-sister.
[102] He believes that he is in good physical health but admitted to having a serious seizure from an overdose as described earlier, which caused him to be dead for four days, then coming back to life. He believes that he might have been shot in the head and that when he woke up there was a bullet hole in his head. The medical records from the Ottawa Hospital confirm R.P. having had a drug induced seizure on March 5th, 2014, but no other medical concerns were noted in the records.
[103] R.P.’s mental health history is lengthy and unremitting. Dr. Wood testified that the records filled five boxes and he only had time to access the discharge reports. R.P. recalls his first contact with psychiatry was at age 11. He does not recall why his father put him in the hospital aside from being molested by his mother’s boyfriend. When asked to count the number of admissions, he could not remember, due to having “a new brain” since the overdose at the Ottawa Hospital, and being brought back to life by Dr. Moise. He believes that he is able to heal people at the Ottawa Hospital after being brought back to life by Dr. Moise. He indicated that people were dying on the psychiatric unit and that he was bringing them back to life. He was also able to heal a woman with multiple sclerosis.
[104] R.P. is being treated by Dr. Ribeyre who is managing his prescription drug intake. He has received electro-convulsive therapy in the past. He takes a cocktail of drugs which are changed from time to time in a constant effort to stabilize him. Although he appeared relatively stable during the course of the trial, on a number of occasions he reacted in a highly agitated manner at testimony that he was hearing. Extended lunch breaks were required so that he could cope with the court day. On numerous occasions during the course of the trial, from the body of the courtroom, R.P. would comment on the evidence or criticize a particular witness, correct testimony at times and simply leave the courtroom at other times. Throughout the court proceedings, he was very close to C.S. They would hold hands, she would rub his back, and would quiet him down when he was agitated. In short, C.S. and R.P. as stated earlier, appear to be joined at the hip.
[105] On the numerous admissions to the Ottawa Hospital, and other institutions historically and consistently, the diagnosis of R.P.’s condition has been schizophrenia and substance abuse disorders. He hears voices. It was the opinion in 2004 that R.P. had either a psychotic illness or organic brain damage due to excessive drug and alcohol use exacerbated by acute intoxication. The discharge summary from the St-Laurence Valley Correction Treatment Centre dated May 10th, 2007, reported that R.P. appeared to be very distressed by the voices that were unmanageable. He was given a trial of electro-convulsive therapy which ended prematurely due to worrisome seizure responses. It was noted that R.P. was barely improved at discharge and that he was at a high risk for reoffending and substance abuse.
[106] A March 11, 2013 psychiatric discharge summary noted a worsening of psychotic symptoms including auditory hallucinations telling him to kill C.S. It appeared to improve over the course of his time in hospital with the addition of an injectable antipsychotic. He was discharged to a group home arranged with Dr. Ribeyre and the Bank Street ACT Team (Assertive Community Treatment). This is an outreach program created by Dr. Ribeyre and others to follow up with patients out of hospital. Some of his involvement with the ACT Team has been interrupted due to being incarcerated.
[107] Medical records from the Ottawa Hospital dated March 6th, 2014, indicate a seizure due to a combination of Concerta and crack cocaine. Medical records from August 8th, 2014, indicate that R.P. was brought into emergency on June 28th, 2014, after being found walking around a busy street and acting erratic and aggressively. He talked about ghosts to the emergency nurse, his thoughts were disorganized, and he attempted to grab the nurse by her collar. He signed himself out against medical advice on August 8th, 2014. He returned again on August 9th, and was referred back to psychiatry due to ongoing bizarre and erratic behaviour. He had admitted to using crack cocaine and alcohol the night before. He was restarted on his medication and his behaviour improved as time progressed, although he did have grandiose thoughts including believing he was the “Third Majesty of the Realm”, that he was able to heal people and had been pardoned for all his crimes by the Queen. He was transferred to the Royal Ottawa Hospital on August 15th, 2014. At the time, he was not acutely psychotic and wished to return to his girlfriend.
[108] As stated, he is currently under the care of Dr. Ribeyre, who is of the opinion that R.P. has a schizotypal personality disorder which involves magical thinking, suspiciousness and eccentricity with the potential to become acutely psychotic under stress or the influence of illicit substances. It was Dr. Ribeyre who phoned the Society after R.P. revealed that he had discontinued all his medications in August 2015. More shall be said about Dr. Ribeyre later in these Reasons
[109] R.P.’s alcohol and drug history is unremitting and depressing. He began heavily drinking as early as ten years of age and at age 13 would accompany his father to bars. At age 14 he was experiencing alcohol related black outs. At times he consumed rubbing alcohol and Listerine. He started using cannabis at age 12, and more extensive drug use at age 13. By age 17 he was smoking crack cocaine. He has used virtually every drug except heroin, including acid, crystal meth, OxyContin, cocaine and morphine by injection.
[110] He had been referred to an addictions program at the Royal Ottawa Hospital, but did not attend. Certain programs he took while in custody did not appear to have any benefit.
