Court File and Parties

Court File No.: FC-10-397-2, FC-10-397-3, FC-10-397-4 Date: 2016-08-19 Ontario Superior Court of Justice

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

In the Matter of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 And In the Matter of: S.F., born […], 2005; L.F., born […], 2010; and L.F-D., born […], 2014

Between:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA Applicant – and – J.F., J.P., W.D. and T.P. Respondents

Before: Shelston J.

Counsel: Deborah Bennett, for the Applicant Kristen Robins, for the Respondent, J.F. David Page, for the Respondent, J.P. W.D. and T.P. Self-represented Ahmed Youssuf, Office of the Children’s Lawyer, for S.F.

Heard: August 12, 2016

Endorsement

[1] The Children’s Aid Society (“the Society”) seeks an order that the three children in this litigation be placed in the temporary care and custody of their mother, J.F., subject to the supervision of the Society with the conditions set out in the notice of motions dated August 5, 2016.

[2] J.F is the mother of three children, namely, S.F., born […], 2005; L.F., born […], 2010; and L.F-D., born […], 2014.

[3] Each child has a separate biological father. S.F.’s father is T.P., L.F.’s father is J.P. and L.F-D.’s father is W.D.

Court Proceedings

[4] On May 9, 2016, the Society was contacted by the Ottawa Police Services (”OPS”) who had attended at the mother’s residence to respond to a wellness check on the children. What the police found was extremely disturbing. The police arrived at the home and, through the window, could see that S.F. and L.F-D. were sleeping on the couch. When the police knocked at the door, no one answered and the police observed that S.F. ran upstairs and did not return while L.F-D. remained asleep on a couch. The police forced their entry into the home. They then found S.F. in an upstairs bathroom with the maternal grandmother while L.F-D. remained asleep on the couch. L.F. was not present in the home.

[5] The OPS contacted the Society due to the unsanitary condition of the home. The after-hours worker attended and was advised by the maternal grandmother that the mother had left her in the care of the two children while the mother was away on a European cruise with the Backstreet Boys. The child, L.F. was staying with her father.

[6] The mother had left on May 7 planning to return on May 15.

[7] The worker was shocked by the state of the inside of the home. In her detailed affidavit, she observed the following:

a. rotting food in the fridge; b. broken shelving inside the fridge; c. the floors covered in dog feces with a strong smell of urine; d. two dogs and two cats in the house; e. the litter box being full; f. the children’s mattresses covered with dog feces. There were no sheets on the beds. In one of the children’s bedroom, there was a steak knife on the floor of the closet as well as dog food all over the floor and more dog feces. g. in another bedroom, there was more dog feces and also in a bag full of the grandmother’s prescription medication within reach of the children; and, h. the mother’s own bedroom was dirty and her mattress had brown stains all over it.

[8] The pictures are extremely disturbing. Included in the pictures was a white board that the mother had affixed to the inside of the front door before she left on her cruise with handwriting giving instructions including:

DO NOT ANSWER THE DOOR EVER DO NOT LET WILL IN ALWAYS LOCK DOORS CURTAINS ALWAYS SHUT EMERGENCY; 911 FACEBOOK ME

[9] On May 10, 2016, the children were apprehended and S.F. was placed in foster care, L.F., who had been staying with her father, remained with her father, and L.F-D. was placed with her father.

[10] On May 13, 2016, the Society commenced protection proceedings alleging that there was a risk that the children were likely to suffer physical harm, inflicted by the person having charge of the children or caused by that person’s failure to care for, provide for, supervise, or protect the children adequately pursuant to section 37(2)(b)(i) and a pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising, or protect the children pursuant to section 37(2)(b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (“CFSA”).

[11] The Society’s original protection applications sought to remove the children from the mother’s care. For S.F., the Society sought an order that she would be made a ward of the Society for six months and that the parents would have access at the discretion of the Society. For L.F., she was to be placed with her father, J.P., and her paternal grandmother, D.P, for six months and the mother was to have access. Regarding L.F.-D., she was to be placed with her father, W.D., for a six month period and the mother would have access.

[12] On May 13, 2016, Justice Sheffield ordered, on a without prejudice basis, the following:

a. S.F. was placed in the temporary care of the Society with access to the mother and father at the discretion of the Society and ordered independent legal representation for the child; b. L.F. was placed in the temporary care and custody of the father and the paternal grandmother with access to the mother to be at the discretion of the father and the paternal grandmother; c. L.F-D. was placed in the temporary care and custody of her father with access to the mother at the discretion of the Society.

