NEWMARKET COURT FILE NO.: FC-07-026374-03 FC-07-026374-04 DATE: 20160728

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES FOR YORK REGION Applicant – and – M.F., J.F.2 and R.C. Respondents

Counsel: Alison Moonsie-Mohan, for the Applicant Danielle Cunningham, for M.F. Kevin D. Zaldin, for R.C.

HEARD: June 21, 2016

RULING ON MOTIONS

DOUGLAS, J.

Overview and Applicable Tests

[1] Before me are three motions brought by Children and Family Services for York Region (hereinafter “CFS” or “Society”); and one by R.C. (hereinafter “Mr. R.C.”).

[2] The CFS motions seek:

a. Regarding the child J.F.1 born […], 2015, an order pursuant to s.51(2)(d) of the Child and Family Services Act (hereinafter the “Act”) that J.F.1 be placed in the temporary care and custody of CFS and that access to the child pursuant to s.51(5) of the Act be at the discretion of the society and supervised by the society or its designate at its discretion.

b. Regarding the children S.C. born […], 2005, S.L.F., born […], 2009 and P.C. born […], 2013 an order that they be placed in the temporary care and custody of CFS subject to access in the discretion of the society and supervised by the society or its designate at its discretion.

[3] Regarding Mr. R.C.’s motion, he seeks the following relief:

a. An order allowing all four children to remain in Ms. M.F.’s care pending a gradual transition for S.C. and P.C. to his primary care.

b. Access with S.C. on Saturdays and S.L.F. and P.C. on Sundays for a period of four weeks. Access with S.C. from Friday to Saturday and S.L.F. and P.C. from Saturday to Sunday.

c. Removal of Mr. Ron Crocker as the family support worker.

[4] Although these motions are brought in separate proceedings, as they relate to the same family constellation and rely upon the same evidence I am combining my Reasons for Decision in both motions into this single document for ease of reference.

[5] J.F.1 is the subject of a child protection application under the Act. The test is set out in s.51(3) of the Act which requires that the court not make an order sought by CFS “unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order” leaving J.F.1 in her mother’s care either without conditions or subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate.

[6] The children S.C., S.L.F. and P.C. come before me in the context of a status review and being the subject of a temporary order dated November 6, 2015 pursuant to which these children were placed in the temporary care and custody of their mother M.F. subject to supervision by CFS and conditions as follows:

a. Ms. M.F. shall permit D.B. to attend at her residence during the children’s waking hours.

b. Ms. D.B. shall attend at Ms. M.F.’s home during the children’s waking hours to ensure their safety and she shall immediately advise the society of any safety or protection concerns including but not limited to Mr. R.C. attending the home.

c. Ms. D.B. shall accompany Ms. M.F. when Ms. M.F. has to transport S.C. by car.

d. Ms. M.F. shall follow through with all recommendations made by the Fit worker Mr. Boyd-Learn and with Blue Hills Child and Family Services.

e. Ms. M.F. shall cooperate with the Society’s access plan.

f. Ms. M.F. shall cooperate with weekly visits from the Society’s family services working and Fit Worker, sign all consent for them to be assessed; and

g. Ms. M.F. shall advise of any third parties on whom she can depend to support her plan and shall sign all consents for them to be assessed. A parenting capacity assessment was ordered as well regarding Mr. R.C. and Ms. M.F. to be conducted by Dr. Oren Amitay.

[7] By further order on November 6, 2015 J.F.1 was placed in Ms. M.F.’s temporary care and custody subject to the same terms and conditions outlined above regarding the three older children.

[8] On December 10, 2015 the order of November 6, 2015 was varied as follows:

a. Ms. D.B. shall attend at Ms. M.F.’s home during the children’s waking hours a minimum of three times a week to ensure their safety and she shall immediately advise the society of any safety or protection concerns including by not limited to Mr. R.C. attending the home.

b. Ms. D.B. shall accompany Ms. M.F. in transporting S.C. at Ms. M.F.’s discretion.

[9] The test applicable to the CFS motion regarding S.C., S.L.F. and P.C. is set out in s.64(8) of the Act, pursuant to which “…the child shall remain in the care and custody of the person or society having charge of the child until the application is disposed of, unless the court is satisfied that the child’s best interests require a change in the child’s care and custody.”

[10] In CAS Algoma v. SS, 2010 ONCJ 332, [2010] O.J. 3507 (ONT SCJ), Kukurin, J. described the test that the Society was required to meet to change a child’s status under s.64(8) in the following terms:

Subsection 64(8) does not create a presumption in favour of whomever has care and custody of a child. It goes further than a presumption. The use of the words “shall remain” implies that the status quo must remain in effect. The only exception is where the court is satisfied that best interests of the child require a change in that status quo. In my view the use of the word “require” in this provision is not accidental. “Require” is a fairly strong word. It denotes considerably more than being merely desirable. It carries the connotation of necessity or obligation. Moreover, the criterion for determining that there is a requirement for a change is the best interests of the child. Whenever this test is to be applied under the statute, the person making the determination must take a number of listed considerations into account.…In the present case, the evidence of the society is persuasive but does not reach the level of satisfying me that the change it seeks is required, and that it is required in the best interests of the children.

[11] In Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. L(J), 2008 ONCJ 527, [2008] O.J. 4270 (ONT SCJ) Thibodeau, J., also describes a more stringent test than merely having the moving party meet the usual balance of probabilities threshold to change the status of the child:

25: For the mother and Society to be successful in this temporary order hearing, the best interests of the child must require a change in the care of the child. Otherwise, the kin respondents would be entitled to have the status quo maintained through an order keeping the child in the custody and care of the Society.

26: The applicant must demonstrate a likelihood of success in the main status review hearing to change the status quo. Here, on the basis of the change in the mother’s parenting circumstances looked at from the point of view of the philosophy and purposes set out in the Act, the Society and the mother have satisfied this requirement.

27: The proper test to determine the issue on a temporary basis is the status review “best interests” test – now ss. 64(8) previously ss. 64(10) – on a temporary basis and not the risk of harm test for other temporary orders before a final order of substantial risk and concomitant least intrusive order pursuant to s.51. To determine otherwise appears to be appealable error…

28: The result is a less onerous test for the maintenance of the status quo under ss. 64(8) than under s.51(3) and under ss.51(2) order accordingly. Both the pretrial temporary order section and the status review temporary order section of the Act materially restrict the general “best interests” test, but to opposite effect in terms of where the child will reside on a temporary basis.

[12] In Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. E.S.M and M.M., 2010 ONSC 7182, Annis, J., concluded that a “temporary change in care and custody from the mother to the society is required pursuant to ss.64(8) where I am persuaded on the balance of probabilities, based on properly admissible evidence as of the moment of the hearing that it is in the children’s best interests to do so as determined by applying the circumstances that I deem relevant from those described in ss.37(3).”

Background

[13] M.F. is the mother of all four children who are the subjects of these motions. They are currently in her care. The children have three half siblings, namely K.F., B.W. and C.W.. A supervision order is in place regarding K.F.. B.W. and C.W. are beyond the time lines for which the Society is mandated and are therefore not subject to any proceedings before the court.

[14] Mr. R.C. is the father of S.C., S.L.F., P.C. and J.F.1.

[15] Mr. R.C.’s access to all of the children is supervised by the Family Intervention Team Worker Mr. Boyd-Learn.

[16] Prior to November 2015 S.L.F. and J.F.1 lived with Ms. M.F. along with Ms. M.F.’s older children K.F. and B.W.. P.C. and S.C. lived with Mr. R.C. but they moved to Ms. M.F.’s residence on November 2, 2015 when Mr. R.C. was charged with assault regarding S.C..

[17] The family has extensive history of child welfare involvement and CFS concerns arise from the parenting patterns Ms. M.F. and Mr. R.C. have allegedly demonstrated throughout the years of being parents. Those concerns have included:

a. Ms. M.F.’s assaultive behaviour toward her partners;

b. excessive physical discipline;

c. inadequate supervision of the children;

d. Ms. M.F.’s excessive alcohol consumption (although she is now approximately two years sober);

e. Mr. R.C.’s charge of assaulting S.C. by throwing a flashlight at her;

f. exposure to adult conflict.