[111] R.P. told Dr. Wood that he believed he had been arrested at least 100 times over the course of his life. The longest time he spent in jail was for the robbery of a gas station. In his interview with respect to his mental status with Dr. Wood, R.P. spoke about ghosts and “the war of the animals.” He became distracted on numerous occasions when he would notice a seagull or a crow outside the window. The crows were warning him that individuals were out to get him, and these individuals were testing to see what type of protection the crows might offer him. He was often quick tempered with Dr. Wood during the assessment, and quite guarded in discussing his psychiatric history. He was adamant that he was wrongly diagnosed with schizophrenia and that his main problem was ADHD. He felt he did not have a problem with drugs and was able to quit without any difficulty since he was “reborn”.
[112] While observing R.P. with C.S. and the children, Dr. Wood noted that R.P. was withdrawn for the most part and would often leave the room to have a cigarette. His interaction with the children was short lived. When scheduled to attend for his psychological testing, R.P. was an hour late because a crow stopped him from getting on the bus, warning him that there was someone evil on the bus. He spoke about the fact the government was watching him.
[113] The psychological testing suggests R.P. tends to be suspicious and guarded and that he believes he is getting a raw deal from life. He is very sensitive and overly responsive to the opinions of others. He believes he is misunderstood, mistreated and picked on. He is irritable, sullen, emotionally labile, and moody. He does not identify closely with the values and standards of society. He resents authority. He has a tendency towards impulsivity and his behaviour may involve poor judgement and some risk taking. He does not get along with others in social situations, and prefers being alone. He scored in the “at-risk” range for the potential of physical child abuse because of his high degree of personal distress and unhappiness that included feeling worried, lonely, upset, depressed, worthless, rejected, confused, sad, misunderstood, afraid, useless and angry.
[114] In Dr. Wood’s opinion, R.P. appeared to be experiencing psychosis with multiple delusions impacting on his function., for example, crows blocking his path. At the time, he was actively abusing cannabis. He appeared to be unable to refrain from substances and lead a stable lifestyle, at the same time refusing to attend addictions programs. To Dr. Wood, this created a concern for the level of stability he is able to offer C.S. and the children. Of further concern is R.P.’s history of irritability and aggressiveness, which has resulted in numerous periods of incarceration and legal difficulties.
[115] In his testimony at trial, R.P. believed that his present drug regime as prescribed by Dr. Ribeyre was successful, but it must be noted in mind that R.P. is now spending all his time with C.S. and the children are not in the home. Consequently, the triggers for abuse have been removed. Certainly Dr. Ribeyre is dedicated to R.P.’s wellness. That said, it is painfully evident that R.P. requires almost full-time care which is being provided by Dr. Ribeyre and his ACT Team, but primarily by C.S., who seems to have dedicated her life to caring for R.P. A rather ironic footnote to this fact is that R.P. feels somewhat smothered by having to be with C.S. on a constant basis. When specifically asked the question about whether he had disagreements with C.S., he stated “she doesn’t understand. She can’t. I want someone who understands.” He admitted to being upset when the children did not obey him in the home or clean up, and that he would get angry with them and yell. He indicated that yelling didn’t seem to work and that C.S. had taught him the right way to deal with the children.
[116] It was the opinion of Dr. Wood’s team that there would be serious concerns for all the children’s safety were they to be returned to the care of C.S. and R.P. There were serious concerns about R.P.’s additions issues, mental health, domestic violence history, ongoing irritability and aggressiveness and apparent lack of parenting skills. There were concerns regarding C.S.’s depressive and anxiety symptoms as well as a long standing dependant personality structure. She put her own needs ahead of the children’s bests interests in regards to re-establishing and maintaining her relationship with R.P. and minimizing the above concerns.
[117] The major concern was that if R.P. were to remain in the children’s lives, they would be at risk of having long standing psychological impairments stemming from a sense of fear and insecurity by witnessing further domestic violence or potentially being victims of violence themselves. They could become confused and experience mental health difficulties due to exposure to R.P.’s own delusions.
[118] It was recommended that should no family or kinship options be available the court should consider crown wardship alternatives for the children with a view to adoption. It was suggested that the best option would be to place C. and D. in the same home, if possible, due to their strong bond with the hope that the adoptive parents could arrange ongoing contact between the three children.
[119] The question of openness to the parents was considered and it was the opinion of Dr. Wood’s team that other than the provision of unilateral letters and photos to their mother, the contact should be limited, due to the possibility of disrupting or hindering the adjustment and of success in the adoptive home. However it was also recommended that if an adoption breakdown occurred and the children were relocated to long term societal care, access should be considered to C.S., dependent on her ability to be supportive of the placement and make the access a positive factor. It was believed that J., being so young, would have a good chance of being adopted on his own.
Dr. Ribeyre
[120] Dr. Jean-Marie Ribeyre was educated in Rouen and Paris, France, where he received his degree as a Doctor and as a Psychiatrist and also is a specialist in the field of addictions. He is a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada and is a full-time physician at the Royal Ottawa Hospital involved in the mood disorders and community mental health programs section. This is an interdisciplinary team of health professionals working in partnership with patients who live with serious and persistent mental illness. The ACT Team is composed of a variety of professionals of several health disciplines including psychiatrists, nurses, social workers, occupational therapist, recreation therapists and addiction therapists. The model of care is designed to avoid recurrent hospitalisations and promote teamwork.