Circumstances after the Apprehension

[13] The mother was contacted by the Society on May 10, 2016 by email. She indicated that she was on a cruise in Europe and working on immediately returning to Ottawa. The mother was able to meet with the Society workers on May 16, 2016. At that meeting, they raised many issues including, the inability of the maternal grandmother to care for the children as a result of her physical condition. The mother denied any concern that the grandmother was an inappropriate caregiver. The Society raised the following issues with the mother:

a. that she take an anger management course; b. that she take a parenting course; c. that she seek a mental health counsellor; d. that the animals be removed from her home due to the health risks posed by animal feces so the mother could focus on the children’s needs.

[14] The mother denied that the children had any allergies or were on any prescribed medications, but the Society subsequently learned that two of the three children are on prescription medication. S.F. has a prescription for an inhaler and L.F.is on prescribed medication for her Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).

[15] The Society discovered that the two eldest children had not been in school since mid-April, 2016 and that, on occasion, the mother would take the three children with her when she worked in the evenings delivering medical supplies.

[16] On May 25, 2016, the Society and the mother met again. When asked by the Society about the medical issues of her children, the mother said she could not locate S.F.’s inhaler and did not know the dose of the prescription for L.D.’s ADHD medication. When asked about which pharmacy the mother used, she said she did not know as she used multiple pharmacies. The mother admitted that she did not inform the Society of the medical conditions and medications when initially asked because she was angry that the Society had apprehended her children. At that meeting, when asked what programs the mother had set up and what supports had been arranged to deal with the safety issues, she stated that she had cleaned the house but that the dogs and surviving cat were still in the home. She had not registered for any programs.

[17] The mother did not agree that the pets were a problem. She blamed her mother for the state of the interior of the home while she away. The mother discounted any problems. When questioned about mental health counselling, removing the dogs, enrolling in a parenting plan and enrolling in an anger management program, she said she did not need to complete these programs.

[18] The Society worker tried to meet with the mother on June 1 and June 2, 2016, but there was no answer at her home. They did not meet again until June 29, 2016 at which time the mother admitted:

a. the dogs were still in the home but were in crates; b. the bedroom was empty except for a bed frame and dressers c. the living room was clean and tidy; and, d. the basement still smelled of cat urine.

[19] On July 4 and 5, 2016, the mother advised the Society that she had done the following:

a. enrolled in a home parenting support program; b. contacted the Pinecrest Queensway Community Health Services for individual counselling; c. enrolled in a positive parenting course at the Elizabeth Fry Centre starting July 20; d. enrolled in an Emotional Regulation Program at the Elizabeth Fry Centre starting July 27.

[20] After the apprehension, the mother was granted access rights to the children two times per week. With respect to L.D., the mother was to make arrangements with the father and the paternal grandmother for additional access. The mother was offered additional access at their home but did not exercise such access. The supervisors of access indicated that the mother provided the basic needs for the children, but there were observations regarding concerns of attachment issues between the mother and the children such as the mother not consistently supervising her children and not cueing her children away from hazards. The access reports indicated that there appeared to be a lack of affection between the mother and the children and that the mother did not consistently engage in play with the children.

[21] On the issue of the two eldest children not being enrolled in school, the Society contacted the school principal at Pope John Paul School regarding L.F. He reviewed her file and indicated that she needed one-on-one teaching assistant support and that she has significant needs. The Society made inquiries about the children attending school.

Motion on July 27, 2016

[22] The care and custody hearing was set for July 27, 2016. At that time, the Society’s position in the case of all three children can be summarized at paragraph 89 of the affidavit of Christina McNeil sworn July 22, 2016 as follows:

89. It is a Society’s position that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the children are likely to suffer harm if returned to their mother and cannot adequately be protected by a supervision order to the mother because of the mother’s emotional functioning and mental health, the ongoing pattern of unhealthy living environment, the lack of meeting the children’s basic needs, such as school attendance. There are also serious conflicts between the mother and her history of violent relationship and her anger management problems.

[23] However, on July 27, 2016, the Society took the position that the children should be returned to the mother with a supervision order. The fathers indicated they were taken by surprise and they needed time to file affidavit material to support the children not returning to the mother. Counsel from the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) for the child, S.F., indicated her client wished to return to live with her mother. The three fathers were opposed to such order and requested an adjournment. The Court granted the adjournment as the fathers were unaware until July 27, 2016 that the Society had changed its position.