[18] When the matter was before the court on November 6, 2015 CFS was concerned about Ms. M.F.’s ability to manage all of her children without support from Mr. R.C..

[19] CFS concerns also including parentification of K.F. upon whom it is clear Ms. M.F. has relied to assist in parenting the children. K.F. is twelve. During a visit in late November 2015 K.F. was observed yelling at Ms. M.F. that she did not want to watch the kids all the time.

[20] A safety plan was devised such that Ms. M.F.’s foster sister D.B. would attend the F. residence during the children’s waking hours and advise the Society of any protection concerns.

[21] Later in November 2015 Ms. D.B. advised that she would not be able to help Ms. M.F. on an ongoing basis. Ms. M.F. proposed to CFS that S.C. be brought into the society’s care.

The Children

[22] S.C. has behavioural issues and attends the day treatment program at Blue Hills Child and Family Centre.

[23] S.C. had been diagnosed with ADHD and ODD. She had been prescribed medication in this respect.

[24] S.C. is attending the Little Red School House Daycare.

[25] Shoberry Daycare confirmed that S.C. was no longer welcome to attend due to her ongoing aggressive behaviour. This behaviour included pulling a staff member’s hair and punching staff when she was told to stop grabbing her brother as she was hurting him.

[26] Ms. M.F. secured a daycare spot at St. Bernadette’s Daycare and a spot for S.C. at The Little Red Schoolhouse Daycare.

[27] S.C. began having visits with Mr. R.C. in December 2015, supervised by Mr. Boyd-Learn.

[28] During an unannounced home visit in December 2015 Ms. M.F. did not appear too stressed out, although S.C. continued to be aggressive. During a visit with S.C. she showed mild bruising injuries which she attributed to fighting with K.F. and B.W..

[29] S.C. was on the waitlist for counselling at Georgina Family Life Centre. She has started art therapy. Her aggressive behaviours continue both at home and at school. She continued to be placed in holding restraints on a regular basis and at times refused to get into her taxi after school to be transported to daycare.

[30] S.C. told the CFS Worker that she hoped to return to live with her father as he did more things with her than Ms. M.F..

[31] In January 2016 during a meeting attended by Ms. D.B., public health nurses, Mr. Boyd-Learn, Ms. M.F. and Samantha Cohen from Blue Hills, Ms. Cohen noted an increase in emotional breakdowns by S.C. since returning to live with Ms. M.F.. Ms. Cohen stated that Ms. M.F. had expressed feelings that S.C. needed to be out of the home long term.

[32] Ms. M.F. denied having made the comments to Ms. Cohen and confirmed that she wanted S.C. to remain at home. She agreed that S.C. has high needs and that she wondered about the possibility of her getting into a residential placement setting.

[33] During the meeting it was agreed that Ms. M.F. was able to meet the instrumental physical needs of all of her children and it was noted that she did ask for adult support to assist her with the other children.

[34] Ms. M.F. did not register for any of the workshops suggested to her by Ms. Cohen.

[35] On March 1, 2016 S.C. did not want to return home after school as the previous night she had gotten into a fight with B.W. when B.W. choked her and pulled her hair. During a subsequent meeting with S.C. she did not repeat the allegation of choking but described an argument with B.W. during which B.W. grabbed her shirt after S.C. kicked at her. During this meeting all of the children appeared clean and well groomed.

[36] Two days later police were called to the F. residence following a call from K.F. reporting that S.C. had been throwing things at her. The police were able to calm the children down. According to the police officer Ms. M.F. advised that she was “at her wits end and she did not know how to control her children’s behaviour”.

[37] During a systems meeting on March 30, 2016 Blue Hills staff offered to do some repair work between Mr. R.C. and S.C.; however, Mr. R.C. had not returned calls about this. It was confirmed that Ms. M.F. had not engaged in any of the workshops offered by Blue Hills. Although S.C. was on par academically with her peers she had some learning disabilities in the areas of language and oral comprehension. Blue Hills confirmed that S.C. was eligible to attend their summer program but transportation was required.

[38] Shortly thereafter it was confirmed that Ms. M.F. did not initiate programming for S.C. for the summer program. Ms. M.F. asserted that she had returned messages from Blue Hills but Blue Hills confirmed that no messages had been received from her regarding summer programming.

[39] S.L.F. attends Deer Park Public School in Keswick.

[40] S.L.F.’s behaviours have also been escalating and have been described as defiant and avoidant by school staff.

[41] Ms. M.F. had not notified S.L.F.’s school that S.L.F. had been diagnosed with ADD and that she had been prescribed medication for such. S.L.F. had been acting out at school and she would be suspended the next time she hurt another student. The Principal at S.L.F.’s school tried to address her concerns with Ms. M.F. but Ms. M.F. did not return her calls. S.L.F.’s behaviours have become so concerning at school that there was some discussion amongst staff that she would benefit from more intensive support. S.L.F. was unable to self-regulate and her academics were suffering, demonstrated by her reading below the senior-kindergarten level.

[42] P.C. attended at Shoberry Child Care Centre in Sutton, as did S.C. when her day at Blue Hills concluded. S.C. was asked to leave Shoberry in December 2015 following several incidents of escalating aggression displayed by S.C..

[43] P.C. is currently attending St. Bernadette’s Child Care Centre.

[44] A visit with P.C. at his daycare on April 6, 2016 confirmed that he was clean and well groomed with language skills on par with his peers. P.C. was quick to become aggressive with his hands and required regular redirection.

[45] During a home visit in late February 2016 J.F.1 was observed to be happy and alert. P.C. was visited at his daycare and he appeared healthy and clean.

CFS Position

[46] Once the Parenting Capacity Assessments (“PCAs”) were released on April 18, 2016, CFS understood that both parents needed significant, individual therapeutic services to address their lack of self-awareness regarding their own issues that impede their positive parenting. Also if the children continued in that environment they would continue to suffer harm and exhibit behaviours reflecting lack of security that would impact other relationships in the world such as school, with peers, etc.

[47] On April 21, 2016 it was learned that Ms. M.F. had allowed K.F. and her friend to take S.C. and S.L.F. to a beach on the weekend to go swimming. When concern was expressed to Ms. M.F. that the water would have been freezing and that K.F. and her friend supervising this activity was completely unacceptable, Ms. M.F. was unable to see the dangers of the situation and was quite defensive.

[48] In May 2016 CFS concluded that sustainable positive change was not likely given the current circumstances. It was believed that given the parents’ lack of self-awareness and apparent lack of consideration for parental actions upon the children and considering the amount of resources that had been directed to this family there was no option left to the Society but to proceed with its motion to bring the children into care. It was determined that S.C. and P.C. would be placed in the same home and S.L.F. and J.F.1 would be placed together. Clinically given the relationship between S.C. and S.L.F. it was best to have them in separate homes in order to service them properly. The parents would first need to take ownership of the issues as outlined in Dr. Amitay’s reports before therapy can be effective.

Parenting Capacity Assessments re: M.F. and R.C.