[121] There are two teams, each with 80 patients. There are two psychiatrists on each team. The workers visit patients in the community. Dr. Ribeyre also sees patients at his office. Patients must be severely impaired before being accepted into the program and, as may be expected, there is a long waiting list for acceptance. R.P. has been under Dr. Ribeyre’s care since 2008. Originally identified as schizophrenic, over the years Dr. Ribeyre has continued to adjust R.P.’s medication. Notwithstanding the medication, Dr. Ribeyre testified that R.P. still suffers from acute anxiety symptoms. Aside from the anxiety disorder, he also has a social disorder and suffers from both substance abuse and drug induced psychosis. He was doing well in 2009 and was released from the team but unfortunately returned to the system shortly after.
[122] In 2014, R.P. suffered a serious overdose of Concerta and crack cocaine and was admitted into the Royal Ottawa Hospital where he was psychotic, eventually discharged, and placed back under the care of the ACT Team.
[123] Dr. Ribeyre now diagnoses R.P. as suffering from a schizotypal personality disorder, characterised by a pattern of peculiar behaviour, odd speech and thinking, and unusual perceptual experiences. Patients frequently are socially isolated and have magical beliefs, mild paranoia, inappropriate or constricted affect and social anxiety. This particular disorder cannot be treated with medication, but can be somewhat controlled. Psychotherapy is used in order to assist patients to cope in social situations. Dr. Ribeyre testified about R.P.’s habit of staring at people and how it makes them uncomfortable. He is on a mood stabilizer which assists in controlling his anxiety and anger. He is also on Lorazepam, a tranquilizer which assists with anxiety and Clonidine which assists controlling his ADHD. He is also on Diazepam, to assist in calming him.
[124] R.P. suffers from severe suspiciousness and can act in very odd and bizarre ways. Dr. Ribeyre testified that young children could mimic R.P.’s conduct. Because of their young age, children cannot always tell the difference between reality and fantasy.
[125] Whenever R.P. attends on Dr. Riebyre, C.S. is with him and provides strong support in assisting to calm him down and to keep him on his medication. He sees R.P. once a month and a worker sees R.P. in the month, so R.P. gets two visits per month.
[126] Dr. Ribeyre noticed that in early August 2015, R.P. was not himself and had stopped taking his medication. He was aggressive and angry and so he decided to ask him to leave his office and phone the Children’s Aid Society to inform them that R.P. had stopped his medication.
[127] Dr. Ribeyre said that he was unable to comment on parenting as it was not his speciality. He believes that R.P. would be capable of learning to be a better parent, but unfortunately his childhood was so dysfunctional that it might affect his ability to learn. In order to learn, he requires a very stable environment. Dr. Ribeyre testified that in his view, when R.P. had his overdose of Concerta and crack cocaine, brain damage occurred because he noticed a change in R.P. since the overdose. He expressed serious concern if R.P. were alone and did not have C.S. to care for him.
[128] When asked about the fact that C. exhibits some symptoms such as her father R.P. has, Dr. Ribeyre testified that if these behavioural issues were genetic than there is nothing that can be done. But in any event, the environment that C. requires is serenity, stability and a lack of violence. Yelling or swearing or police attending would be very disruptive to C.’s development.
P.S.
[129] P.S. entered the picture late in the game requiring the Family Court Clinic to conduct a fresh assessment relating to his plan of care. Their report is dated March 23, 2016. Traditionally, P.S. had enjoyed access to D. on a regular basis at his adoptive parent’s house but due to the fact that they had taken in new foster children, P.S. could no longer have access to D. at their home. Consequently his access to D. was arranged to be at the Society for two hours under supervision on Friday’s after D’s schooling.
[130] As has previously been noted, his visits went very well. D. clearly loves her father and gets along well with him. She has even had the opportunity to visit him in his home where she is apparently enjoyed playing with his lizards including his boa constrictor which, P.S. testified, loved D. He testified that he has since given away the boa constrictor. P.S. testified that he is ready to take any program necessary in order to help him be a good parent and that is in fact signed up for parenting classes commencing in September as well as addiction therapy when a spot becomes available.
[131] P.S. was born in Bangladesh and brought to Cornwall, Ontario at the age of two and moved in with his adoptive parents at age seven. He had polio as a child which left his legs disabled requiring him to use a wheelchair. His skin colour is very dark and he was bullied at school. He had a number of behavioural problems and at age 15 he began to run away from home. He found himself in different group homes. He was finally asked to leave the home at age 16 because he refused to follow the rules of the home including staying out past his curfew and consuming drugs and alcohol. He was also kicked out of school due to his behaviour, primarily drinking with “bums” on the street. At times he actually lived on the street. His parents turned to the Society and placed him in care due to long standing behavioural difficulties. He was subsequently placed at the Tompkins Group Home where he remained for about a year before returning to his home and family.
[132] His behaviour again deteriorated and he was placed in the Roberts/Smart Centre after attempting to assault his mother with a pair of scissors. He remained there for about two months prior to returning home and being connected with the Society’s Preparation for Independence Program. He thought school was “bull shit” and that the teachers did not know how to educate someone like him. The bullying at school stopped during his high school years due to the fact that he became the “class clown”, joined a group of punk rockers as a bassist and smoked hash, and was seen as being “cool”. He quit school when he was 16.
[133] He had been diagnosed with a learning disability and having ongoing academic and behavioural difficulties. P.S. testified that he suffered from dyslexia and ADD, and that part of his problem in school was that the teachers at the time were unaware of how to deal with dyslexic and ADD students.