[24] On August 5, 2016, the Society amended its protection application to seek an order that the children be placed in the care of the mother subject to the supervision of the Society for a period of 12 months with the conditions set out in the Appendix in the amended child protection application. The Society has also filed a new notice of motion in the case of all three children seeking that relief on a temporary basis. The mother supported the Society’s position. The fathers did not.

Fathers’ Positions at the Motion on August 12, 2016

[25] With respect to L.F-D., at the commencement of the motion, the Court was advised that the parents and the Society had reached an agreement with respect to this child. The father, W.D., who had filed an Answer and Plan of Care seeking an order that he be granted custody of the child with supervised access to the mother, advised that he agreed that the child would be returned to the mother with the conditions set out in the notice of motion of the Society at Tab 11 of the continuing record and that he would have very specific access to the child as follows:

a. on week 1, the father would have access on Tuesday overnight to Wednesday morning and on Friday to Sunday evening ; b. on week 2, the father would have access on Tuesday overnight to Wednesday morning and Thursday overnight to Friday morning ; c. the pickup and drop off was to be negotiated between the father and mother and approved by the Society.

[26] With respect to S.F., the Society advised that the father, T.P., who had previously attended the motion on July 27, 2016, was not present and that he was in the emergency department of an Ottawa hospital. At the previous hearing on July 27, 2016, the father was opposed to the child returning to the mother. He had filed an Answer and Plan of Care dated July 20, 2016 seeking custody of the child. Counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (“OCL”) advised that the child wished to return home immediately as the child misses her mother, her friends and her sisters. She indicated that access to her father was very important and that she wanted to have at least one day a weekend for 4 to 5 hours every weekend. The Society wishes to proceed, at least on an interim without prejudice basis, returning the child to the care of the mother in accordance with the Notice of Motion at Tab 10 of the continuing record dated August 5, 2016 and that the father’s access be at the discretion of the Society.

[27] With respect to L. F., the father’s position is that the child should remain in his care with the paternal grandmother and that the mother should have access.

Test for a Temporary Order for Care and Custody

[28] Sections 51(2) and 51(3) of the CFSA provide the legal test to be applied for a temporary order for care and custody:

51(2) CUSTODY DURING ADJOURNMENT-Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child,

a. remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part; b. remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the Society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; c. be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the Society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; or d. remain or be placed in the care and custody of the Society, but not placed in, (i) a place of secure custody as defined in Part IV(Youth Justice), or (ii) a place of open detention as defined in that Part that has not been designated place of safety.

51(3) CRITERIA - The court shall not make an order under clause (2)(a)(b) 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 the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause 2(a) or(b)

[29] Under subsection 51 (3) of the CFSA, the burden of proof is on the Society to satisfy the Court that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that a child is likely to suffer harm and the child cannot be adequately protected by an order returning the child to parental care with or without an interim supervision order. The test set out by Blishen J. in Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., at para. 10, is as follows:

… The Children’s Aid Society must establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that, if the child is returned to his or her parents, it is more probable than not that he or she will suffer harm. Furthermore, the Society must establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order to the parents.

[30] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.P., 2010 ONCJ 320, the Court held:

A court must make an order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with the adequate protection of the child in accordance with section 1(2) of the CFSA. The degree of intrusiveness of the Society intervention and the temporary protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk.

[31] In Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. J.O., 2012 ONCJ 269, 20 R.F.L. (7th) 471, the degree of intrusiveness of the Society’s intervention in the temporary protection order by the Court should be proportional to the degree of risk.

[32] Under section 1(1) of the CFSA, the paramount purpose of the legislation is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of the children. As part of that purpose one of the factors that a court is to consider is the least disruptive course of action that is appropriate to help children.

Society’s Submissions

[33] Counsel for the Society concedes that there is a significant risk to these children but that the terms of the supervision order are sufficient to mitigate the risk. Further, the legislation requires in this case, that the children should be returned to the mother if the terms in the supervision order mitigate the risk. Counsel questions the credibility of the mother. While the mother acknowledges that the Society was justified in removing the children on May 9 as a result of the state of the home, she denies any responsibility and places the blame on her mother. Counsel for the Society, having seen the pictures taken on May 9, 2016, does not find that that statement is credible.