[49] The Parenting Capacity Assessment (hereinafter “PCA”) regarding Ms. M.F. includes the following observations:

a. When K.F. was approximately five years old (about seven years ago) Ms. M.F. pleaded guilty to assaulting a four year old boy. Ms. M.F. indicated she did not remember the details but the incident apparently involved correction of someone else’s child during a time when she was drinking.

b. She acknowledged in the past having trouble getting the children to school on time and their absenteeism.

c. Ms. M.F. acknowledged that she has struggled with alcohol and that there has been a lot of history of adult conflict, relationships with abusive partners and that the abuse was sometimes mutual. When she was drinking she could became violent and she made “a lot of irrational decisions”.

d. Ms. M.F. described an incident in March 2014 where Mr. R.C. gave S.C. “a fat lip when he pushed a table into her face”. Also in March 2014 P.C. was taken to the hospital after P.C. stopped breathing because Mr. R.C. left him alone in a vehicle with S.C..

e. Ms. M.F. was not engaged at Blue Hills and seemed overly concerned about how much time Mr. R.C. was spending with female staff there. She was not interested in working with a particular staff member at Blue Hills. Ms. M.F. indicated it was because she felt left out of scheduling meetings. Ms. M.F. had not in fact read the Blue Hills report regarding S.C. and had only briefly reviewed the recommendations contained therein. She did not feel that she needed to read the report.

f. Ms. M.F. and Mr. R.C. were not on talking terms following J.F.1’s birth but they were trying to parent the children together and were trying to make decisions together sometimes.

g. Regarding cognitive/intellectual functioning testing, Ms. M.F.’s performance suggests that she has more challenges than most adults in managing her everyday affairs due to limitations in the areas of cognitive functioning. She displayed very low general knowledge and awareness of or concern for social norms that help one live harmoniously with others. She appears to be reasonably capable of thinking in a flexible and abstract manner which is critical for integrating, modifying and applying new information in situations that are different from the original context in which it was originally learned. She is about as capable as most adults her age of attending to her environment and quickly discerning relevant from irrelevant information.

h. The self-report testing results and Ms. M.F.’s personal history suggest that she is more susceptible than most people to become distressed, stressed out or overwhelmed while taking care of children. She does not feel understood or supported by various people in her life and is thus not usually inclined to seek their help in difficult and frustrating circumstances. At such times, she is at increased risk for reacting inappropriately through verbal, emotional or possibly even physical means.

i. In the Parent Awareness Skills survey, Ms. M.F. demonstrated more difficulty than average parents in demonstrating that she understood the child care issues presented and that she would be able to enact effective parenting strategies for children of different ages. Some of her solutions were inadequate because she failed to mention or to deal with key aspects of the situation. She failed to discuss reasonable discipline or punishment for the children’s transgressions and was only partially successful in explaining the practical, social or moral reasons for not engaging in such behaviours. She was less successful than most parents in conveying how she would address children’s emotional, psychological or interpersonal needs. As a result of these deficits she is expected to have considerable difficulty discussing mildly challenging issues with younger or older children in an effective and age appropriate manner, despite her apparent wiliness to do so. Despite these deficiencies Ms. M.F. was usually able to recognize that certain traits and behaviours described in scenarios could be signs of medical, neurological, psychological or emotional problems and thus required consults with doctors, teachers or other relevant professionals. Overall, Ms. M.F.’s responses suggested that she can exhibit “good enough parenting” under highly favourable conditions. That is, the extensive guidance and support she received when completing this test did frequently help her improve on her answers. On her own, especially in situations requiring a spontaneous or otherwise relatively quick response, Ms. M.F. would likely find it difficult to manage challenging matters adaptively.

j. She is encouraged to seek out further parenting education or training to help improve on her child rearing deficiencies. Although her overall borderline intelligence would ordinarily mean that she must work considerably harder than most adults in order to benefit from such programming, her low average verbal intelligence suggests that moderate effort should enable her to comprehend, to remember and to apply what she learns reasonably well.

k. Home observations confirmed that the house was clean, tidy and spacious in February 2016.

l. This is a complex case involving two parents who have not yet demonstrated the ability to consistently and reliably rise above their own hurt, resentment, animosity and other negative feelings toward each other for the sake of their children. On the one hand, all four of the youngest children fortunately live with their mother as opposed to residing in foster care, and they have occasional access to their father (aside from J.F.1). On the other hand Ms. M.F. is apparently having difficulty managing six children on her own – even if the two oldest daughters do help out significantly – and Mr. R.C. is not able to see S.C., S.L.F. or P.C. without supervision. In other words, the ideal outcome for the present PCA would be for Ms. M.F. and Mr. R.C. to co-parent in such a way that they worked together to ensure that they could adequately meet each of the children’s changing and or special developmental, medical, academic, psychological, emotional, interpersonal and social needs.

m. Ms. M.F.’s capacity to provide a healthy home environment and up-bringing for her children is impeded by her low self-esteem and personal insecurities, which help make her extremely resistant or reluctant to acknowledge her role in her children’s psychological, emotional and behavioural difficulties. Instead, she is inclined to deflect blame onto others particularly Mr. R.C.. Although she has admitted that her alcohol use/abuse contributed to these issues as well, she can minimize or distance herself emotionally from responsibility in that regard by noting that she no longer drinks. Ms. M.F.’s failure to sufficiently recognize or admit to her deficits as an individual and as a parent can prevent her from taking the necessary steps to adequately address the child protection concerns in her family.

n. Ms. M.F. is prone to satisfying her own needs or making other decisions without adequately considering the potential impact of her actions on her children. An example is her failure to read the Blue Hills report regarding S.C.. Ms. M.F. has allowed her own personal feelings regarding Blue Hill staff to prevent her from acting in S.C.’s best interests.

o. Ms. M.F.’s test data further suggests that she has significant difficulty coping adaptively with stress, fear, impulse control and day to day struggles on a consistent basis.

p. Ms. M.F. is limited somewhat by her below average intelligence. However, even though her overall IQ score fell on the cusp of the borderline and low average range, her more specific results revealed several cognitive strengths that can enable her to learn, to understand and to transfer learning relatively well. In order for this to occur she must evince sufficient maturity and motivation to exert considerable effort over extended periods of time.

q. Ms. M.F. did demonstrate a number of parenting strengths during her observed visit for the PCA. She did manage a few difficult situations pretty well. Even when all of the children were home together, the busy atmosphere was certainly not “chaotic” as has been apparently observed by the family’s Fit Worker; there were no signs of an insecure attachment between Ms. M.F. and her two youngest children. Although S.L.F. spent some time in conflict with her mother, the bond between them seemed reasonably strong and did not raise concerns about an unhealthy attachment. S.C. seemed the least close with Ms. M.F. from among the four youngest children, but she did not display overt hostility toward her mother. She did seem quite uncomfortable and perhaps somewhat resentful toward her mother while either of them was talking about Mr. R.C..

r. When asked about the role of her two eldest daughters, including the possibility that K.F. was becoming or had become parentified, Ms. M.F. denied that this had happened. She explained that she expected the older siblings to help out with the younger ones and she also spoke about how much K.F. loves taking care of children. It is entirely reasonable to expect older children to help out with younger siblings and to expect all children to contribute to the maintenance of the home, as long as these expectations are reasonable and age appropriate.

s. It is likely that there is merit to concerns regarding K.F.. She is being placed in a very stressful position in that she is both a sister to her younger siblings but also their de facto caregiver. It cannot be stressed enough that S.L.F. and especially S.C. have very special needs and extremely challenging behaviours, and S.C. is only three years K.F.’s junior. A child of K.F.’s age is expected to have great difficulty trying to navigate through such conflicting roles.

t. Ms. M.F.’s personal, interpersonal and parenting flaws have contributed to deficits in S.C. and S.L.F.’s own functioning in several areas of their lives. Mr. R.C. has played a role as well in the development, maintenance and exacerbation of numerous concerns regarding the children who have resided with him and with their mother. Ms. M.F. is to be commended for her determination and abstaining from alcohol for the past two years. She deserves further recognition for “stepping up” since November 2015 when she suddenly had to resume fulltime care of S.C. and P.C. in addition to a new baby and three other children in the home. Over that same period of time she also lost the temporary care giving relief Mr. R.C. had provided her prior to his assault charge.

u. The onus is on Ms. M.F. to fully acknowledge the truth of all of the preceding statements not only those that are favourable to her and or reduce her culpability in her family’s problems. Otherwise, there is little reason to expect any meaningful and lasting improvements in her capacity to be a long term primary caregiver for her children. This is because one of the oldest and most fundamental axioms in psychology and psychotherapy is that one cannot make changes in oneself without first recognizing and admitting what needs to be changed.

v. In addition to parenting knowledge and skills, participants in a PCA are expected to consistently demonstrate at least two, but preferably three of the following traits and behaviours:

i. Sufficient insight into their issues and other relevant factors that have contributed to their involvement with CFS;

ii. Good judgment in order to care for, protect and raise their children and to put the children’s needs before their own; and

iii. The ability to work honestly and cooperatively with CFS and any other people or organizations involved in the welfare of the children, in order to improve on the issues that lead to the society’s involvement with the family.

