Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-15-321 Date: 2016/07/11 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

In the Matter of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 And in the Matter of B. F-S, born […], 2013

Between: THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA, Applicant – and – S.S., Respondent Mother J.F., Respondent Father, Respondents

Counsel: Deborah Bennett, for the Applicant Emmanuel Gibson, for the Respondent Mother Ezioma Nnorom, for the Respondent Father

Heard: March 29, 30, 31 and April 1, 2016 (at Ottawa)

Reasons for Judgment

Shelston J.

Overview

[1] On March 3, 2016, the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“the Society”) brought a motion for summary judgment with respect to its amended protection application dated December 14, 2015, relating to the child B., born […], 2013 seeking:

(a) A finding that the child, B., is in need of protection pursuant to subsection 37(2)(i)(ii) and (g);

(b) A finding of birth, religion and parentage; and

(c) A final order that the child, B., be made a ward of the Crown for the purposes of adoption and placed in the care of the Society.

[2] On March 11, 2016, the court granted summary judgment regarding a finding that the child was in need of protection pursuant to subsection 37 (2)(i)(ii) and (g) of the Child Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (“CFSA”) and made a finding of birth religion and parentage as set out in Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.S., 2016 ONSC 1747.

[3] The court did not grant the Society’s request for an order that the child be made a ward of the Crown as it found that there was a genuine issue for trial with respect to what is the proper disposition for this child. This trial dealt with that issue.

[4] At the trial management conference on March 21, 2016, the respondents were granted permission to orally amend their Answers and Plans for Care seeking access to the child in the event that the child was made a ward of the Crown.

[5] At the commencement of the trial, counsel for the Society advised the court that if the child was made a ward of the Crown, the Society would not oppose an access order be made in favour of the parents.

Facts

[6] The child B. was born […], 2013. The respondents are his natural parents.

[7] After the birth of the child on […], 2013 until June 2014, the Society was involved with the mother. She cooperated with the Society and the child was thriving in meeting his milestones. From the beginning, the workers were concerned with the relationship between the mother and father. The mother was aware of the concerns of the Society and advised them that if the relationship worsened, to protect the child, she would move in with her mother and sister. Based on that assurance, the Society closed its file in June 2014.

[8] However, the parties’ relationship worsened when on August 18, 2014, the father assaulted the mother. The father hit and kicked the mother. He threw the dining room table on her, pulled her hair, stood on her, held her neck and pinched her body while pinning her down. This assault took place in the presence of the child. The mother never told the Society and it was only in September 2014 that the Society became aware of the assault after being advised by the police.

[9] On September 26, 2014, the Society worker met with the mother. At that meeting the mother confirmed that she had moved back in with the father and that he had difficulties with alcohol, communication and that these problems lead to fights in their relationship. During this meeting, the Society worker noticed bruises and scratch marks on the mother’s arms. The worker told the mother that she had to leave the father and that she should not to disclose her address to the father and not allow him access to the child without the Society’s approval. The mother agreed.

[10] In October 2014, the father was arrested for the August incident and charged with the assault and a no contact condition was put in place between the parents. In December 2014 the father’s surety contacted the Society advising that she was no longer going to be the father’s surety as he was abusing her. After the father was arrested in October 2014, the mother confirmed that she was having no contact with him or giving him access of the child.

[11] However, on February 17 and 18, 2015 the Society became aware that the father was having access to the child without the Society’s knowledge and that the mother had visited the father in breach of the criminal condition.

Apprehension

[12] On February 18, 2015, the Society worker went to the father’s home on an unannounced visit. The mother answered the door and told the worker that she was in the father’s home with the child while he was at work. The mother readily admitted that she was attempting to resolve the parties’ problems and saw no need to leave the father.

[13] Consequently the same day, the Society worker apprehended the child and placed the child with the paternal uncle and his partner. The rationale for the apprehension was that the mother failed to follow through with a safety plan and the mother showed a complete lack of insight into the safety concerns of the Society regarding the child.

[14] On February 23, 2015, the Society commenced child protection proceedings and sought an order that the child be made a ward of the Society for a period of six months subject to the parents having access. On February 23, 2015, the Honourable Justice Labrosse made a temporary without prejudice order placing the child in the care of the Society with access to the mother a minimum of three times per week and access to the father at the Society’s discretion.

[15] After the child was apprehended, the mother became engaged in Violence against Woman counselling. By mid-April she had commenced one-on-one counselling and was engaged in parenting classes. The mother advised the Society that she still loved the father and cared for him but would not have him back unless he changed his behaviour.

[16] From the date of apprehension until the motion on April 27, 2015, the father had had no contact with the Society and no access to the child.

Care and Custody Decision of Justice Blishen

[17] For approximately the next two months, the mother tried to convince the Society workers that the child should be returned to her under a supervision order. She claimed that she would not allow the father to have access to the child without the Society’s approval and she would not herself meet with the father.

[18] A care and custody hearing was argued before the Honourable Justice Blishen on April 27, 2015. At that time the mother acknowledged that her relationship with the father was toxic and that he had always done awful things to her. She indicated that the relationship was over with no chance of reconciliation and that the father would have to address personal issues such as alcohol and anger issue. The mother admitted that she made a mistake in the past and requested that the child be returned to her care on account of the progress that she had made.

[19] The Honourable Justice Blishen returned the child to the mother with conditions including that the return to the mother would be progressive and the order would be effective May 18, 2015. In addition, she granted a restraining order against the father towards the mother.

Variation of Order of Justice Blishen

[20] Within weeks of the child’s return to the mother, three reports came to the Society’s attention that despite the court order the mother had attended at the father’s home on two occasions and at his workplace. In addition, during a meeting with a worker, the mother admitted to the worker that the parties were working out their relationship.

[21] On May 22, 2015, the mother admitted that she had invited the father to her home and had given him her address, despite the restraining order and the no contact conditions of the criminal charges.

[22] Based on this new evidence, the Society moved to vary the order of the Honourable Justice Blishen seeking an order that the child be placed in the care of the Society. With the consent of all parties, on May 19, 2015 the child was placed in the care of the Society who placed the child with the paternal uncle and aunt and the three half-brothers of the child. The mother was granted access two times per week in her home and the father’s access was at the discretion of the Society. The restraining order issued on April 27, 2015, that the parents were not to have contact, remained in effect.

[23] On July 29, 2015, the court ordered that the parents undergo a parenting capacity assessment conducted by Dr. Worenklein. On November 30, 2015, the parenting assessment was completed.