[134] He began panhandling at the age of 15 and has being doing so ever since. He described himself as a “runaway street kid”. He learned that selling drugs was profitable but would get him into trouble. Panhandling was safer and produced steady income. Dr. Wood reported that P.S. was receiving an $80.00 fine per week for aggressive panhandling. He himself explained that he had a good lawyer who was getting all of the aggressive panhandling charges dismissed against him. Since he joined the Panhandlers’ Union, he has travelled across the country to speak at various events. Panhandling supplements the income that he receives from ODSP.
[135] During his early to mid-twenties, while living in Vancouver, he engaged in prostitution in order to get drugs and trafficked in drugs for a period of time. His first serious relationship was with a woman that lasted for about nine years. She worked as a janitor in a mall. They lived a hard life together because they were both addicts. They would steal each other’s drugs, lived in many cities throughout their relationship and broke up while living in Vancouver. She accused P.S. of being a pimp. P.S. stated he did not feel he was a pimp but realized that he was benefitting from her prostitution and would encourage her to do it. Her major issues were the drug issues resulting in many verbal arguments.
[136] His next major relationship was with C.S. whom he met through her younger sister. He had moved from Ottawa to Toronto and was homeless at the time. He visited C.S. with her sister and moved in. They had sex on the same day of meeting, which conceived daughter D. He believed he was forced into marriage. He described his relationship with C.S. as “not good” due to the fact that he was not attracted to her. He indicated they only had sex the one time, which is the night they met. He remained in the home for two years because it was “either that or being homeless”. He recalled being kicked out of the home for smoking crack cocaine but he said that C.S. smoked crack as well so he kicked her out of the house with the children. He rationalized that action by believing that the system would never allow a mother with two children to remain homeless for long. C.S. was able to get her own place within three months after going to a shelter. He’s not had any significant relationships since C.S.
[137] P.S. described C.S. as a wonderful mother to her children, although he and she did not get along personally.
[138] In his testimony, P.S. took great pains to blame himself for the failure of the relationship between himself and C.S. He admitted to abusing drugs, staying away from home for days and not properly providing for the family. The last straw for C.S. was when P.S. got in an accident with C. sitting with him on his wheelchair.
[139] P.S. described his home life as generally happy but difficult because his adoptive parents had about 40 siblings in and out of the adoptive home throughout his life. His parents formally adopted about 15 children and had five biological children of their own in addition to many long term foster children. In such an environment, P.S., with his own challenges, was neglected.
[140] As to his general health, he has hepatitis B since childhood, and also type 2 diabetes. His blood sugar level is high. His family physician notes that P.S. was inconsistent attending appointments and his family doctor noted that P.S.’s medical conditions included lower extremity weakness due to post-polio syndrome requiring multiple leg surgeries, type 2 diabetes, peripheral neuropathy, hepatitis B due to intravenous drug use and a history of an abscess in his left arm due to intravenous drug use that became infected and required surgery in 2003.
[141] P.S. suffers from ADHD as well as being dyslexic and takes Concerta which has been beneficial in curbing his addiction to drugs. He has never seen a psychiatrist or a psychologist and has never felt the need. He is a practicing Buddhist and testified that he attends services regularly.
[142] A discharge summary from the Royal Ottawa Hospital in 1987 noted that when P.S. was nine years old he may have suffered from Tourette’s Syndrome with “atrocious behaviour, foul language and cursing at the teacher”. Records from the Royal Ottawa Hospital include a note dated March 16th, 2007, indicated P.S. appeared to have “blatant symptoms” consistent with ADHD.
[143] P.S. started drinking alcohol in his mid-teens and then became a problem drinker when his family kicked him out of the home. He would binge drink and lose consciousness. He has been brought to hospital on numerous occasions due to being passed out in public. His alcohol intake decreased when he started using crack cocaine when he was 20. He consumes about six beers once a month after receiving his disability check. He initially experimented with cannabis when he was about 13 and developed into a problem drug addict at age 20. His current use depends on whether he is bored or not. If he has nothing to do, he will consume about two grams a day but only a gram if he is going to panhandle.
[144] P.S. does not believe that cannabis causes him any problems. It controls the pain in his back and has kept him from smoking crack cocaine for the past few months. Over the years, P.S. has used PCP, ecstasy, LSD and speed: The only drugs he did not use were “meth” and heroin. After the infection in his arm that required surgery due to intravenous drug use he started smoking crack cocaine which he did daily until reducing it to one several day binges per month. He said he never used crack cocaine on Sundays when he saw D. He said that he would experience serious withdrawal symptoms when going off crack cocaine. He had been to several drug rehabilitation centres over the years. He spent about three months at Anchorage about four years ago due to losing C.S. and the children because of his drugs. After graduating from the program, he began using crack immediately.
[145] In regards to other programs, he testified he was either kicked out due to substance abuse or would simply begin substance use immediately after leaving the programs. He was uncomfortable with Narcotics Anonymous because he did not believe in the 12 step program and being around people with similar problems simply triggered his desire to use drugs. Up to time of trial, P.S. has been restricting his drug use to cannabis.