w. Ms. M.F.’s limited insight and judgment (and to a lesser degree, ability to work cooperatively with others) correlate with many of the concerns outlined. Perhaps the greatest change she needs to make with respect to these issues is her apparent “rivalry” with Mr. R.C., which is very immature, petty, selfish, short sighted, self-destructive and harmful to her children. She must stop focusing on Mr. R.C. and instead rise above any hurt, anger, resentment or other negative feelings she might harbour toward him (and others) so that she can accept sufficient responsibility for her and her family’s difficulties and then commit herself to doing everything possible to make up for and move forward from the hardships that she has put her children through.

x. Both parents need to recognize that if they are unable to work far more civilly and cooperatively with each other the children will continue to suffer and the family can expect the society to remain in their lives for many years to come. In addition, there is a high probability that one or more of their children will have their lives disrupted significantly (again) due to being removed from their parent’s homes – for instance if they are apprehended and placed in foster care, required to reside in a group home/treatment facility, hospitalized for severe mental health issues or even incarcerated via the youth correctional system.

y. Ms. M.F. should engage fully with her Fit Worker, staff at Blue Hills, parenting experts or others who provide such programming and anyone else who can help her learn more about S.L.F. and especially about S.C.’s special needs and various challenges. She needs to learn how to respond to and manage these issues far better then she has done thus far. This includes setting clearer and more adaptive boundaries with all of the children in order to reduce the kind of conflict that recently led to repeated calls to the police. B.W. and particularly K.F. should receive some form of counseling or at least support from relevant professional or community services that can help ensure that any assistance they provide their mother at home is not excessive or otherwise inappropriate. They cannot be made to feel that they are responsible for their younger siblings or even their mother’s wellbeing beyond what is typically expected from children their age. None of Ms. M.F.’s children should become partentified and if any of them is – namely K.F. – they need help in transitioning effectively out of that role in a healthy manner.

z. An integral part of the aforementioned process is for Ms. M.F. to recognize that it is her responsibility to find a way to raise five young children – some with special needs – on her own, or possibly in conjunction with Mr. R.C.. The alternative is for one or more of these children to be removed from her care, which would obviously not be fair to them. She cannot continue to be evasive or to provide vague answers when asked how she would manage her family if B.W. and or K.F. were not living with her. Ms. M.F. is advised to appreciate that continued failure to provide any concrete and feasible plan of care that does not rely excessively on B.W. or K.F. can be construed as a predictor of her inability to be her children’s long term primary caregiver.

aa. Ideally, Ms. M.F. and her children (excluding P.C. and J.F.1 until they are older) would engage in family therapy so that all of them can be shown better ways of working together to learn to express themselves, their needs and expectations in a more adaptive manner, especially with respect to conflict resolution. They also need to learn how to establish and maintain healthy boundaries and a respectful relationship within their home. Ms. M.F. must be shown the proper way to listen, to acknowledge, to accept, to validate, to address and to make amends for every complaint and concern raised by her children, no matter how uncomfortable or painful such a process may be.

bb. One way for Ms. M.F. to achieve such goals would be to regularly attend a twelve step program for alcohol/substance abuse or similar type of programming that she would not have to pay for (or she would pay a nominal fee).

cc. It cannot be emphasised enough that Ms. M.F. should definitely participate in family therapy/counselling. If she and Mr. R.C. can truly understand the purpose of the present assessment – namely, to server their children’s best interests, they may be able to put aside their differences and recognize the benefit of including him in family treatment with some of the children. Alternatively, they might recognize the benefit of resuming couples counselling for the sake of their children, even if they are no longer in a romantic relationship.

[50] The PCA with respect to Mr. R.C. includes the following observations:

a. Regarding S.C.’s difficulties at school, Mr. R.C. believed that she had “minor issues” such as “not listening, normal kids’ stuff.” He thought she was “fine” and did not have any idea as to what was going on.

b. He has had very little contact with J.F.1 and was mistaken regarding her date of birth.

c. Mr. R.C. reported that he had no police involvement until he was charged with assaulting S.C. in November 2015. He described the incident indicating S.C. and S.L.F. were fighting with each other. S.C. hit S.L.F.. He threw a flashlight at the wall but part of the flashlight hit S.C. and left a mark on her abdomen.

d. Mr. R.C. acknowledged that the children have had accidents and have been injured while in his care.

e. When Mr. R.C. was arrested he had P.C. and S.C. in his care and had access to S.L.F.. His bail conditions prohibited him from seeing S.C. unsupervised.

f. Regarding cognitive/intellectual functioning, Mr. R.C. was in the low average range at the sixteenth percentile. The test results suggest that Mr. R.C. has a little more difficulty than most people in dealing with particular aspects of his daily affairs due to deficiencies in the areas of cognitive functioning. He demonstrated low general knowledge and awareness of or concern for social norms that help one live harmoniously with others. He also displayed below average capacity to think in a flexible and abstract manner, which is critical for integrating, modifying and applying new information in various situations that are different from the original context in which it was learned. He did give evidence of essentially satisfactory ability to attend to his social environment and to quickly discern relevant from irrelevant information.

g. Mr. R.C. tested with below average emotional intelligence. He is quite limited in his capacity to recognize other people’s moods and other non-verbal cues, to infer or empathize with what they might be thinking and feeling in particular situations and to address their emotional needs effectively. He does not tend to connect with others on an emotionally deep, intimate or mutual rewarding level.

h. Other test results suggest a simplistic way of looking at the world in which little energy is devoted to seeking out or recognizing complex relationships between events. He tends to think about his experience in a highly inflexible manner that results in his clinging rigidly to previously held convictions and firmly resisting any reconsideration of his beliefs in light of new information. He is consequently quite likely to be a closed minded individual who rarely changes his opinion and who seldom entertains the possibility of modifying his perspectives about himself or events in his life. He is likely to have little tolerance for uncertainty and ambiguity, to feel most comfortable and clearly defined in well-structured situations, and to favour simple solutions even to complex problems.

i. With regard to the Parent Awareness Skills survey, parents are expected to do substantially better than Mr. R.C. did. He was frequently unable to demonstrate that he understood the child care issues present in the PAS scenarios or that he would be able to enact effective parenting strategies for children of different ages. A significantly large number of his solutions were inadequate because he failed to mention or deal with key aspects of the situation and/or described interventions that would not address the immediate issue and would not have a lasting positive impact on the children. He was inconsistent in his ability to describe reasonable discipline or punishment for the children’s misdeeds in the relevant scenarios and to explain the practical, social or moral reasons for not engaging in such transgressions. These explanations usually came only after the examiner helped him, and he was not able to convey them as well as competent caregivers typically do. He was mostly unable to recognize that certain situations necessitated consolations with doctors, counsellors, teachers or other relevant professionals; even when he did discuss such assistance, he did not usually realize that certain traits and behaviours described in the scenario could be signs of medical, neurological, psychological or emotional problems. Perhaps his greatest limitation was that often appeared unable to take the children’s perspective and thus repeatedly seemed incapable of appreciating or knowing how to deal with their emotional, psychological or interpersonal needs.

j. Based on Mr. R.C.’s performance on the PAS survey, he might be able to exhibit some elements of “good enough parenting” under highly favourable conditions for certain periods of time; however, there are some serious concerns about his ability to consistently provide a healthy home environment that adequately meets his children’s emotional, psychological and interpersonal needs. He is consequently encouraged to seek out further parenting education or training to help improve on his child rearing deficiencies. His low average intelligence should enable him to benefit from such programming, as long as he is willing and able to invest the necessary time and effort to engage fully for as long as required so that he has a better chance of comprehending, remembering and applying what he learns.

k. Mr. R.C. has thus far failed to satisfy two of the three criteria that typically predict a successful outcome in cases such as this one. Specifically, in addition to parenting knowledge and skills, participants in a PCA are expected to consistently demonstrate at least two, but preferably three, of the following traits and behaviours:

i. Sufficient insight into their issues and other relevant factors that have contributed to their involvement with CFS;

ii. good judgment in order to care for, protect and raise their children and to put the children’s needs before their own; and

iii. the ability to work honestly and cooperatively with CFS and any other people or organizations involved in the welfare of the children, in order to improve on the issues that led to the society’s involvement with the family.