Position of the Parties

The Society

[24] The Society’s position is that the child should be made a ward of the Crown and placed in the care of the Society for purposes of adoption by his paternal uncle, Mr. J.F.1 and his partner as that is in the best interests of the child in accordance with the criteria set out in section 37 of the CFSA. Further, the Society submits that returning the child to the mother would not afford the child adequate protection in accordance with section 57 (3) of the CFSA.

[25] The Society submits that the evidence shows that the father has a history of violence towards his partners, he lacks insight into his violent behaviour and its impact on children, he has not utilized access or attended counselling or complied with court orders and that he is singularly focused on his relationship with the mother.

[26] With respect to the mother, the Society submits that the mother has overall not been successful in parenting the child, is focused on maintaining a relationship with the father, has not been honest with the Society about reconciliation with the father, that she lacks insight, coping skills, is dependent, needy, and does not have the ability to put the child’s needs before hers. Consequently the mother is likely to struggle as a primary caregiver for the child and she will turn to the father to play a parental role creating a risk that the child will be exposed to domestic violence and neglect of his needs.

The Mother

[27] The mother’s position, supported by the father, is that the child be placed in her care and custody subject to the supervision of the Society for a period of three to six months on terms and conditions as follows:

a) the mother to engage in the service of a dialectic therapist referred to her by Dr. Worenklein to deal with the issue of emotional regulation;

b) the mother to attend an additional parenting class that is geared specifically towards the issues of anticipating dangers and setting limits;

c) the access between the father and the child to be supervised one time per week for one hour;

d) the mother to work cooperatively with the Society, and attend meetings with respect to safety planning; and

e) in the future there should be an updated parenting capacity assessment.

[28] The mother submits that a supervision order to her would comply with the paramount purpose of the child protection legislation being to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. Pursuant to section 1(2) of the CFSA, one of the purposes of the CFSA is to recognize that, while parents may need help in caring for their children, such help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and, wherever possible, be provided on the basis of mutual consent.

The Father

[29] In my reasons for judgment in finding that the child was in need of protection, I concluded that the father was not a viable alternative in this proceeding. The father, though he is not presenting a plan, supports the mother’s plan that the child be returned to her care under a supervision order. He proposes that the mother be the primary caregiver and that the parties work on the relationship slowly and that someday, potentially, that they could be a family unit.

Evidence of the Society

[30] The Society’s witnesses were four child protection workers, the paternal uncle and the parenting capacity assessor Dr. Worenklein.

Laura Bowerman- Child Protection Worker (“CPW”)

[31] Ms. Bowerman became involved in January 2014 to ensure that the mother was meeting the child’s needs and providing appropriate care and stimulation. Her involvement terminated in June 2014. During this period of time, she testified that the father was not very much involved and that she advised the mother of the risk that the father posed to both her and the child. In reply the mother indicated that if the father did come to her home she would move in with her mother and aunt.

Manon Jacques - Child and Youth Counsellor (“CYC”)

[32] Ms. Jacques starting supervising access on March 3, 2015. From March 3 to April 30, 2015 the mother attended visits at the Society’s office three times a week fully supervised for 1.5 hours each visit. The mother attended all access visits.

[33] As a result of the mother’s consistent attendance, the Society agreed that the mother could have access two times per week at her home. From May 1 to November 4, 2015, the mother had access two times per week for two hours at her home, fully supervised until August 10, 2015 after which time the access was partially supervised. The mother attended the majority of access visits.

[34] The mother missed multiple access visits between the months of September and November 2015 when the access was supposed to start at 9 am. The mother admitted that she was late for the access visits because she was sleeping at the father’s home, that her alarm did not go off or that she had slept in and woken up late. As a result of inconsistent access visits, on November 4, 2015 the access visits were returned to the Society’s offices. From November 4 to December 14, 2015 the access visits were once per week partially supervised for two hours. The mother attended all access visits.

[35] On December 16, 2015 the Society agreed that the mother could have access for two hours, two times per week at her home, supervised. The mother attended all scheduled access visits.

[36] This worker observed that during access the mother did not have the ability to understand the right portion of food and snacks that should be given to the child, that she had difficulty in setting limits for the child and maintaining his limits, that she was unable to anticipate potential dangers for the child and that she lacked engagement and interaction with the child.

[37] On a positive note, Ms. Jacques noted that the mother participated in a woman’s discussion group, that she never saw any sign of physical abuse on the child and that the mother was cooperative, truthful and open to suggestions.

[38] Access by the father only started when he requested it and that was in August 2015. His access was for one hour each week. From August 24, 2015, the father attended 16 of 25 visits. The worker acknowledged that the father demonstrated some strengths during his access visits, but that the father had minimal engagement with the child during play and minimal to nonexistent interaction while the child was eating a meal.

Denise Umutoni – Child Protection Worker (“CPW”)

[39] This witness was the main CPW who worked with the family. Her main concerns were the conflictual relationship between the parents that resulted in the child being exposed to adult conflict and violence, the father’s history of repeated partner violence and alcohol abuse, and the mother’s incapacity to parent the child.

[40] Ms. Umutoni provided the court with a history of the party’s “on and off” relationship. In December 2013 the parties indicated they were separating but, by May 2014, the mother indicated that she was giving the father another chance and moved back to live with him in July 2014. In August 2014 he assaulted the mother, but shortly thereafter the couple reunited and continued to live together contrary to the bail conditions and the understanding with the Society.

[41] However, in December 2014 the mother obtained subsidized housing, moved in with the child and agreed not to tell the father of her new address. This worker later received information from the father’s former surety that the parents had reconciled. On February 18, 2015 she attended at the father’s home, unannounced, only to discover the mother and the child in the residence. She decided to apprehend the child even though the mother denied that she was in a relationship with the father.

[42] The case then proceeded through the court process. However, in May 2015, the mother admitted that she had been with the father in breach of the criminal bail conditions and the restraining order. The Society returned to court and the child was placed in the care of the Society.

[43] The mother has at various times told the worker that she would not live with the father, that she would not reconcile with the father and that she would not tell the father where she was living.

[44] The father had a previous partner with whom he had three children. All three children were made Crown wards as a result of domestic violence. Even though all three children presented with developmental delays, the father and his previous partner did not follow through with the recommendations made by the professionals. The father was not consistent with his access to his three children, as he would often cancel due to being sick or working.