[146] The Ottawa Hospital includes two emergency department visits dated September 9th and December 15th, 2015. The first occasion was a result of using about $300.00 worth of crack cocaine per day for five days. In December 2015, he ended up in hospital again due to adverse effects of an alcohol overdose when he consumed 40 ounces of liquor with some crack cocaine and passed out at a McDonald’s. He testified that he is on a waiting list for treatment for addictions through the Royal Ottawa Hospital.
[147] In his testimony, P.S. indicated that “we’re always one step away from the street”, referring to his panhandling lifestyle. P.S. stated that he has enjoyed six or seven months of sobriety at any given time throughout his life. He testified that he was clear for about three times since he was 15. He testified that he last tried crack cocaine in December 2015 and that he is maintaining himself by smoking marijuana. Again, it must be stated that P.S. is no doubt prompted to appear favourable to the court, given that his plan is to have D. placed in his care.
[148] Much of P.S.’s criminal record relate to assaults which included spitting at people or hitting people on the head. With respect to the charge of assault and robbery with a weapon, he explained that he was a witness to two girls robbing someone on the street and felt he was scapegoated for the charges. The majority of the charges were for theft and drugs. As to the attack on his mother he expressed to Dr. Wood that it was “a mistake” and had remorse for the act.
[149] Dr. Wood’s observation of P.S. and D. together was positive. They engaged in conversations about D.’s school. The in-home observation by the Family Court Clinic social worker noted that it was child focused, D. was well behaved. One bedroom was being used for P.S.’s numerous snakes and reptiles but he informed the worker that he was giving away some of them so that he could convert a bedroom for D. while he awaited a larger residence. He recognized that he would have to significantly reduce his cannabis intake if D. were placed in his care.
[150] Psychological testing suggested that P.S. tried to present himself in a positive light. He has a disregard for social standards and values and has likely gotten into conflict with authorities because of this. He has fluctuating values and may construct his own values to fit his needs. He may bend and manipulate rules without actually breaking laws and regulations. He tends to be self-focused and is apt to struggle with impulsivity and in delaying the gratification of needs. At times his judgment is poor and he may act without fully considering consequences. He seems to harbour feelings of resentment and hostility, particularly towards family and authority. He tends to blame other people for his difficulties and finds it difficult to accept responsibility for his own behaviour. He has a cynical view of people, seeing others as dishonest, selfish, uncaring and interested only in their own welfare. He reports problems with concentration and memory. His energy level is high and he is prone to be restless and overactive. He gives a good first impression in brief social contacts. He views his environment as a competitive place where one has to fend for one self in order to function. He tends to be guarded, distrustful and suspicious of others and vigilant to any signs or attempts to control him. He is likely an assertive strong-willed, tough minded person who may be insensitive in dealing with others. He has a tendency to overvalue his self-importance and to be self-focused, although he appears to inwardly harbour feelings of insecurity and inadequacy. He seems to have a sense of entitlement and thus may feel that he should be treated differently from others. When people challenge, criticize or express disapproval over his behaviour, he may tend to become resentful. He makes good first impressions because he is likely to have his own opinions, to be verbally fluent and have a natural ability to draw attention to himself. He has no psychotic or major psychiatric illness.
[151] Dr. Wood’s conclusion is that P.S. has clearly struggled with long standing substance abuse since his adolescent years which has contributed to his chaotic lifestyle. Being on ADHD medication has helped reduce his craving for crack cocaine. He has cluster B personality traits, particularly, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic and anti-social traits. Cluster B traits identified were P.S.’s sense of self, impulsivity with low frustration tolerance, anger, distrust, difficulty with authority, superficial and opportunistic relationships, legal involvement, irresponsibility and substance abuse. He appears to accept little responsibility for his past behaviour and to blame others especially “the system”. He has reasonable intellectual abilities and social skills. He relates well to D. He cooperates well with the society in relation to access.
[152] My own impressions of P.S. during the course of his testimony is that he went to great lengths in an attempt to create a positive impression with the court. I wondered at times whether he was being entirely sincere.
C.
[153] C. was born on […], 2005. She will soon be 11 years old. A psychological assessment performed at school reveals that C. has poor fine motor skills, visual perception skills and hand-eye coordination. She required the assistance of an occupational therapist for about two years due to her poor hand writing and low muscle tone in her hands. She has behavioural and anger problems and is given to temper tantrums. If friends do not wish to play with her or if she has to change activities. She becomes anxious if she has errors in her school work which results in temper tantrums. She has had temper tantrums with R.P. when he attempts to discipline her. She would yell and scream, slam her bedroom door and throw objects around in her room. She has never been subjected to corporal punishment. She has taken the antipsychotic drug Risperadone for aggression. She suffers from ADHD and is prescribed Concerta to control that.
[154] C. attends an alternative school. She enjoys school and puts a lot of effort into her work. An education assessment report dated September 3, 2015, shows that C. struggles in all subject areas and is well below grade level requiring a lot of guidance with all her academic tasks. She was noted as having average relationships with peers and did not have a lot of friends. Her overall cleanliness and mood approved improved when she was in foster care and she became more fatigued and unhappy when placed back with her parents. The Society received reports from the school stating that significant changes were observed in C.’s performance when she was placed in foster care. In particular, improvements were seen in C’s confidence, hygiene, social skills and school work.