iv. Specifically, Mr. R.C. displays very little insight into the ongoing child protection concerns and has not exhibited sufficient judgment that would suggest that he is able to address these concerns adequately on a long term basis. Although his inability to consistently demonstrate satisfactory involvement in the areas conveyed to and worked on with him by CFS could be construed as failure to work cooperatively with the Society, it seems more accurate to attribute this state of affairs to his extreme mental rigidity and deficits in his personality, psychological, emotional and interpersonal functioning. Given the role Mr. R.C.’s CFS worker played in his arrest, it is understandable that he would have a hard time working cooperatively or even politely with that person.

l. Throwing a flashlight out of anger anywhere near his young child is not appropriate, nor is his sudden pushing of a table in her direction to get her to stop running around, especially since he caused an injury to her face. He needs to recognize that the extremely foul and aggressive language he has used in front of his children and in his direct communications with them in highly inappropriate. He has reportedly said some very offensive and hurtful things to his children and to their mother and siblings in their presence, which can cause them psychological or emotional harm. Although Mr. R.C. believed he had demonstrated improvement in this area the assessor strongly disagrees with such a claim. During observation Mr. R.C. frequently reacted in an overly angry, stern or harsh fashion that was usually disproportionate to what the children had done. Although he would quickly calm down and return to a relatively friendly demeanour, such sudden and exaggerated vacillations in mood and tone can be very disconcerting for the children, especially those with the kinds of vulnerabilities evinced by S.L.F. and S.C.. It appears the Fit Worker had spoken with Mr. R.C. many times about this issue, to no apparent avail.

m. The preceding issues appear to stem in large part from Mr. R.C.’s below average emotional intelligence, lack of empathetic atonement and very low capacity to take his children’s perspective.

n. Another reason for his shortcomings seems to be his mental and psychological rigidity. Based on his lack of progress in his parenting thus far, despite the Fit Worker’s reported efforts, it is questionable whether he has the capacity or motivation to overcome these limitations. If, after reading this report, Mr. R.C. is unable to immediately demonstrate an earnest and consistent effort to make and sustain improvements in the areas highlighted in this PCA and reiterated by his Fit Worker there is little reason to expect him to change in the foreseeable future.

o. One change Mr. R.C. needs to make is his apparent “rivalry” with Ms. M.F., which is selfish, short sighted, self-destructive and harmful to the children. Ms. M.F. appears to be far more caught up in the rivalry and seems to be more immature and petty in their conflicts than he is; nevertheless, he does engage with her and thus contributes to the negative impact on their children. He has in fact become embroiled in extremely immature, hostile and verbally aggressive altercations with Ms. M.F.’s oldest daughter and other family members. He must rise above any hurt, anger, resentment or other negative feelings he might harbour toward Ms. M.F. and others so that he can accept sufficient responsibility for his and his family’s difficulties and then commit himself to doing everything possible to make up for and move forward from the hardships he has put his children through.

p. Both parents need to recognize that, if they are unable to work far more civilly and cooperatively with each other than they have done thus far, the children will continue to suffer and the family can accept the society to remain in their lives for many years to come. In addition, there is a high probability that one or more of their children will have their lives disrupted significantly (again) due to being removed from their parent’s homes for instance if they are apprehended and placed in foster care, required to reside in a group home/treatment facility, hospitalized for severe mental health issues or even incarcerated via the Youth Correctional System.

q. Mr. R.C. should continue to work with his Fit Worker, staff at Blue Hills, parenting experts or others who provide such programming, and anyone else who can help him learn more about S.L.F. and especially S.C.’s special needs and various challenges. He also needs to learn how to respond to and manage these issues far better than he has done thus far. In addition, he requires considerably more training and education with respect to general principles of raising children adaptively.

r. Ideally, Mr. R.C. and S.C. and S.L.F. (and possibly P.C. or J.F.1 when they are older) would engage in family therapy so that all of them could be shown better ways of working together to learn to express themselves, their needs and expectations in a must more adaptive manner, especially with respect to conflict resolution. They also need to learn how to establish and maintain healthy boundaries and a respectful relationship within their home. The children need to be given the opportunity to express their sense of hurt, fear, anger, abandonment, betrayal, resentment and other negative sentiments toward their father and each other in a productive manner.

s. Mr. R.C. must do everything possible to show that his children are his main priority. The children require a stable, calm, accepting, validating and predictable environment in which their emotional, psychological and interpersonal needs are met in a consistent and healthy fashion. Accordingly Mr. R.C. must demonstrate clear willingness to do whatever necessary to try and compensate for his poor judgment, mistakes and failures to date that have caused any mental, psychological, emotional, social, interpersonal and or academic harm to his children.

t. It would be a positive sign for Mr. R.C. to attend anger management classes which could help him learn ways to compensate for his impoverished emotional functioning. This could also help Mr. R.C. improve on his ability to manage stress, fear, impulse control and day to day struggles.

u. Despite Mr. R.C.’s personal, interpersonal and parenting deficits, there were no obvious signs of an insecure attachment between him and P.C.. Although observations confirmed maladaptive interpersonal dynamics, S.L.F. did seem to be quite affectionate and comfortable with her father at times. S.C. also interacted reasonably well with her father throughout much of the visit, however, part of the reason for these relatively positively exchanges is likely that the girls have grown accustom to their father’s interpersonal and parenting style.

v. Mr. R.C. was unaware of the status of his criminal case at the time of the PCA and as a result any recommendations regarding access might be moot depending on the terms and conditions imposed on Mr. R.C. by the court. If he ends up with no legal restrictions, the goal would be to work toward reuniting him with one or more of his children. This process should be enacted in a gradual and graduated manner, for instance first allowing Mr. R.C. unsupervised access with his children (in accord with what he, Ms. M.F. and the children themselves wish, for example P.C. and S.L.F. at one time and S.C. alone at another time) for several hours up to one full day, depending on everyone’s availability and ability to handle the agreed upon duration. If he and the children can manage such arrangements in the community and/or his home without any major incidents for two to eight consecutive visits, they should be able to expand access to include an overnight stay, again for a period of two to eight visits. This wide target range would apply to each level of increase access, thus allowing the family to move through certain stages relatively quickly if doing so is shown to be warranted, while at the same time helping to ensure that they do not progress too quickly, which could have a negative impact on S.C., S.L.F. or P.C.. The Society or some other qualified organization should be present for an hour or more during some or all of these visits in order to evaluate whether Mr. R.C. is making the expected improvements and to continue to help him in this regard where necessary. If the family can continue to demonstrate an ability to adjust reasonably well to the children’s increasing time spent with Mr. R.C., two day visits could transition into four day stays and then complete reintegration for whichever children are chosen to live with their father. This proposed schedule is intended only as an example as the Society or the court will make the ultimate decision on Mr. R.C.’s access to S.C., S.L.F. and P.C..

w. It must also be kept in mind that any potential reunification process would need to be occurring in conjunction with Mr. R.C.’s capacity to address the child protection concerns set up by the Society or the court.

x. It cannot be stressed enough that any type of co-parenting between Mr. R.C. and Ms. M.F. will be unsuccessful if the two of them do not seriously heed and address the concerns raised in this report and conveyed to them by others regarding the extremely unhealthy nature of their relationship and interactions with each other. Both parents need to take full responsibility for the words and the actions they have expressed to and in the presence of their children. Without substantial changes in how the parents conduct themselves, P.C. and J.F.1 should also be considered to be at moderate to high risk for some form of their own challenges. If Mr. R.C. and Ms. M.F. cannot act maturely, responsibly and civilly with each other in order to co-parent their children, they should prepare themselves for ongoing CFS intervention, possibly of a more intrusive nature.