[45] By September 2015, at the request of the mother, the no contact condition of the father’s bail conditions was deleted.

[46] On October 10, 2015 during a meeting with the worker, the mother indicated that the parties had attended couples counselling since August 2015. The mother indicated the father was not physically violent but that the parties argued a lot. The worker advised the mother of the Society’s concerns, specifically the concerns that the mother was not planning ahead for access visits for the child, her lack of stimulation during access visits and her minimizing of the father’s violent behaviour.

[47] The worker proposed that the mother attend parenting classes to enhance her parenting capacities because the evidence from the access supervisor suggested the mother was having difficulties applying what she had learned in previous courses. The mother reported that between July 29, 2015 and August 2015 she attended four sessions of parenting classes. She did not pursue any other courses.

[48] By January 19, 2016, when the worker met the mother, the mother confirmed that the parents were not doing any couples counselling or other programs because they were busy working. The worker encouraged the mother to continue the programs, especially parenting programs, as she continued to struggle to engage the child according to the access reports and her discussions with the access supervisor.

[49] On February 9, 2016 the worker received a letter from the couple’s counsellor confirming that the parties attended five sessions of couples counselling, but no session after October 15, 2015 and that they failed to show up on their last scheduled appointment of October 29, 2015.

Interaction with Father

[50] This worker met with the father at the end of July 2015 at which point he reported that he had a full-time job as a cook and part-time work as a DJ and that access would have to be adjusted to his schedule. Even though the child was apprehended on February 18, 2015, his first access was August 17, 2015.

[51] During this period of time the father advised that he planned to attend the New Directions program starting November 30, 2015 to address his anger issues and that he intended to attend a session of Caring Dads and re-attend couples counselling with the mother.

Assistance to the Parents

[52] This worker met with the parents on different occasions. For example, on November 5, 2015, she met with the parents because the mother’s visit with the child had been cancelled because she was not present at her home. The mother indicated that she has having financial problems, trouble sleeping and trouble waking up for access visits.

[53] The worker proposed that the mother resume individual counselling to help her deal with stress. The mother indicated that she would be getting a job at Tim Horton’s and that her schedule change would affect the access to the child. During this meeting, the father indicated that he was late sometimes and did not wake up early enough to attend his access. The worker asked the father to call before 10 am the morning of access to confirm that he would not attend to ensure that the child was not brought to the offices of the Society unnecessarily. He agreed.

[54] According to this worker, the child is doing well, he is social, and plays well with his siblings. He now runs and climbs ladders and is described as being very mobile and agile for a boy his age. He says multiple words and is developing his fine and gross motor skills. He is meeting his developmental milestones. He is attending a daycare.

[55] With respect to the relationship between the two parents, they have reported to her that they are together most of the time. The mother has reported on multiple occasions being at the father’s house. Further, the worker testified that at times she would call the father’s home to speak to him, but found the parties together, so she spoke to each parent separately. Further the mother admitted that she had broken her pledge not to tell the father of her address. Even more surprisingly, she confirmed to the worker that the father had attended at her new apartment.

[56] It was the worker’s impression after discussing it with the parents that they do not want to live without each other, even if it means breaching existing court orders. The worker’s concerns, which have existed since August 2014, being the father’s history of violence towards partners, the parents’ inability to follow through with appropriate programs, the multiple breakups and reconciliations, all support the conclusion that the child would be at risk if returned to the mother’s care.

[57] In preparation for this trial the mother served an updated affidavit. After reading the affidavit this worker called the mother on March 16, 2016 to speak to the mother about her allegation that the relationship was over. However, during the telephone call with this worker, the mother confirmed that she was in a relationship with the father and that it was none of her business. The mother did not contradict this fact in her testimony.

[58] The worker proposes that it would be in the best interest of the child for him to be made a ward of the Crown for the purpose of adoption by his paternal uncle and aunt. The child has been in a stable placement there for more than a year, the child has developed a strong bond with his three half-brothers and he is not at risk to suffering harm.

[59] The Society’s worker testified that the mother clearly loves the child but that she continues to struggle with basic parenting skills.

Michelle Evans – Child Protection Worker

[60] She was involved from September 24, 2014 until the end of October 2014. Her role was to meet with the mother to discuss the incident of domestic violence on August 18, 2014.

[61] The mother was to meet with the worker on September 25, 2014, but she did not attend. The worker spoke to the maternal grandmother who advised her that the mother was living with the father at his apartment. That same day, the worker contacted the mother by phone who advised that she could not get to the meeting as she decided to go for a walk with the father and they went and bought groceries.

[62] The mother agreed to meet with the worker that same afternoon at 1 pm. She did not attend so the worker contacted the mother by phone who indicated that the child was asleep and did not wake up until 2 pm.

[63] The decision was made to apprehend the child. Upon attending at the father’s home, the father answered the door and stated that he was leaving and going to work and that the mother was leaving the home on the way to her mother’s. The worker indicated that she could still see bruises on the mother’s forearm and three elongated marks which she stated were made approximate two weeks ago when the father grabbed her arm. The mother further told her that the child was present during that incident of domestic violence and at the incident on August 18, 2014.

[64] During that discussion the mother confirmed that the father has communication issues, that the parties are unable to talk to each other, that the miscommunication tended to escalate into an argument, that she was aware of the father’s history of domestic violence with his ex-partner, that the father has a problem with alcohol that leads to fights and finally that she does not want the child to be brought up in a home where there is conflict. The mother agreed to a new safety plan to obtain her own accommodations and with that she left the father’s apartment.

[65] Unfortunately the mother than called the father who indicated he was returning to the apartment. The Society worker contacted the Ottawa Police Services for assistance. At this time, a cousin of the mother arrived and offered that the mother and the child could reside with her and her partner until a place was found in a shelter. The worker confirmed that the residence was appropriate and the mother and the child move there on a temporary basis.

Dr. Worenklein – Parenting Capacity Assessment

[66] Dr. Worenklein completed his report on November 30, 2015. In his report there were three issues raised, being the father’s mental health related to repeated violence and alcohol abuse, the risk of the child being exposed to adult conflict and violence, and the mother’s capacity to protect the child.

[67] The mother’s position at the motion for summary judgment was that the assessor drew conclusions from psychometric testing about the mother’s personality which was unsupported by the evidence. The mother criticized the assessment on the grounds that there was no indication of the results having been corroborated by collateral contacts, interview with the mother, or observation of the interaction between the mother and the child. Further the mother criticized the assessor for not making any comment about her ability to protect the child or to make decisions in the child’s best interest.