[155] When asked who she wanted to live with, she said her boyfriend, who is eight years old. When it was indicated that it must be an adult, she chose her mother because she was nice and had less rules. When asked which parent had the worst temper, she said it was her father. Her father would yell at her mother and they would yell at each other. Her father is stricter than her mother. She preferred having minimal rules in the home. She said there were too many rules in the foster home.
[156] C. was diagnosed as a special needs child with behavioural disturbances and delays in multiple areas, including academic and social skills. There are concerns about C. sexually touching D. She remains in an individualized educational plan and attending an alternative school program. She is at high risk of developing a learning disorder. Her behavioural disturbances are ongoing when at home. Dr. Wood concludes that these are the result of exposure to domestic violence, poor discipline in the home, anger and anxiety created by the acrimony between her parents and the instability she has experienced.
D.
[157] D. was born on […], 2009 and is now 6 years of age, soon to be 7. She has weak bladder muscles and has had frequent accidents, especially when stressed out. D. has been identified as having speech delays and a referral has been made with speech and language therapists. There are apparent learning delays as well. Her report indicates that she is enthusiastic and has good communication skills. She struggles with problem solving and is reluctant to participate in class and hesitant to practice her writing skills. She requires much reassurance and encouragement, often looking for adult approval and feedback. D. exhibited tantrums at the end of the day, often at dismissal time. D. struggles with her social skills, often saying she has no friends and nobody likes her. D. makes no effort to play with others and does not want to play when engaged by peers. While in foster care, D. reached out to other children with similar interests. D. had been frequently absent from school due to stomach complaints, but this decreased when she was taken into foster care.
[158] D’s teacher reported that while D. was at home with her parents, she was often unclean, had many “pee” accidents, complained of being tired, worried about money and had no extracurricular activities. While in foster care, D. was noted to have a happier disposition with increased self-confidence, improved hygiene with rare “pee” incidents, well rested and more interested in being involved with other children in extracurricular activities.
[159] In an updated education assessment report dated February 19th, 2016, it was noted that D. continued to require one on one academic support and has difficulty composing her thoughts into writing. She was scored as poor in her ability to complete assignments and organize notes, while her homework was noted as being usually done. An individualised education plan is being developed.
[160] It was felt she had good social skills where she had good relationships with peers and had appropriate behaviour in the playground and the lunchroom. This was an improvement from the previous report where she was noted as having poor social skills. No behavioural issues were documented and she complied with school rules. No hyperactivity or impulsivity issues were documented. She was noted as being a year behind in her reading skills, the rest of her subject areas were rated as C’s and B’s.
[161] A child developmental inventory completed in June 2015, indicated that D. had significant social delays and was seemingly functioning at about a three year old level. She scored in the lower language for language skills but above average for her letter and number skills. Several problems were identified including eating, toilet training, speech and seldom playing with other children.
[162] When asked who she wished to live with, she vacillates between her mother and her own father, P.S. She liked the reptiles in her father’s home. She was not scared of them. R.P. worries her. She was present when he assaulted her mother.
[163] It was the opinion of Dr. Wood and his team that D. presents as a special needs child with delays in both speech and reading/writing skills. He has concerns with respect to D’s previous exposure to instability and violence in her mother’s household. There also appeared to be minimal rules and structure in the home which seemed to be a major attraction for D., who stated she wished to be with her mother because there were less rules.
J.
[164] J. was born […], 2014, and will very soon be two years of age. After birth he developed a contraction of a neck muscle which required early intervention which was provided by C.S. and the condition has been stabilized. He has dermatitis which requires a steroid cream. He feeds well. He has met his developmental milestones. He is comfortable in the presence of C.S., with minimal engagement from his father or sisters. He has no major psychiatric or developmental illness but has an increased risk of developing a psychotic disorder later on in life due to his genetic risk which could be mitigated or prevented by being provided a stable environment. He has done well in the foster home where a stable and consistent environment has been provided.
The Foster Mother
[165] The foster mother testified. She is very experienced and has fostered 29 children over the course of nine years. She now has the care of the three children. Shortly after being brought into care, the second day after she arrived, D. complained that C. had touched her private parts. C. replied “she touched me first”. The foster mother spoke about boundaries. She was aware that the children had been asked to leave their previous foster home because of C. touching a child, and so the foster mother has been particularly vigilant in monitoring C’s sexualized behaviour. A second incident was observed in early October 2015. The foster mother has a video camera installed in the basement, and she saw D. and C. slow dancing and kissing. She immediately spoke to them about this being inappropriate. No inappropriate behaviour has been evidenced involving J. C. and D. both have their own bedrooms and since the October incident, she has not observed any sexualized behaviour involving C. and D.
[166] The children are fun loving and energetic. C. loves to laugh and make jokes and she is “bubbly”. D. is more reserved but she is affectionate and polite. She described J. as a “sweetheart”.
[167] On first arriving in the foster home, D. would hardly speak. She would stutter and communicate through C. Now D. speaks to her directly, D. takes Zantac for upset stomach. Her “pee” accidents have been reduced to once a week.