Evidence of FIT Worker Mr. Boyd-Learn:

[51] Some highlights of the evidence of Mr. Boyd-Learn include:

a. On December 9, 2015 he supervised a visit with Mr. R.C. and S.C., their first following Mr. R.C. being charged with assaulting S.C.. Mr. R.C. appeared genuine and appropriate in apologizing to S.C.. The visit went well. In subsequent visits Mr. R.C.’s tone with the children was observed to be harsh and abrupt.

b. Observed visits with Ms. M.F. confirmed that Ms. M.F. had no authority over the children.

c. During a meeting with Ms. Cohen of Blue Hills in January 2016, Ms. Cohen advised that staff noted an increase in emotional breakdowns by S.C. since returning to live with her mother. Ms. Cohen indicated that Ms. M.F. spoke of S.C. needing to be out of the home long term.

d. K.F. and B.W. were observed providing a great deal of support to Ms. M.F. without even being asked. Although the home was clean and there were no identifiable hazards, there was no sense of structure in the home. It was concerning that S.C. was in her room with unlimited access to Netflix for most of Mr. Boyd-Learn’s visit.

e. Further visits with Mr. R.C. and the children confirm his ongoing anger and yelling with the children.

f. During a visit in March 2016 Ms. M.F. disagreed with Mr. Boyd-Learn’s concerns regarding B.W. and K.F. taking on parenting activities. Ms. M.F. described S.C.’s behaviour in the home as “provoking”.

g. During a systems meeting in late March 2016 Blue Hills staff advised that they had offered to do some repair work between Mr. R.C. and S.C.; however, Mr. R.C. had not returned calls about this. Regarding work with Ms. M.F., Blue Hills staff advised that she had not engaged in any of the workshops offered or play therapy.

h. It was agreed that S.C. was approaching a critical stage in her development. She was approaching adolescence. She was on par academically with her peers but had some learning disabilities in the areas of language and oral comprehension. Blue Hills staff indicated that S.C. was not a candidate for day treatment as it was believed that this would cause her to regress. It was also highlighted that treatment programs only worked when the work continued at home. Ms. M.F. only engaged in services at key times, court time, with no follow-up.

i. Blue Hills staff advised that S.C. was eligible to attend for their summer day camp program but that she would require transportation.

j. During a meeting with Ms. M.F. in late March 2016 he spoke with Ms. M.F. about ways in which S.C. could receive the one on one attention from Ms. M.F. that she needed. He had the sense that Ms. M.F. was thinking deeply about the issue. The following day Ms. M.F. seemed dismissive about the prior conversation. She stated that she did not have time to give all of the children one on one attention and that none of them had that kind of attention and turned out okay.

k. In April 2016 Ms. M.F. allowed K.F. and her friend to take S.L.F. and S.C. swimming at the lake. She disagreed with Mr. Boyd-Learn’s expression of concern about this practice. Ms. M.F. stated that she trusted K.F. with the children and she stated several times that she had no problems with the situation. K.F. indicated that she had supervised S.L.F. and S.C. on many occasions by herself and with a friend.

l. After reviewing the PCA a plan was developed for S.C. and P.C. to be placed together and for S.L.F. and J.F.1 to be placed together, for therapeutic access to continue and for the children to have sibling access while the parents address the identified concerns therapeutically so that the children could be safely reintegrated to home.

m. In Mr. Boyd-Learn’s work with Mr. R.C. he was able to get him to acknowledge what was harsh and to respond differently but Mr. R.C. was unable to see the benefit of changing his parenting and to internalize why the change is necessary. Similarly Ms. M.F. was not able to demonstrate any insight or ability to respond to the children’s emotional needs.

Ms. M.F.’s Position and Evidence

[52] It is Ms. M.F.’s position that the CFS motion should be dismissed and thus the children should remain in her care subject to supervision by the Society on a temporary basis.

[53] Ms. M.F.’s evidence is summarized as follows:

a. She is a recipient of ODSP for anxiety and depression. She does not work.

b. She acknowledges that prior to November 2015 her relationship with Mr. R.C. was “volatile, with mutual allegations of poor judgment and/or conduct, adult conflict to which our children were exposed, and often requiring police and or Society intervention.”

c. Since November 2015 her contact with Mr. R.C. has been minimal. They have had no conflict.

d. Prior to November 2015 Mr. R.C. had custody of S.C. and P.C. and she had custody of S.L.F. and J.F.1. She would often call him for support with the children. The access arrangement was quite flexible and somewhat unpredictable. Unexpected requests for a change to the schedule by either party often gave rise to conflict.

e. Going forward she wishes the children in her fulltime custody subject to a slow transition of S.C. and P.C. into Mr. R.C.’s care in accordance with the recommendations of Dr. Amitay at page 25 paragraph 2 of his report.

f. She further proposes that over the course of an initial eight week period she and Mr. R.C. would register for and attend mediation with a view to negotiating a further transition schedule.

g. She proposes access by the children’s father at the discretion of the Society but in accordance with Dr. Amitay’s recommendations; for example, for four weeks, S.C. to Mr. R.C. Saturdays, and P.C. and S.L.F. to Mr. R.C. on Sundays; then, for the next four weeks, S.C. to Mr. R.C. overnight Friday to Saturday, and P.C. and S.L.F. to Mr. R.C. overnight from Saturday to Sunday; and returning matters to court for evaluation in approximately eight weeks-time.

h. She is registered to commence Triple P Parenting on June 21, 2016 for eight weeks. She has explored couples counselling with Family Life Centre in Georgina but has been advised that she cannot participate until Mr. R.C.’s criminal charges are resolved.

i. She no longer has any need or desire to criticize Mr. R.C.. Their relationship is not what it once was. She supports his relationship with the children.

j. She’s prepared to do a number of things outlined at paragraph 22 of her affidavit including demonstrating cooperation with the Society, access to the children by the Society, protecting the children from adult conflict, participating in Alcoholics Anonymous and following the service plan developed by Blue Hills.

k. B.W. cares for the children about five hours per week. B.W. has agreed to participate in family counselling. Ms. M.F. and B.W. are wait listed with the Family Health Centre of Georgina.

l. Regarding K.F. and the beach incident Ms. M.F. says she now appreciates that she could have handled the situation differently and that she “would likely have gone along if possible.”

m. K.F. on her own recently started a “reward chart” for the younger children.

n. The attendance profile for K.F. for the period October 2015 to May 24, 2016 confirms 37 incidents of “un-notified late”, eight incidents of “notified late”, sixteen incidents of “parent withdrawal”, and fourteen incidents of “medical appointment” or “illness/medical reason”.

o. She acknowledges that prior to the children being in her care fulltime bedtimes were particularly difficult with S.C. staying overnight. S.C.’s behaviour was very challenging and difficult to manage, causing conflict with her siblings.

p. Shortly after the children were all placed in Ms. M.F.’s care she discussed with CFS the prospect of S.C. going into foster care. The older children had spoken about S.C. being put in foster care as well. Lately they have been more inclusive of S.C., who has behaved more cooperatively and appropriately.

q. She spends one on one time with S.C. on Wednesdays. They go to art therapy and counselling. When counselling is complete she would like S.C. to continue counselling.

r. At no time did she want S.C. to be anywhere but home, unless it was in S.C.’s best interest to be in care and/or residential treatment.

s. Contrary to the allegations of CFS, Ms. M.F. completed all necessary documentation for S.C. to attend camp for the period July 11 to 29, 2016, as recommended by Blue Hills.

t. S.C. is registered at Deer Park Public School for September 2016 as she has improved and is returning to main stream school.

u. Both S.L.F. and S.C. were waitlisted for the Disruptive Behaviours Clinic at South Lake Hospital last December and are approaching the end of the waitlist.

v. Regarding S.L.F., there was an incident about a year and a half ago where S.L.F. threatened K.F. with a knife. Nothing similar has happened since.

w. When CFS encouraged Ms. M.F. to advise the school of S.L.F.’s ADD diagnosis she did so and then learned that the school could offer supports for a child with S.L.F.’s challenges.

x. Regarding P.C., she has spoken with Ms. Cohen regarding the Blue Hills play therapy program but could not confirm a time that worked. She remains interested but she is already committed to many programs. She must be sensitive to her financial means with babysitters and not overburdening K.F. and B.W..