[68] Dr. Worenklein testified at this trial. He testified that he has been a practising forensic psychologist since 1975 and that he has testified as an expert witness on parent capacity assessments in previous child protection proceedings. He was asked about his relationship with the Society for the purpose of showing that he was biased. He admitted that he received approximately eight referrals from the Society per year, but stated that he bases his decisions not on his relationship with the Society but on the evidence that he receives. He denies that he has any bias in favour of the Society.

[69] His original concerns were the condition of the child, the reasons for the apprehension, the reasons for the opening of the file by the Society, the information that he would receive from collateral contacts and the reaction of the parents to certain events. He was aware that domestic violence, alcohol abuse and parental stress were significant issues in this matter.

[70] The assessor testified to the type of testing that he had conducted. He indicated that he verified the level of schooling of the parents to ensure that they could take the test and informed the parents that if they had any issue with the test that they could speak to him.

[71] In his report at page 12 regarding of the father, Dr. Worenklein stated that the psychometric test results indicating that there was a cause for concern regarding the following:

• Duration of Anger Problems,
• Suspiciousness,
• Resentment,
• Rumination, Impulsivity,
• Verbal Expression,
• Relational Aggression, and
• Passive Aggression.

[72] The assessor was concerned with the father’s breach of conditions and his lack of respect for the “no contact order” as well as the minimization or denial of his spousal assault history and attitudes that support or condone spousal assault. Dr. Worenklein testified that he was very concerned about the father’s actions since the Society became involved with this family.

[73] Regarding the mother, he was concerned that the mother tended to minimize the concerns raised by the Society and that she did not understand potential risks to her child as a result of being exposed to domestic violence and conflict. With respect to the future of the child, the assessor was concerned that the mother was being unrealistic in anticipating that the abuse would stop without an intervention with respect to the father’s significant anger management difficulties. He testified that he was concerned that the mother needed counselling as the test results of the psychometric indicated a very high score in terms of instability of her emotions.

[74] Despite his findings and conclusions in his report, he was not prepared to recommend that the child be made a ward of the Crown as of November 2015. Subsequent to his report he received a copy of the affidavits of Ms. Jacques, the paternal uncle, the mother and Ms. Umutoni. Those affidavits included reports of certain incidents that had occurred. Specifically there was a concern as to whether the mother could identify real danger for the child. He was also concerned that if the parent oversleeps and cannot make an access visit, as is the case with the mother, this may raise questions as to how she would take care of a young child.

[75] He testified that he was concerned about the access attendances by the mother where she was late, missed access, overfed the child, failed to set limits and failed to ensure that the child was properly supervised during her access visits. The doctor was concerned that the mother had failed to adequately protect the child from dangers during access visits.

[76] He indicated that the evidence provided to him was that the mother lacked insight, failed to set limits and that there was a lack of consistency by the father in his access to the child. With respect to the mother, the assessor concludes at p. 33 as follows:

… I am also quite concerned that Ms. S. requires counselling/therapy for herself in view of the results of her psychometric assessment, particularly with issues revolving around her emotional regulation, which was noted in two of the psychometric tools. In fact, the results also suggest a proclivity to be subjected to mood swings and problems in inhibiting the expression of strong emotions, including anger. She did score high on her affect dysregulation in terms of the instability of her emotions.

[77] With respect to the observations by the assessor, the mother raises the issue of the lack of corroboration in his direct observations between the parent and the child with respect to personality conclusions indicated in the assessor’s report. As part of his methodology the assessor conducted clinical interviews with the parents. During those interviews the mother advised him that she would move back with the father if she was allowed. He discussed the family history, her parenting philosophy and her views regarding the child. In November 2015 he did not feel it was the child’s best interest to return to be in the care of the mother.

[78] Regarding the mother, he felt that all her personality functions needed to change and that she would need to work on emotional regulation and prioritizing the child’s needs. However, based on the evidence received subsequent to his report, he became concerned about the parent’s commitment, the mother’s failure to set up proper limits, the mother’s lack of insight regarding danger awareness for the child and the mother’s lack of prioritizing the child’s needs.

[79] He concluded that he did not know if he would base a recommendation on the affidavit evidence because the parents have the right to respond and he would need more information.

[80] In cross-examination, he admitted that he and the parents are from different socioeconomic groups. He confirmed that he gave the parents an opportunity to tell him anything they wanted to and never pressured them.

[81] In cross-examination, he stated that in preparing a parenting capacity assessment he used objective tests which are clear questions and very specific and would rarely use a projective test in a parent capacity or custody assessment as it may cast doubt on the results. He confirmed that he asked the mother if she understood the questions. He found no evidence of any cognitive difficulties with the mother and she readily admitted that she could read the question. He knew that she was dyslexic but that that would only affect the length of time required to complete the task.

[82] Further in cross-examination, he admitted that psychometric testing results should be placed in context to allow the hypothesis to be tested in a parent-child interaction. He observed a one-hour interaction between the mother and the child and concluded that it was not in the child’s best interest at that time to be made a ward of the Crown. He recommended that the parents have treatment and that the situation be reviewed.

[83] However, since November 2015, the assessor has received additional documentation that caused him significant concerns. Based on those concerns, his current recommendation is that the child should be made a ward of the Crown and that the child be placed with his uncle and his partner with his three half siblings.

[84] He admitted that if the parents were to follow through on what they need to do, such as the mother receiving the behavioural therapy for her emotional regulation and her prioritizing the child’s needs, he would be open to recommending the return to the parents. However, he would recommend Crown wardship for the child when there is no chance that the parent would change. Hypothetically, he indicated that if the father was consistent and motivated and that if the parents were undergoing therapy, they could have access at the offices of the Society. If the father shows stability and consistency and the mother pursues her therapy, he would be prepared to allow the access to be at the mother’s residence.

[85] The assessor indicated that there were four key factors to look at:

a) the mother’s emotional regulation;

b) the mother’s ability to prioritize the child’s need;

c) appropriate supervision and engagement regarding access for the father; and

d) following through on the domestic violence issue.

[86] However he admitted that he was unaware of whether or not the parents are taking such remedial action. In conclusion, he felt that the child’s priorities needed to be met, the mother needed to take therapy and the father needed to show consistency and commitment to access. However if there is no willingness to pursue that course of action, he recommended Crown wardship for the child. Finally he testified that if a parent had not taken rehabilitative action since November 30, 2015, it speaks of a problem of commitment on the parent’s behalf.