[34] The mother’s credibility is further eroded whenshe indicates that she intended to have the children start school on May 16. However, that evidence is contradicted by a text message that the mother sent L.F.’s father where she indicates that the child will not start school until September 2016. Counsel for the mother explains that the mother lied in the text to the father but not in her affidavit. Finally, the Society submits that many of the statements in the mother’s affidavit are self-serving and indicate a denial of responsibility.

[35] Despite serious concerns, the Society believes that the terms of the supervision order are sufficient to address the issues. In support of that order, the Society relies on the following:

a. a parent resource worker would be visiting the mother on Mondays between 4pm and 5pm on the biweekly basis and an initial visit occurred on July 25; b. the mother started at a parenting course on July 20, 2016 at the Elizabeth Fry Society; c. the mother started an Emotional Regulation course on July 27, 2016 at the Elizabeth Fry Society; d. on June 29, 2016 the worker attended and observed the main and upper floors to be clean and tidy but that the basement continued to be messy and smell of cat urine; e. on August 4, 2016, new beds for S.F. and L.F. were delivered to the mother; f. the mother secured a new toddler bed for L.F-D.; g. the mother admitted that the children did not go to school between April 17 and May 7 and that they were working with her at night on occasion. The mother said it would never happen again. h. there are now friends who have offered to care for the children on a weekly basis when the mother needs support. One friend is an approved foster parent for a neighbouring child welfare agency and is an appropriate caregiver. i. a daycare arrangement for L.F-D. has been arranged at the Pinecrest Queensway daycare Head start program j. S.F. and L.F-D. are registered to attend two weeks of an overnight camp at Camp Smitty from August 14 to the 21st. k. the mother is looking into programs in her neighbourhood for her children; l. arrangements are in place for the two eldest children to attend school as of September, 2016,

[36] With respect to access for S.F and L.F., the Society’s position is that there should be substantial access that will allow the fathers to monitor their children. Access to L.F-D. is already substantial as the father will see the child every 3 to 4 days.

[37] Due to the seriousness of the risk, counsel for the Society advocates for a zero tolerance standard with respect to compliance of the conditions by the mother. Counsel made it very clear that if any of the terms of the supervision order are breached by the mother, it is their intention to apprehend the children and to seek an order permanently removing the children from the mother. The position of the Society is that this is the mother’s last chance.

J.P.’s Submissions

[38] The father of L.D. submits that the historical background of the mother shows a pattern of Society intervention. In 2006, after the first child was born, the Society became involved because there were concerns that the mother and the child were living in a filthy home that smelled of animal urine. The Society provided the mother with assistance. In 2009, the mother, in her own affidavit, admits that her home was uninhabitable and was filthy. The Society was last involved with the mother in 2010-2011. At that time, the Society consented to an order that the child, L.F. be placed in the care of the mother pursuant to section 57.1 of the CFSA.

[39] The father admits that at the time of the apprehension, L.F. was in the care of the mother. He submits that there is a significant risk of harm to his child and that the position taken by the Society is insufficient to mitigate the risk.

[40] He admits that from 2011 to May 2016, there was no further involvement by the Society. Despite this lack of involvement, the father submits that the mother’s lifestyle dating back to 2006 supports a finding the mother subjects the children to living in unfit conditions and that the discovery on May 9, 2016 was an extension of this lifestyle.

[41] There is evidence provided that indicates that the mother was attending to L.F.’s medical and behavioural issues. Counsel for the father of L.F. filed a letter from Dr. Kardash dated August 7, 2016. That letter indicates as follows:

a. The child’s immunizations are completely up-to-date; b. In April 2015, he had met the mother and stepfather because of behavioural problems of the child at school and placed her on medication and she was followed for counselling services. In June 2015 the child showed an excellent adjustment to the Independent Educational Program at her school as well as a behavioural management program within the classroom setting and that she was doing well on medication. c. The doctor next saw the child in December 2015 and noted that the child had moved to a new school and had behavioural issues but he assumed she was doing well because she had positively responded to behavioural management. d. He saw the child in July 19, 2016 when the father and paternal grandmother brought her in and noted that she was doing well on her medication and on an individual educational program.

[42] On the issue of access, the father lives in Eastern Ontario while the mother lives in the west end of Ottawa. The Society agrees that the father will have substantial access but the modalities of that occurring as a result of the geographical difference between the two residences will be a challenge. In addition, the child, L.F., will, if the child is returned to the mother, attend school in the west end of Ottawa.