y. P.C. attends St. Bernadette’s Children’s Daycare Centre. A report confirms his favourable progress.

z. P.C. is enrolled in speech therapy commencing in July for six weeks.

aa. J.F.1 is not especially familiar with Mr. R.C. however she supports integration into visits with the other children as she matures.

bb. Regarding the PCA she believes that she has come a long way since early 2015 and that her children’s stability is proof of progress.

cc. She acknowledges that she has modelled disrespectful behaviours and temper. She has spoken ill of the children’s father in their presence or to them directly and she has thrown things. She has not controlled her tone or volume. She allowed herself to continue in a conflictual relationship with Mr. R.C. and Mr. J.F.2 before him. She allowed her addiction to alcohol to take priority over her children and their needs. She accepts that these choices were hers and that these behaviours must change. She is determined to address the Society’s concerns and keep her family together.

dd. When being assessed at Blue Hills, S.C. needed to attend Blue Hills for eight consecutive weeks for eight hours. She was solely responsible for ensuring S.C.’s attendance. She found alternate care for the other children and funded the costs of the transportation.

ee. She is mindful that B.W. and K.F. need time to be normal teenagers, unburdened by childcare.

ff. She does not only engage services at key times as alleged by CFS.

gg. S.L.F. and S.C. see their pediatrician for their ADHD/ODD approximately every three months.

hh. Ms. M.F. remains under the care of her psychiatrist who she sees every other month. She suffers from major depression associated with severe anxiety. She does not take her medication while she is breastfeeding J.F.1. She has been substance free since March 2014.

ii. She completed a six week work shop in June 2014 (Living a Healthy Life with Chronic Conditions) through the South Lake Regional Health Centre.

jj. She has completed four sessions with the “Moms to Kids” program with the Addiction Services of York Region.

kk. She participated in the SCRAM Alcohol Monitoring Program from April 2014 until July 2014.

ll. She attended Alcoholics Anonymous from spring 2014 until April 2015. She wishes to return to regular attendance at meetings and intends to do so once J.F.1 can be left in daycare or with a neighbour. She has maintained contact with her sponsor.

mm. Regarding developing her parenting skills, she completed the Healthy Babies Healthy Children program from June 2013 to January 2014. She is waitlisted to participate with J.F.1 in September 2016.

nn. In early 2014 she attended weekly workshops with Family and Schools Together Canada with S.L.F., S.C., P.C. and K.F.. If offered she would again take the children.

oo. She is registered for the Triple P Parenting program commencing June 21, 2016.

Mr. R.C.’s Position and Evidence

[54] The evidence of Mr. R.C. includes:

a. When P.C. was apprehended by the society in January 2014 both S.C. and S.L.F. were placed in his care.

b. In February 2014 P.C. was placed in Mr. R.C.’s care.

c. In February 2015 S.L.F. came into Ms. M.F.’s primary care and S.C. and P.C. remained with Mr. R.C..

d. Following court in October 2015 it was anticipated the parties would participate in mediation; however, on November 2, 2015 Mr. R.C. was charged regarding assaulting S.C.. He says he takes full responsibility for his actions. Throwing a flashlight against a wall was not appropriate behaviour. It was not meant to injure S.C.. The injury was a “complete fluke”.

e. He has apologized to S.C. and S.C. has accepted his apology.

f. On November 6, 2016 it was ordered that all four children remain in Ms. M.F.’s care while PCA were completed.

g. He seeks to increase his access with the children with a long term plan for a return of S.C. and P.C. to his care, thus lessening “chaos” at Ms. M.F.’s residence and reduce the reliance upon B.W. and K.F.. S.C. and S.L.F. will have time together, but will also be separated again, lowering the conflict between them.

h. He proposes a two month plan whereby he would have S.C. alone unsupervised on Saturdays and P.C. and S.L.F. on Sundays. After a month he would like S.C. on Friday to Saturday and P.C. and S.L.F. from Saturday to Sunday. By then he will present a future plan.

i. He will be taking the Triple P program with Ms. M.F.. He is also taking Anger Management.

j. He wishes to register in co-counselling with Ms. M.F.. The outstanding criminal charges impede this. He wishes to attend mediation to determine strict schedules of access exchange.

k. He concedes he was not receptive to Mr. Boyd-Learn’s advice while S.C. and P.C. were in his care. He has become more receptive since the access became therapeutic access.

l. His long term plan includes continuing S.C.’s activities and working with her Principal and teachers at Deer Park Public School. P.C. will remain at Little Red Schoolhouse and S.C. will remain in before and aftercare.

m. He seeks the removal of Family Support Worker Mr. Crocker as he “simply cannot work with him anymore.” “As a result of the arrest where I was handcuffed in front of S.C. at the daycare, I will not be able to work with Mr. Crocker.” Mr. Crocker contacted the police following the event with S.C..

Analysis

[55] The primary thrust of the CFS position with respect to its motions is that neither parent has meaningfully engaged services offered, neither has made measurable or significant progress in their efforts to become more effective parents and these deficits are long term and apparently irremediable. CFS also submits that Dr. Amitay’s reports support its position.

[56] I should note at the outset that none of the parties filed a Factum on this long motion contrary to the Consolidated Practice Direction Concerning Family Cases in Central East Region . This is unfortunate as facta would have assisted me in considering the parties’ respective positions on the motions before me. As a consequence, delivery of this decision has been delayed.

[57] As set out above the CFS motion regarding S.C., S.L.F. and P.C. must meet the test of a change being “required” in the sense of it being, essentially, necessary in the circumstances. It is not enough that the Society’s case be “persuasive”.

[58] I would first like to address Dr. Amitay’s reports, as his reports form the foundation of the Society’s case. At page three of each report he identifies six specific questions to be addressed at the instance of CFS:

1. Does Ms. M.F./Mr. R.C. have any mental health/emotional issues that might have an impact on her/his parenting abilities? If yes, what services can be put in place to address this and would she/he be able to benefit from such services? Does Ms. M.F./Mr. R.C. have the capacity to learn, understand and integrate these skills/teaching/therapy into practice/daily life?

2. Does Ms. M.F./Mr. R.C. have any cognitive limitations that could have an impact on her/his parenting abilities? If yes, does she/he have the capacity to learn, understand and transfer learning?

3. What is the quality of the attachment between Ms. M.F./Mr. R.C. and the children?

4. What is Ms. M.F./Mr. R.C.’s ability to cope with stress, fear, impulse control and day to day struggles? How do her/his coping strategies affect her/his ability to parent?

5. Does Ms. M.F./Mr. R.C. have the capacity to be a long term primary caregiver for the children? What resources/services/supports would be helpful for her/him? Does she/he have the capacity to benefit from such services and to sustain any gains made?

6. If Ms. M.F./Mr. R.C. does not have the capacity to be the primary caregiver for her/his children, what recommendations would you make for her/his access to the children?

[59] At the Conclusions and Recommendations section of each PCA, Dr. Amitay again repeats these six questions.

[60] Over the following six pages in each PCA, Dr. Amitay never directly and clearly answers any of these questions; rather, the reader is left to surmise Dr. Amitay’s conclusions from the wealth of information that he has provided and the numerous opinions he has expressed in interpretation of the gathered information. While I believe I have divined Dr. Amitay’s responses to some of the questions posed, I remain uncertain regarding his response to the first question at point 5 in respect of both parents. That is, does Ms. M.F. or Mr. R.C. have the capacity to be a long term caregiver for the children? This is central to the motions before me.

[61] I have read and reread both PCA’s and the closest Dr. Amitay comes to answering this question directly in respect of Ms. M.F. is the following passage at page 31:

“The onus is on Ms. M.F. to fully acknowledge the truth of all of the preceding statements, not only those that are favourable to her and or reduce her culpability in her family’s problems. Otherwise there is little reason to expect any meaningful and lasting improvements in her capacity to be a long term primary caregiver for her children.”

[62] Similarly, in respect of Mr. R.C. at page 22 of the PCA Dr. Amitay indicates:

“It is hoped that he will be able to find the strength to withstand the discomfort that comes with truly acknowledging one’s faults, flaws and failings. Otherwise there is little reason to expect any meaningful and lasting improvements in his capacity to be a long term primary co-parent for his children.”