[168] On arrival in the home, C. would cry every night, but no longer. The foster mother described the routine of the home which seems entirely appropriate and predictable. She is in constant contact with the teachers and keeps in touch with C.S. through a communication book. C. has an individual education plan. D. will have one next year. She believes that C. would benefit from counselling. C. continues to take Concerta for her ADHD and had taken Risperidone for aggression. She has not observed any aggression from C. in the past while and in April 2016, C. was taken off the Risperidone and remains only on Concerta. The children are brought to all their doctor’s appointments.
[169] C. does not talk about her father, but talks a lot about her mother. D. is always happy to see her own father. She described the relationship between C. and D. as being “very close. They get along extremely well. They are very very close. They love J.”
The Family Court Recommendations
[170] This case is somewhat novel because two recommendations have been made by the Family Court Clinic and Dr. Wood’s team.
Dr. Floyd Wood
[171] Dr. Wood has worked at the Family Court Clinic since July 2014 originally under the supervision of Dr. David Mclean from July 2014 to June 2015. With Dr. Mclean’s retirement, Dr. Wood is now the head of the clinic. He is well qualified for the task, having graduated initially from Memorial University in Newfoundland with a Bachelor of Science, then obtaining his medical degree from the University of Ottawa in June 2009, then attending McMaster University for his Orthopedic Surgery Residency completed in 2010, then returning to the University of Ottawa for his Psychiatry Residency Specialty from 2010 to 2014, and thereafter, the Forensic Psychiatry sub-specialty. He gained extensive experience in all aspects of the Forensic Psychiatry including family court assessments. The Family Court Clinic, which he now heads, works out of the Royal Ottawa Hospital. It is the only dedicated Family Court Clinic in Ontario. Dr. Wood teaches at the University of Ottawa Medical School.
[172] Based on his analysis of the facts surrounding C., D., and J. in relation to the plan put forward by C.S. and R.P., I have already referred to the recommendations. However, given the evaluation of P.S. made after the fact, Dr. Wood notes that the opinion of the Clinic has not changed with respect to C.S. and R.P. but P.S. does present as a viable alternative option for D. However, in flushing out that option, Dr. Wood makes mention of P.S.’s very difficult past including the cluster B personality disorder, his extensive history of substance abuse and states that:
Although P.S. has recently been abstinent from substance abuse, with the exception of smoking cannabis, it is our opinion that he is at a high risk or relapsing and using again. We strongly support his participation in a substance use program, such as provided at the Royal, as we suspect that any further use of substances will impact directly on parenting ability. In keeping with this, we would have serious concerns about his ability to provide the type of home environment that D. will need over the longer term which includes structure, nurturing and a safe household where she is not subjected to any abuse, neglect or parentification. This would also include significantly reducing the amount of cannabis he is using and to limit its use to when he is not in a direct parenting role. …
In its conclusion, Dr. Wood stated:
It remains rather pessimistic in regards to P.S.’s ability to provide appropriately for D.’s needs over the long term. However given the fact that he has shown some improvements over the past few months, we would suggest that the courts might consider providing him the opportunity to prove he can parent D. appropriately and address his personal issues or deficiencies, which include addictions and mental health. …
He goes on to state that:
Accordingly, the courts might wish to consider a further six months Society Wardship, which will allow the courts to better determine P.S.’s commitment to D. and his own treatment. …
He goes on to state that although siblings should not be separated, that is not the only issue to be considered.
Findings and Recommendations
[173] In my view, C., D. and J. are children in need of protection. I find, pursuant to section 37(2)(b), that there is a risk that the children are likely to suffer physical harm because C.S. and R.P. are unable to adequately care for or supervise or protect the children. As is apparent from the facts, C.S. is obese, wheelchair bound and will be in a cast for five weeks, after which she will require physiotherapy. Stated simply, she is unable to adequately care for, or supervise, or protect the children. She would have to rely on R.P. who, because of his mental illness, is unable to adequately care for, or supervise, or protect the children. R.P.’s tendency to have temper tantrums causes further concern.
[174] I find that pursuant to section 37(2)(g), there is a risk that the children are likely to suffer emotional harm, including anxiety, depression and delayed development because C.S. and R.P. are unable to adequately deal with the serious issues presented by these three children.
[175] I find that the children are in need of protection pursuant to section 37(2)(i) which provides that a child is in a residential placement and a parent refuses or is unable or unwilling to resume the child’s care and custody. I find that C.S. is unable to resume the care and custody of the children because of her physical limitations and her insistence that R.P. be present to assist her in caring for the children.
[176] It has been previously noted that C.S. has chosen to prefer caring for R.P. rather than her own children. R.P. requires her full-time attention. She is in no position to take on the added responsibility of caring for three children, all of whom pose individual challenges to a parent because of their emotional issues and, in J.’s case, his infancy.
[177] Another critical factor impeding the ability of C.S. to have care of the children is the fact that R.P. is currently charged with two counts of sexual assault, with his preliminary inquiry scheduled for November. This will be a major distraction for both C.S. and R.P. In the event R.P. is convicted, given his extensive criminal record, he will no doubt be sent to the jail for a lengthy period of time. C.S. has been emphatic that she is unable to care for the children in R.P.’s absence. Looking to the future, there is a likelihood that she will clearly be unable to care for the children because R.P. might well be absent. It is obvious that the children cannot be returned to C.S. and R.P.