J.F.1

[87] He is the brother of the father. He adopted the father’s three children by a previous relationship after they were made Crown wards with an openness agreement with the parents regarding the three children on access.

[88] Prior to the apprehension in February 2015, he had very little contact with the child and did not have a significant relationship with the father or the mother. He was one of the parties who contacted the Society in August 2014 about the domestic violence reported by the mother and the father’s former partner. When he found out the child was apprehended he contacted the Society and offered his residence.

[89] He testified that the child has been in his care since February 2015 and that the child is doing very well, is very happy and that his speech issues are within proper guidelines.

[90] Since the child has been in his care, the mother has had approximately 30 visits. She was late for six and cancelled 12 visits. He is also concerned that at some visits the mother provides the child with a large box of Smarties or fast food. On one occasion when the mother showed up with a stroller for the child, the uncle noticed that there were bugs in the inner mattress, threw it into the washer and decided to no longer accept anything from the mother. He further indicated that the father’s apartment was filthy.

[91] With respect to the father’s three other children in his care, the boys refer to the father by his first name and do not refer to him as “dad”. Unfortunately the father has not been consistent in access to these three children and has only seen the children 10 times in the previous year because he is working. That access takes place in a park.

[92] The uncle further testified that the father has attended access wearing inappropriate clothing, such as wearing a T-shirt that says “cocaine and caviar”, prompting the children to asked what “cocaine” meant. The uncle was not very impressed. Despite his concerns, he is prepared to agree that he would work with his brother to arrange access as he has in the past with the three other children.

[93] Regarding the mother’s access, he is prepared to agree to the access proposed by the Society.

Mother’s Evidence

[94] The mother had three witnesses, being Ms. B.1, her mother and herself.

Ms. B.1

[95] She has known the mother for approximately 7 to 8 years. She has observed the mother providing the child with well-balanced meals, keeping the child busy, providing suitable food, verbally engaging with the child and has never seen any physical abuse by the mother towards the child. Even though she was confused with respect to many of the exact dates, she felt that the child should be with the mother and that the mother is a competent mother.

C.S. – Maternal Grandmother

[96] She currently does not work. She lives in an apartment with her daughter and son-in-law and their child, which is approximate six minutes from the mother’s home. She testified that the mother was very responsible as a parent for this child, providing the child with proper clothing, proper food, ensuring the child was seen by the doctor on a regular basis and arranging play dates for the child.

[97] She would support the return of the child to her daughter under a supervision order. She will take care of the child when the mother is at work and will help out in any way she can. She recounts that the daughter is realistic and has learned her lesson and will not let the child near the father without the Society’s approval and currently does not live with the father.

[98] In cross-examination, she admitted that when she and the mother met with the child protection worker in June 2014, the mother agreed to leave the father if there were any further incidents of domestic violence. She acknowledges that based on that agreement the Society closed its file. When the mother was assaulted by the father of August 18, 2014, neither the mother nor the grandmother contacted the Society. She realizes now that failure to call was a mistake.

[99] She further admitted that her daughter has failed to tell her that she has reconciled with the father and that her own daughter has been hiding things from her.

The Mother

[100] She testified that she is currently living in a two-bedroom apartment where she plans to stay for at least one year. She has been working at Tim Horton’s since November 13, 2015 on a full-time basis with a very flexible schedule. Her plan is that she will work and that her mother, sister or brother-in-law will watch the child when she is at work. The rest the time she will care for the child.

[101] She has looked into daycare in her area without success. If the child is returned under a supervision order, she will then pursue a daycare location. Once the child is in daycare she wants to work in the morning.

[102] She admits that if the child is returned to her under a supervision order, it will be a significant change for the child but she will still ensure that the child interacts with his siblings as well as the paternal uncle and his partner.

[103] She wants the father to be part of the child’s life but could not indicate in what role. She feels she has learned her lesson and does not want to lose the child. She admits that she needs help but she does not know what exactly she needs.

[104] She advises that if the father came over to her apartment without notice she would call the police and that if she saw him coming she would take the child to her mother by the back door of the apartment building. If she thought he was a risk to the child she would call 911. In cross-examination, she indicated that she did not have any real concern that the father would come to her house.

[105] The mother attended group counselling at the Society’s offices aimed at assisting mothers who are victims of domestic abuse. She also pursued an anger management program for parents at the Pinecrest Queensway Community Health Center. Both programs taught participants about the cycle of domestic violence and how to cope as well as how it could have a negative impact on children.

[106] The mother began one-on-one counselling in April 2015. In the past year she has taken parenting classes but remembers only bits and pieces from those classes. Her first series of classes dealt with managing the anger of a young child and teaching the mother techniques in coping with such anger. She took another parenting class intended to provide her with skills in providing the child with age-appropriate toys.

[107] She took personal counselling to deal with her emotional issues and everyday challenges. She met a counsellor by the name of Helen (she does not remember her last name) at the Western Ottawa Community Resource Centre. She indicated that she had significant difficulty in opening up to strangers about her experience as she has felt that she cannot trust anybody as a result of her experience with the Society’s workers.

[108] During her counselling with Ms. Boucher in 2015 she admitted that she had been in a violent relationship for the previous three years, that abuse started at the beginning and that the father drinks a lot of alcohol. She further admitted to the counsellor that during the incidents of August and September 2014, the father hurt her and that physical violence had occurred more than one time.

[109] In the period of May and June 2015 she was seeing the father on a regular basis as he was one of her support people. In July 2015 she attended a two-hour parenting course while the rest of the time she spent with father.

[110] In August 2015 her counsellor Ms. Boucher advised her not to undergo counselling with the father as she was in a violent relationship. Despite this recommendation she commenced couples counselling with the Catholic Family Service of Ottawa and attended appointments in August 11, August 27, September 17, October 1 and October 15, 2015. They have not attended since October 15, 2015.

[111] Even though there was a no contact order in the criminal bail conditions, the parties attended two sessions of couple counselling in August 2015. It was only in September 2015 that the no contact order was changed.

[112] With respect to the recommendation by the parenting capacity assessment that the mother undertake therapy, she asked the child protection workers for services to coincide with her job at Tim Horton’s and the access visits. As she was very busy and her spare time was spent with the father or friends, she was too busy to take courses.