[63] Thus in each case Dr. Amitay is commenting upon the ability of each party to improve, in a lasting and meaningful way, their capacity to be long term primary caregivers for the children rather than presenting his conclusion about whether either party has, now, the capacity to be a long term primary caregiver for the children.

[64] This question is fundamental to the CFS motions and Dr. Amitay’s handling of it leaves me wondering what his response is. In future I recommend a format wherein the questions posed are clearly and directly answered, with explanation following. This can only serve the parties and the Court more effectively.

[65] CFS argues that Ms. M.F. has failed to engage services offered; however, her affidavit lists numerous examples of services and programs that she has accessed. Further, Dr. Amitay noted that Ms. M.F. did demonstrate a number of parenting strengths during her observed visit for the PCA. In his words:

“Although there were a few concerns noted that she should aim to improve on, she did manage a few difficult situations pretty well.”

[66] Dr. Amitay clearly has concerns about Ms. M.F.’s parenting deficits and he sets out those concerns in detail, while at the same time acknowledging some of Ms. M.F.’s parenting strengths. It is abundantly clear that Dr. Amitay views Ms. M.F. as needing to undertake a genuine and sincere effort to address her parenting deficits; however, it is certainly not clear from Dr. Amitay’s report that Ms. M.F. cannot undertake these efforts to improve her parenting skills while at the same time parenting her children.

[67] It is also not clear from Dr. Amitay’s report that Ms. M.F. does not presently have the capacity to parent the children notwithstanding the significant deficits that she has demonstrated through the course of preparation of the PCA. I come to a similar conclusion in respect of Dr. Amitay’s opinions regarding Mr. R.C..

[68] While it is abundantly clear that both parents have significant deficits in their parenting capacities, given the equivocation in Dr. Amitay’s reports and the evidence of some positive components as outlined above I am of the view that the evidence advanced by CFS in relation to its motion regarding S.C., S.L.F. and P.C. is persuasive, but it does not rise to a level requiring a change to the temporary order of November 6, 2015.

[69] The test is different with respect to J.F.1. In J.F.1’s case the test is reasonable grounds as set out at para. 2 above. In CAS of Ottawa – Carleton v. T, [2000] O.J. No 2273 (ONT S.C.J.) it was held that to justify an order for temporary care and custody the Society must establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if the child remains in her parents’ care it is more probable than not that she will suffer harm. Further the Society must establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order.

[70] In Dr. Amitay’s PCA regarding Ms. M.F. it is noted:

“Notwithstanding the various concerns detailed throughout the report, Ms. M.F. did demonstrate a number of parenting strengths… she did manage a few difficult situations pretty well. Even when all of the children were home together, the busy atmosphere was certainly not “chaotic” as has apparently been observed by the family’s FIT worker… Furthermore there were no signs of an insecure attachment between Ms. M.F. and her two youngest children.”

[71] Dr. Amitay also notes that Ms. M.F. demonstrated her abilities to love, sympathize with and tend to the children’s emotional needs “reasonably well throughout much of the observed visit for this PCA.”

[72] When I consider the stated concerns and measure same against the observed strengths it appears the concerns outweigh the strengths; however, having said that, I am not satisfied that the evidence supports the conclusion that there is a real possibility that J.F.1 will likely suffer harm if left in Ms. M.F.’s care, assuming appropriate terms and conditions of a supervision order are in place.

[73] For the foregoing reasons the CFS motions shall be dismissed. The children S.C., S.L.F., P.C. and J.F.1 shall remain in Ms. M.F.’s temporary care and custody subject to supervision by CFS and subject to the following terms and conditions:

a. Ms. M.F. shall meet with the Society worker(s) on a scheduled and unscheduled basis and she shall permit the Society worker(s) access to her home.

b. The Society shall be permitted private access to the children at home, in the community or at day-care or school.

c. Ms. M.F. shall sign any consents so that the Society may communicate with and share information with services and collaterals involved with her and the children.

d. Ms. M.F. shall not use alcohol or illegal drugs nor shall she use any prescription drug in a manner not prescribed by her treating medical professionals.

e. Ms. M.F. shall ensure that the children are not exposed to anyone under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

f. Ms. M.F. shall notify the Society of any changes in residence or contact information immediately.

g. Ms. M.F. shall ensure the children’s needs, including physical, emotional, medical and educational needs, are met.

h. Ms. M.F. shall not engage in any adult conflict in the presence of the children and she shall ensure that the children are not exposed to any adult conflict.

i. Ms. M.F. shall attend counselling and/or parenting classes deemed appropriate by the Society that would improve her personal and parenting strengths.

j. Ms. M.F. shall participate in drug/alcohol testing at the request of the Society.

k. Ms. M.F. shall work cooperatively with the family intervention team worker.

l. Ms. M.F. shall regularly attend AA meetings and participate in the Triple P program.

m. Mr. R.C. shall meet with the Society worker(s) on a scheduled and unscheduled basis.

n. Mr. R.C. shall sign any consents for the Society to be able to communicate with and share information with any services or collaterals involved with him.

o. Mr. R.C. shall notify the Society of any changes in residence or contact information immediately.

p. Mr. R.C. shall refrain from engaging in any adult conflict in the presence of the children and ensure that the children are not exposed to adult conflict.

q. Mr. R.C. shall attend a parenting program or any other counselling/program that would improve his parenting and personal skills, deemed appropriate by the Society.

r. Mr. R.C. shall refrain from the use of and not be under the influence of illegal drugs or alcohol during access visits.

s. Mr. R.C. shall not attend at Ms. M.F.’s residence and Mr. R.C. shall restrict his communication with Ms. M.F. to parenting issues.

t. The children’s access with Mr. R.C. shall be in the Society’s discretion and supervised by the Society or its designate at its discretion.

u. The parents must understand that CFS, in my view, has good reason for concern as to their ability to effectively parent their children. While I am not satisfied that taking the children into care is merited today, unless the parents take Dr. Amitay’s recommendations to heart there remains a very real possibility that the children will come into care soon. Immediate and measurable change in their parenting is required to forestall this eventuality.

Mr. R.C.'s Position

[74] Ms. M.F. and Mr. R.C. have been nothing short of antagonistic toward one another throughout the history of this proceeding up to argument of this motion. Only with the filing of their affidavits in respect of this motion have they demonstrated any interest in setting aside their petty differences and disagreements for the sake of the children. This is a new and late development and one which must be tested over time to earn credibility. At this point I do not find the assertion of readiness and ability to work cooperatively to be a credible one.

[75] I also note with respect to Mr. R.C. that he is now undertaking Anger Management courses. This is something that he was ordered to do in 2014, yet did not feel obliged to comply until recently. He has no particular explanation for why he disobeyed a court order. I can only conclude that he did not consider it important or necessary. His recent epiphany in this regard is hard to accept as sincere given the history. Again, time will tell.

[76] Regarding the removal of Mr. Crocker as family support worker I was provided no authority to support Mr. R.C.’s position that I had jurisdiction to make the order requested. Even assuming I had such authority, which I do not think I do, I would not exercise such authority in these circumstances. The complaint advanced by Mr. R.C. is that he cannot work with Mr. Crocker given that Mr. Crocker advanced a complaint to the police regarding his having thrown a flashlight at least toward S.C., causing her injury. Mr. Crocker was acting upon his statutory duty. It was not Mr. Crocker who arrested and charged Mr. R.C., rather it was the police who concluded they had reasonable and probable grounds to do so. It was the police who chose when and where to arrest Mr. R.C., not Mr. Crocker. Mr. R.C. asserts that he accepts full responsibility for his actions with respect to the flashlight and S.C.; however, he seems to be blaming Mr. Crocker, thus contradicting his own assertion in this respect. Mr. R.C.’s inability to accept sole responsibility for his discomfort with Mr. Crocker undermines his position that he is able to set aside petty differences and disagreements and focus on the best interests of the children.

[77] I dismiss Mr. R.C.’s motion for these reasons.

Douglas, J.

Released: July 28, 2016