[178] Dealing with the plan put forward by P.S., I find it to be entirely unrealistic. In my view, P.S. will never undergo the sea change which constitutes the foundation of his plan of care for D. I have no doubt that he has deep love and affection for D. and that it is reciprocal, but I also have no doubt that P.S. would be unable to assume full time care for D. His personal history is one of constant instability and continuing relapse to serious ingestion of drugs. Dr. Wood and his team identified this as being a serious risk. P.S.’s history shows that when he becomes stressed, he finds relief in drugs and alcohol.
[179] P.S. is totally engaged as a panhandler and has become a leader in the Ottawa Panhandlers’ Union. Although he stated that he would give up panhandling if the court ordered it, in my view imposing such a condition would be a prescription for disaster. P.S. is passionately involved in panhandling and I believe he will never change. This is what he loves to do. Being a panhandler, he is, on his own admission, in contact with high risk people, and the risk of his resuming drug use is heightened by virtue of his chosen profession. P.S.’s lifestyle choices and highly unstable background make him incapable of providing a secure, predictable and stable environment for D., to ensure her healthy upbringing. To place D. in the care of P.S. would simply delay the inevitable, and cause further turmoil in D.’s life.
[180] These children have been in care for almost 18 months. They have moved three times: from their home to foster care on August 15th, 2014, moving back to the home of C.S. and R.P. in March 2015 and then back to foster care in August of 2015.
[181] Section 70(2) of the CFSA provides that the court shall not make an order for society wardship that results in a child being in Society ward for a period exceeding 12 months if the child is less than six years of age, or 24 months if the child is six years of age or older. The court may extend those periods by a period of not more than six months if it appears to be in the best interest of the children to do so.
[182] In the case of J., his time in Society wardship has expired. The girls’ time is almost up. In my view, the court must look to permanent placements for these children. They have been in care long enough. They need stability.
[183] Sections 1 and 37(3) of the CFSA require the court to determine cases in the best interests of the children, including considering the bonds existing between the children and those who would seek to have the children live with them, the importance of continuity in the children’s lives, the children’s views and wishes, the risks involved in any proposed placement and the basic merits of any plan proposed as opposed to adoption.
[184] I am persuaded, beyond any doubt, that the best interests of these three children can only be achieved by permitting their adoption. The plans proposed are unworkable. In the case of all three prospective parents, the psychological testing conducted by Dr. Wood reveals serious and pervasive obstacles to act in the best interests of these three children.
[185] As has been pointed out, C.S. and R.P. have chosen each other above the children, and they barely have time to care for themselves. One hopes they are successful in achieving stability. Lack of success would be guaranteed by returning the children to their care, both for themselves, and for the children.
[186] P.S. also has enough highly significant personal challenges that would be greatly enhanced by the addition of one more. Placing D. with him would prove disastrous, in my view, both for him and for his daughter.
[187] I am satisfied, on all the evidence, that the three children must be made crown wards with the goal of adoption. Ideally, adoption of all three would be the preferred option. The second preferred option would be to have the girls adopted together and J. adopted separately. J. is at an age where he might easily find happiness and permanency with adoptive parents of him alone.
[188] Section 59(2.1) of the CFSA provides that an access order may be made with respect to a crown ward if the relationship between the person and the child is “beneficial and meaningful” to the child and the ordered access will not impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption. Such an order, if made, is automatically terminated where a child is placed for adoption. At that point, an agreement with respect to openness can be considered pursuant to section 145.1.1 of the CFSA.
[189] In this case, the Society agrees that there should be openness orders made with respect to both P.S. and C.S.
[190] Pending the adoption of these children, I would order that P.S. continue to have his two hour Friday evening visits with D. They are beneficial and meaningful to D.
[191] With respect to J., I do not believe that his relationship with C.S. meets the threshold of being beneficial and meaningful to him, given his tender age and the fact that he has effectively been in care for almost his entire life. In the case of J., C.S. should be permitted one last visit.
[192] In the case of C. and D. I am persuaded that their relationship with C.S. is beneficial and meaningful to them. Nonetheless, their relationship with C.S. should be reduced gradually over a period of 90 days, the specifics of which may be determined by the Society, but in any event access between C. and D. with C.S., pending adoption, shall not be less than two hours per week. In my view, their successful adoption requires that they be gradually weaned off C.S.
[193] With respect to R.P., the access to C., D., and J. does not meet the threshold of being beneficial and meaningful to any of them. He shall be permitted one last visit with the children, for a period of two hours, under the Society’s supervision.
[194] In the result, an order shall issue making the children C., D. and J. crown wards for the purpose of adoption, with openness on the part of C. and D. to C.S., and of D. to P.S., to be negotiated at time of adoption. As well, depending upon the circumstances of adoption, there should be access between C. and D. in the event they are placed in separate homes. Should C. and D. wish it, and should the Society believe it to be capable of being arranged, C. and D. should have access to J.
The Honourable Justice C. McKinnon
Released: June 9, 2016
CITATION: The Ottawa Children’s Aid Society v. C.S., 2016 ONSC 3828
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-2704
DATE: 20160609
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990
AND IN THE MATTER OF C. born […], 2005; D. born […], 2009 and J. born […], 2014
BETWEEN:
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
Applicant
– and –
C.S.
and
P.S.
and
R.P.
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
C. McKinnon J.
Released: June 9, 2016