[113] Since August 2015 she has not attended any individual counselling and she missed her January 2016 appointment with her counsellor Ms. Boucher because she did not want to speak to her. Further she has taken no parenting courses since August 2015.

[114] Regarding access from May 2015 to March 2016, the access was at her apartment except for a six week period from November to mid December 2015 when it was at the offices of the Society. The protocol was that the child was dropped off and picked up by a volunteer driver in front of her apartment.

[115] In September 2015 the mother was late on two occasions in meeting the volunteer driver in front of her apartment because she had slept at the father’s apartment and by the time she took a bus back to her apartment, she was late.

[116] In October 2015, she missed one visit as she woke up late and did not have a phone to be able to contact the volunteer driver. On October 28, 2015 she was late again as she had slept in at the father’s home.

[117] In November 2015 as a result of three missed visits by the mother, the Society decided to have the access at the offices of the Society. She met with the child protection worker and her mother at which time she indicated she was stressed, overwhelmed, was suffering financial stress and was arguing with the father.

[118] She readily admitted that in the period of October to November 2015 she slept in and missed three visits. On one occasion, she did not meet the driver and walked around the building looking for the driver as the driver had parked in a different drop-off location.

[119] She disagreed with the evidence of Ms. Jacques and indicated that she is a competent parent and that if the child is returned to her she will purchase baby gates and will ask the landlord to change the stove type that she has to make it less dangerous for the child.

[120] Regarding the report of Dr. Worenklein, she spoke to the assessor for half an hour before he administered the test and that she advised him that she was dyslexic. She did not understand certain questions and asked the assessor to explain the questions to her. She indicated the doctor was present in the room for part of the test. She does remember that some of the questions that she did not understand dealt with suicide and depression. She raised questions about 10 or 11 questions and he clarified six of these questions.

[121] When asked why the court should return the child to her under supervision order she gave the following reasons:

a) she wants the child to play sports;

b) she wants to teach the child;

c) she is fully capable of taking care of the child;

d) she is overprotective;

e) she feels that the Society’s pressure has had an effect on her;

f) she is learning to deal with her struggles; and

g) she wants to get the child a tutor as he may be dyslexic.

[122] In cross-examination the mother made the following admissions;

a) she is in a relationship with the father;

b) they exchange text messages daily;

c) they speak daily on the telephone;

d) she spends at least one day during the work week at his apartment as one of the father’s roommates is her best friend;

e) she sleeps one night at the father’s apartment every weekend; and

f) the father knows where the mother lives.

The Father

[123] The father’s plan is to support the mother. He plans to complete parenting courses and allow her to be the primary caregiver. He says that the parties are working on their relationship with the goal of one day being a family. He wants to start individual counselling and is currently in the Caring Dads program.

[124] He admits that the child is in care because of his abuse towards the mother and that the three other children were made Crown wards based on his abusive behaviour to his former partner. He now realizes how serious the issue is. He tells the court that he is a kind, good, gentle person who is deeply sorry and violence is not in his nature. He has changed. With help he can be available for his son. He practices the tools he learned in the New Directions program such as breathing, counting down from 10, etc.

[125] He has no intention of going to the mother’s residence because he will be too busy with work, visits, counselling or parenting classes. He currently works in the evening as a cook or bartender and part-time as a karaoke DJ.

[126] The father pleaded guilty in October 2015 to assaulting the mother on August 18, 2014. The terms of his probation order are that he must keep the peace, not possess any weapons, attend the New Directions program and have no direct or indirect contact with the mother.

[127] With respect to the previous restraining order, he indicates he was never aware of the terms and denies receiving a copy of the restraining order at the time it was made. He does admit that he was aware of the terms at a later unspecified date.

[128] He further indicates that he would agree to have supervised access to the child and would agree to an order not to attend the mother’s home when the child was present.

[129] He is seeking access at the offices of the Society one time per week for an hour. He makes this offer while at the same time admitting that he has had only two visits with the child in the first three months of 2016: January 13 and February 10. He admits that he was 37 minutes late for access on January 27, and that at all other times access was scheduled he either did not attend, did not call to say was not attending, and, on one occasion, the access was cancelled due to a snow storm. His last access visit was on February 10, 2016.

[130] While he admits to assaulting the mother on August 18, 2014, he denied the mother’s allegation that he attacked her again in September 2014, even though there is evidence from Ms. Evans who noticed the bruising when she met the mother at the end of September 2014.

[131] At the end of the father’s testimony, he admitted that he has not been forthright regarding the September 2014 incident, that he attempted to mislead the court and that he is not being accountable. Effectively, he admitted to lying in his testimony.

The Law

[132] If the court is disposed to make a disposition of Crown wardship, the court must use great caution, the evidence must be compelling and the court can only make such an order after an examination of alternative possible remedies as was held in Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. M.A.M. (2003), 16 O.F.L.R. 235, at para. 12 (S.C.), and Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. G.-T. (J.) (1996), 26 R.F.L. (4th) 79 (Ont. Div. Ct.).

[133] Further, the court shall consider the criteria set out in s. 37 (3) of the CFSA based on the child’s perspective, assess the extent to which the degree of risk which existed at the time of apprehension continues to exist today, weigh all the factors and consider the plans proposed by the Society and the parents as decided in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C.S.-S., 2011 ONCJ 645.

[134] In making a decision of Crown wardship, section 37(3) of the CFSA sets out the various factors that a court must consider:

1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.
2. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.
3. The child’s cultural background.
4. The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.
5. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.
6. The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community.
7. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.
8. The merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent.
9. The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.
10. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.
11. The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent.
12. The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
13. Any other relevant circumstance.

[135] Counsel for the mother relies on the decision of Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington v. L.T., 2013 ONSC 6512, at paras. 7-12, a decision of Justice Robertson in support of the following principles:

7. The Child and Family Services Act, (CFSA) outlines a legislative path of requirements before the state primly removes a child from the care of a parent. The dominant focus of the CFSA is the protection and well-being of children. This includes recognition that some parents need help caring for their children. There is no statutory time limit on needing help. The time limits relate to duration in foster care. The law directs the court to make the least restrictive order consistent with the child’s best interests and to support the economy and integrity of the family unit. The burden of proof rests upon the applicant Society. The standard of proof is balance of probabilities.

8. The legal test is not to craft an Order to maximize this child’s potential in a perfect world. Balancing the merits of the Society’s plans for adoption with the mother’s plan of returning the child under section 37 (3(8)) of the CFSA is more than just determining who offers more.