Mother’s Submissions

[43] Despite conceding that there is a risk to the children, counsel for the mother submits that the mother has the ability to parent, that she cared for the children prior to the intervention on May 9, 2016, but she has taken remedial steps to address the various issues raised by the Society and that the Court should consider reuniting the siblings as a consideration in determining whether the conditions submitted by the Society are sufficient to address the considerable risk in this case.

[44] Counsel for the mother submits that the purpose of the child protection legislation requires the Court to return the children to the mother if the Court believes that the supervision order is a sufficient safeguard. She argues that the mother was compliant with the intervention of the Society in 2006 and again in 2010 and that this is indicative of the mother’s ability to comply with the requirements of the Society.

Analysis

[45] This mother has on two occasions required the intervention of a child protection agency to address concerns of cleanliness and filthy homes. Further there was a significant history of physical violence between the mother and her own mother. There is a history of dysfunctional behaviour by the mother. There are charges of assault, uttering death threats, and breaking and entering. In 2008, the mother enrolled in an anger management course and a parenting class at Bethany Hope Centre.

[46] There has been police involvement. The mother has shown she cannot follow a court order when, in April of 2009, she attended a concert with an individual with whom she had a no contact order.

[47] The maternal grandmother alleged physical and emotional abuse by the mother towards her. The three fathers in this litigation supported the finding that the mother has been verbally abusive towards her own mother.

[48] From 2010-2011 to May 2016, the Society was not involved with this family. That lack of involvement does not indicate that there were no problems with this family or the mother’s care of her children. The Court has been provided with a letter from L.F.’s doctor dated August 7, 2016 providing evidence that the child was being properly followed by a medical practitioner with respect to her various medical issues by the mother in 2015.

[49] The mother resided with W.D. for a period of time. He has filed materials alleging that when he first met the mother her home was unhealthy and unlivable. He indicated that when they separated, he lived with his father for three weeks and when he returned to the home it was again unlivable and unhealthy. However, despite making those allegations, he has agreed that the child be returned to the mother in exchange of which he will have extensive access to the child.

[50] With respect to the allegations made by the father of L.F., he raises historical as well as current concerns regarding his daughter. He raises many issues such as the child missing school, that his daughter has many cavities, that the mother has been previously involved with the Society, that his child may be exposed to domestic violence in the home of the mother and that back in 2009-2010 that upon entry of into the mother’s home, he was disgusted as it was filthy.

[51] All parties concede that there exists a risk if the children are returned. The Court finds that there is a risk to these children. After reviewing the pictures of the inside of the house on May 9, 2016, the Court finds that it is not credible, as stated by the mother, that she had purchased groceries, cleaned the house and that the main floor, kitchen, bathrooms and bedrooms were all in an appropriate state when she left on May 7, 2016.

[52] The level of filth in the home as evidenced by the photographs could not logically have taken place in two days. The state of the inside of the fridge, the bedding and the complete lack of food is shocking. The amount of dog feces and smell of animal urine was, according to the Society worker who attended, overwhelming.

[53] In addition to the deplorable state that the children were living in, the children were not attending school and they were going with their mother as she made deliveries through her employment at night. The mother saved her money to purchase a place on a cruise in Europe with the Backstreet Boys. The mother had made plans for the care of her children. As a result of the separation from W. D., in mid-April 2016, those plans were no longer viable. The decision by the mother to place the two children in the care of her mother was a significant lack of judgment. Further, her decision to write specific instructions on a white board that was affixed to the inside of the front door placed her children at risk. The Court finds that the mother placed those two children at risk.

[54] The decision by the Society to apprehend the children was more than justified. Since the mother returned, she has attempted to undertake remedial processes to convince the Court that she is serious about protecting her children and about doing whatever she needs to do to have her children returned to her.

[55] The issue is whether the conditions of the supervision order proposed by the Society are sufficient to mitigate the substantial risk of harm to these children.

[56] The Court has considered the paramount purpose of the CFSA, the significant affidavit evidence from the parties and the applicable jurisprudence. The Court has considered that the Society has requested that if the children are returned to the mother that the fathers have significant access to their children.

[57] The Court finds that the mother will be challenged to pursue her employment, her various courses and coordinate access for three children with three separate fathers. For any supervision order to be successful, the conditions of supervision must be reasonable and attainable.