9. The best outcome for this child from a therapeutic social work perspective may be different than the result when properly tendered evidence is applied to the principles of the CFSA. This child would have a more stable childhood with less risk if she remained in her current long-term home, had plenty of access with her mother while harmoniously accessing plentiful community resources to support her special needs. That, in effect, is the spirit of the clinical assessment.

10. The court must make the order that is the least intrusive guided by the philosophy and purpose of the CFSA. The mother has demonstrated a strong capacity for change since the child has been in society care. Her starting point was very bleak. The find on the evidence tendered that the mother’s commitment to community resources, her efforts to enriched her parental capacity, to stabilize her housing and personal circumstances are enough to supplement her parenting deficit above the minimum required safety standard to allow her to parent this baby. She has been generally compliant and cooperative. She has much more work to do. I also find she continues to lack insight and judgment in her personal relationships. She recognizes this issue and is committed to work on it. I am persuaded, at law, that on a balance of probabilities, she will follow sufficient direction to manage the protection risk for this child through a supervision order to meet the marginal requirements.

Analysis

[136] The Society seeks an order that the child be made a ward of the Crown for the purpose of being adopted by the paternal uncle and his partner. The competing plan is from the mother that the child be returned to her subject to a supervision order.

[137] The court’s first step is to assess the merits of the mother’s plan to protect this child based on the previous finding that the child was in need of protection. The mother indicates that she intends to work at Tim Horton’s on the morning shift and that her mother, sister or brother in law will take care of the child until she is able to obtain a placement in a daycare. When she is not working, she will take care of the child.

[138] She will not allow the father to be with the child and that she will go to such an extent as to the call the police to prevent that event from occurring. The father’s plan is to support the mother having the child subject to a supervision order and that he will not attend at the mother’s home or be alone with the child.

[139] The father’s history of domestic violence regarding partners in the presence of minor children is extremely concerning to the court. There have been four documented incidents of domestic violence with the father and his two partners. The court finds that the father has not taken any remedial steps to deal with his significant anger management issues.

[140] The court finds that the father lacks insight, in that he blames his partners for being partially responsible for causing the acts of domestic violence. The father has attempted to minimize his responsibility regarding the incidents of domestic violence with his two partners. This finding is supported by the evidence of the assessor who notes at page 11 of his report the following:

The father’s blindness to his own unattractive defects, combined with his tendency to disown these undesirable traits and motives by expunging or attributing them to others.

[141] Despite the father indicating that he is now taking courses on parenting, his involvement with the mother and the child is a risk this court is not prepared to take for this child. The court finds the father even lacked commitment to exercise access to his own child. When the child was apprehended on February 18, 2015, the father did not request access until August 2015. Even when the intake worker Ms. Evans recommended that the father attend programs in the fall of 2014 he did not attend the New Directions program until November 2015 and only started the Caring Dads program shortly before the trial. What is even more problematic is that in 2016 the father has seen the child only two times. His lack of involvement confirms Dr. Worenklein’s fear that the father is not motivated.

[142] Further, even when the parties went to counselling, it was to work on the party’s relationship and not the individual counselling that each of these parents needed. Both the Society’s workers and Ms. Boucher recommended against couples counselling. Once the parties started couple counselling they stopped all other support. These parties ceased to cooperate with the Society.

[143] The court does not believe the assertions of the father that he will not be involved with the child and that he will not attend at the mother’s home. This finding is supported by the father’s admission to the court during his testimony that he attempted to mislead the Court. The father has no credibility with this court.

[144] The mother’s plan is that there should be a supervision order for three to six months with specific conditions. By the time this trial proceeded, the assessment report had been out for four months and it had been at least seven months since the mother had taken any therapy or counselling or parenting courses. The mother now seeks two conditions being that she engage the services of a dialectic therapist recommended by Dr. Worenklein to do with emotional regulation and that she take a parenting class. As of this trial, the mother has taken no steps to implement these two conditions.

[145] While the mother was successful in caring for the child from his birth on […], 2013 until June 2014 after separating from the father, once the father returned, the mother focused on the father. The court finds that the mother will put her relationship with the father ahead of her consideration of the best interests of this child. Her actions since August 2014 support such a conclusion. The court finds that the mother has lied to the Society workers, has lied to her mother, has failed to understand the risk to her child as a result of the relationship with the father, has breached the restraining order granted on April 27, 2015 and allowed the father to breech his bail conditions related to the assault charge by reconciling with him.

[146] When the Society closed its file in June 2014 there was an understanding that the mother would contact the Society if there were any incidents of domestic violence. There was such an incident on August 18, 2014 and the mother never advised the Society. There was also an incident of domestic violence in September 2014 which was corroborated by the mother to the worker Ms. Evans on September 26, 2014. Again the mother never advised the Society of the second incident of domestic violence.

[147] When the Society was planning on apprehending the child in the fall of 2014, a cousin of the mother proposed that the mother live with her to provide her with the place to stay to avoid the child being apprehended. The mother and the child lived with a cousin and then went to a shelter before being provided with an apartment in December 2014. Despite assuring the society worker that she would not disclose her new address to the father and that she would not allow the father access to the child, the evidence is that she in fact breached both of those assurances.

[148] On February 17 and 18, 2015 the Society made an unannounced visit to the father’s home. At that time they discovered the mother and the child in the father’s home while the father was at work. The mother had not disclosed to the Society that she was at the father’s home.

[149] The court finds that the mother, being caught with the child in the father’s apartment, told the society worker that she wanted to work things out with the father and was not concerned about the safety of the child. Faced with that circumstance, the Society apprehended the child.

[150] Over the next few months, the mother asserted that she now understands that the relationship with the father was toxic, that he had done awful things to her, and that the relationship was over and the father would have to deal with personal issues such as anger and alcohol abuse. Based on that evidence, the court returned the child to the mother under a supervision order with very specific conditions. After the April 27, 2015 court order the Society received reports that the mother attended the father’s home on two occasions and once at his workplace. On May 22, 2015, the mother admitted to the worker that she had given the father her new address. The Society then brought a motion to vary the court order which was granted on consent on May 27, 2015.

[151] The court finds that despite all the warnings as to the dysfunctionality of the party’s relationship, the mother continued and still continues to pursue a relationship with the father to the detriment of her child. One of the mother’s hopes is that she reconcile with the father. She admitted that she and the father arrived at the trial together, sat together outside the courtroom and had lunch together during the trial.

[152] The court finds that the mother’s continuation of a relationship with the father shows a dramatic lack of insight into their relationship and puts the child at risk.

[153] The mother is not a credible witness. She signed an affidavit on March 16, 2016 then denied the contents about breaking up with the father when the CPW Ms. Umutoni called her. Coupled with the mother’s lack of credibility and her history of lying to the Society’s workers, there is the issue of the mother’s relationship with the child and her ability to parent.

[154] The court accepts the evidence of the Society’s workers on access and finds that during access the mother was unable to set limits on the child, was unable to be aware of potential dangers and that she provided inadequate food for the child.

[155] The court has considered the criteria in section 37 (3) of the CFSA. The court finds that the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs require a parent who has the parenting skills and insight to meet those needs. The court does not find that the mother has those skills and finds that if the child were returned to the mother under a supervision order she would be challenged in dealing with the basic parenting skills to provide the child with a safe environment in which the thrive.

[156] In addition, the court finds that during her testimony the reasons given by the mother as to why the child should be returned to her under her supervision order demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of what this child needs and what she needs to do to protect him from being a victim of domestic violence.

[157] While the court is cognizant of the principle of the CFSA that children should be returned to their parents if possible, the court finds that the child’s development would not be secure in the care of the mother even with a supervision order in place. The mother has consistently shown that she will expose her child to potential risk of domestic violence, she will not adhere to court orders, she will breach her verbal agreements and that she will do what she feels is best despite the potential risks to the child. In comparison, the child’s care has been stabilized in the care of the paternal uncle and his partner.

[158] The court is directed to consider the merits of the various plans. After considering all the evidence, the court finds that the plan advanced by the Society of placing the child with the paternal uncle and his partner is in the child’s best interests. The child is doing well, is meeting his milestones, is happy and is bonded.

[159] Due to the age of the child, the child’s wishes cannot be ascertained.

[160] This child has been in care since February 2015, which is beyond the one year legislative timetable. The parents have been afforded an opportunity to take steps to address the various concerns and to show that they are serious about changing the recent past. However the evidence is to the contrary. Other than the father taking the New Directions program in November 2015 and the father taking the Caring Dads program in March 2016, there have been no efforts made by either parent to address the multitude of issues that were identified by the Society as well as by the assessor in his report.

[161] While the assessor was not prepared to recommend that the child be made a ward of the Crown in his report November 2015, he agreed that Crown wardship was a viable alternative, considering what has transpired since November 2015 where the parents have taken no active measures to deal with the issues raised.

[162] The court is not prepared to take a chance and return the child to the mother with a supervision order. The court has no reason to believe that the mother would comply with the terms of the supervision order, especially with respect to access by the father to the child and by the parties reconciling with the child being present.

[163] The court finds that there is a risk that the child would suffer harm if returned to the mother’s care. If the mother was serious about having her child returned to her, she needed to provide the court with sufficient evidence to convince the court on a balance of probabilities that she was serious about rehabilitating her personal issues and distancing herself from the father. She has not. To the contrary, the evidence shows that, instead of distancing herself from the father, the mother has moved closer to the father.

[164] This lack of commitment by the parents was a factor identified by the assessor as a reason for moving towards Crown wardship. He was clear that if the parents were taking the suggested rehabilitative steps, the situation may be different. However, in the court’s view, this lack of commitment confirms a finding that the best interests of the child require the court to make the child a ward of the Crown for the purposes of adoption.

[165] The Society tried various methods to assist this family. They originally provided assistance through a voluntary agreement. After apprehending the child on February 18, 2015, the Society worked with the mother to re-integrate the child into her home under the terms of a supervision order. Unfortunately the mother breach the terms of the supervision order requiring the Society to intervene. The Society then moved forward with the parent capacity assessment. The assessment was released on November 30, 2015 and, despite the recommendations, the mother pursued none of the required actions to have the child returned to her care.

[166] The court finds the Dr. Worenklein was not biased in favour of the society as alleged by counsel for the mother. The court finds Dr. Worenklein was objective, assisted the parties, followed the proper methodology, and made recommendations which in November 2015 were not in favour of a disposition of Crown wardship. His biggest concern was the commitment priority of the parents. The parents must show insight into the problems that they face and must follow through on dealing with those problems. The Court finds, however, the parents have not followed through on dealing with any of the issues.

[167] The court has considered the decision of Justice Robertson in Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington v. L.T., 2013 ONSC 6512. In that decision the child had been in care for 540 days. At the time of the trial, the child was 2 ½ years of age. The child was well past the one-year statutory allowance. However, in that case there was evidence that the mother had worked very hard to alleviate the concerns of the Society, including finding a daycare place for the child, separating from the father, working cooperative with the Society and the community service providers to acquire basic skills, having a positive parenting capacity assessment that concluded that she was child focused, and that her access had increased to overnight. The Court finds that the circumstances in this case are very different.

[168] The Society’s plan is in the child’s best interest. The child has been in the care of the paternal uncle and his partner since February 18, 2015. The child has three half siblings in that household. The evidence is that he is doing well and meeting all of his milestones. There is no risk of domestic violence or any risk of harm to the child.

Access

[169] Both parents amended their plans of care at the trial management conference seeking access to the child in the event the child was made a ward of the Crown. The Society, subsequent to the trial management conference, investigated the request and at the beginning of this trial conceded that the parents should have access to the child.

[170] The issue is the duration and frequency of access. The paternal uncle testified that with the three children that the father had with a previous partner, the access is worked out between himself and his brother. There is no formal court order and there is no formal procedure followed. The issue is dealt with on an ad hoc basis which has worked out for both the paternal uncle and the father.

[171] With respect to the mother, there were no specific submissions made by counsel for the mother. Counsel for the Society recommended that the mother have six access visits per year which would include Easter, her birthday, the child’s birthday and Christmas. The location and duration of the access was to be arranged between the mother and the paternal uncle.

Disposition

[172] After weighing all of the evidence including the plans of care, the court concludes that the best interests of B. born […], 2013 that he be made a ward of the Crown for the purpose of adoption.

[173] With respect to the father’s access, the court orders the father will have access as agreed to between him and the paternal uncle.

[174] With respect to the mother’s access, this court orders that the mother will have six access visits per year to include Easter, her birthday, the child’s birthday and Christmas. The location and duration of said access to be arranged between the mother and the paternal uncle.

Shelston J.

Released: July 11, 2016