Summary of Facts

[58] The Court has considered the following factors:

a. Prior to May 9, 2016, the children had resided full time with the mother; b. the children attended school in Gatineau, Quebec until the mother moved to Ontario in mid-April, 2016; c. the children were enrolled in extracurricular activities while in Gatineau; d. there is medical evidence from Dr. Kardash that one child’s immunization injections were current and that the mother was appropriately attending to that child’s special needs; e. that the fathers were exercising access to the children and raised no concerns before the apprehension; f. that the fathers did not commence any proceedings to vary custody prior to May 9, 2016; g. that the mother’s plan for child care when she was to leave on her trip were changed as a result of the separation from W.D.; h. that the mother failed to make reasonable arrangements for the child care while she was to be away; i. that the mother failed to provide a clean environment for her children before she left; j. that the mother has undertaken a series of programs to address the issues raised by the Society and is working with the Society; k. that S.F. wishes to return home; l. that the Society has assisted the mother in obtaining proper beds for all three children and that the home is now clean and appropriate for the children; m. that children are registered for school and daycare; n. that the mother will have support services in her neighbourhood; o. that the fathers will have significant access to their respective children, p. that the mother has not been involved with the Society for over 5 years; q. that W.D. has consented to the mother’s care after initially requesting that the child be placed with him; r. that the CFSA mandates that the Court employ the least intrusive course of action regarding the children; and, s. That the CFSA requires the Court to return the children to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the children immediately before intervention unless the Court is satisfied to believe that there is a risk that the children are likely to suffer harm and the children cannot be adequately protected by returning the children to the mother in this case.

[59] For the above reasons, the Court finds that the conditions sought by the Society as amended, as well as the significant access to be afforded the fathers, is sufficient, at this stage of the litigation, to mitigate the risk to these children. Any breach of any condition by the mother should be acted upon immediately by the Society.

Disposition

[60] With respect to L.F-D., on consent, the Court orders the return of the child to the temporary care and custody of the mother subject to the supervision of the Society with the conditions set out in the notice of motion at tab 11 of the continuing record as amended herein with the access as follows:

a. on week 1, the father would have access on Tuesday overnight to Wednesday morning and on Friday to Sunday evening ; b. on week 2, the father would have access on Tuesday overnight to Wednesday morning and Thursday overnight to Friday morning; and, c. the pickup and drop off was to be negotiated between the father and mother and approved by the Society.

[61] With respect to S.F., as a result of the father not attending court and being advised by the Society that he was at a local hospital and considering the child’s wishes and all factors, the Court orders, on an interim and without prejudice basis, that the child be returned to the care of her mother subject to the supervision of the Society with the conditions set out in the notice of motion at tab 10 of the continuing record as amended herein. The Society is to schedule a date for the continuation of this care and custody hearing regarding S.F., in consultation with the father before me, after September 12, 2016. In the Society’s Notice of Motion, the Society indicates that the order for access to the father shall be at the discretion of the Society. Such access to be substantial and regular.

[62] With respect to L.F., the Court orders that the child be returned to the temporary care and custody of the mother subject to the supervision of the Society with the conditions set out in the notice of motion at tab 12 of the continuing record as amended herein. The father to have substantial and regular access.

[63] The Court has reviewed the conditions for the return of the three children as set out in the three separate Notices of Motions. The Court orders the following amendments and additions to the conditions of the supervision orders applicable to all three children:

1. Paragraph 8 which states: “that the mother shall ensure that her pets are properly maintained and cared for and that they do not pose a health or safety risk. Should the mother fail to do so, the Society shall have the right to direct the mother to remove the pets” is deleted and replaced with the following: “The mother shall not permit any pets to live in her home with any child. The mother shall remove the existing pets before the return of any child. Said removal to be confirmed in person by the Society”
2. The mother shall complete her emotional regulation and parenting courses and shall follow any recommendations made; and,
3. By August 30, 2016, the mother shall make arrangements for medical and dental appointments for the children to take place by October 31, 2016.

[64] In the event that the parties are unable to agree on the specific terms of access, any party may bring a motion on that issue.

Mr. Justice Mark Shelston Released: August 19, 2016

Reasons for Judgment

Court File No.: FC-10-397-2, FC-10-397-3, FC-10-397-4 Date: 2016-08-19

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT Ontario Superior Court of Justice In the Matter of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990 And In the Matter of: S.F., born […], 2005; L.F., born […], 2010; and L.F.-D., born […], 2014

Between: THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA Applicant – and – J.F. J.P. Respondents

Before: Shelston J.

Released: August 19, 2016