COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-1559 DATE: 2016 08 16 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 K. T. B.,born […], 2013
BETWEEN:
Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Applicant – and – J. T. J. B. Respondents
Deborah Bennett, for the Applicant Mellington Godoy, counsel for J.T. Karen Leef, counsel for J.B.
HEARD: July 26, 2016 at Ottawa
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT ShelSton, J.
Overview
[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (the “Society”) seeks a summary judgment that the child, K.T.B., born […], 2013 be made a ward of the Crown and placed in the care of the Society with no access to the respondents, his natural parents.
[2] Specifically, the Society seeks a finding pursuant to Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 that there is no issue for trial with respect to the Society’s amended status review application which requests an order that the child be made a ward of the Crown pursuant to sections 1, 37 and 57 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, as amended (“CFSA”).
[3] J. T., born […], 1993, is the natural mother of the child and J. B., born […] 26, 1995, is the natural father of the child. The mother opposes the relief claimed by the Society. The father takes no position regarding the request for an order of Crown wardship, but seeks access to his son.
[4] The trial of this matter is scheduled to proceed in October 2016.
[5] On June 16, 2015, the Society filed a Status Review Application seeking to place the child in the care of the Society for a three-month period and allowing the parents to have access at the discretion of the Society including duration, location, frequency and level of supervision.
[6] On April 26, 2016, the Society amended the Status Review Application and sought an order that the child be made a ward of the Crown with no access to his parents.
[7] The Society relies upon the affidavits of two child protection workers, two child youth counsellors who supervised access, an assessment by a psychologist, police records, and affidavits from private investigators.
[8] The father has not filed an affidavit but his counsel has provided an affidavit which includes copies of access visit reports between the father and the child as well as a letter from the assessor dated February 5, 2016.
[9] On the day of the motion, the mother filed a three page affidavit.
The Law
Summary Judgment
[10] On a motion for summary judgment under Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, the question is whether or not there is a genuine issue that requires a trial. The party making the motion shall serve an affidavit or other evidence that sets out specific facts showing that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial as set out in s. 16 (4) of the Family Law Rules.
[11] In response to the affidavit or other evidence served by the party making the motion, the party responding to the motion may not rest on mere allegations or denial, but shall set out in an affidavit or other evidence, specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial as set out in s. 16(4.1) of the Family Law Rules.
[12] The Court is directed that, if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial of a claim or defence, the Court shall make a final order accordingly as set out in s. 16(6) of the Family Law Rules.
[13] The Supreme Court of Canada in Hyniak v. Mauldin, 2014 SCC 7, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 87, stated that there will be no genuine issue requiring a trial when the judge is able to reach a fair and just determination on the merits on a motion for summary judgment. This will be the case when the process (1) allows a judge to make the necessary findings of fact, (2) allows a judge to apply the law to the facts, and (3) is a proportionate, more expeditious and less expensive means to achieve a just result.
[14] It is not an option for the Court to speculate as to possible evidence the parents may call at trial. To suggest that the Society’s evidence must be tested through cross-examination is not enough. The parents must put their "best evidentiary foot forward" to demonstrate that material facts are in dispute and/or there is an issue of credibility; and thus, summary judgment is precluded (Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. A.(M.)).
[15] The responding party is not entitled to sit back and rely on the possibility that more favourable facts may develop at trial. To avoid summary judgment, a party is required to put its best foot forward (Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. A. C.).
[16] Crown wardship with no access for the purposes of adoption is the most intrusive of the dispositional orders and has been described as capital punishment of family law as set out in Children and Family Services for York Region v. S.S., at para. 2.
[17] In Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. M.A.M., 2003 CarswellOnt 1122, at para. 12, the Court indicated that when considering Crown wardship great caution must be exercised and only on the basis of compelling evidence and after a careful examination of possible alternative remedies can an order be made.
Best interests
[18] Section 37 (3) of the CFSA sets out the circumstances the Court must consider when making a determination as to what is in the best interests of a child:
- The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.
- The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.
- The child’s cultural background.
- The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.
- The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.
- The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community.
- The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.
- The merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent.
- The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.
- The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.
- The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent.
- The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.
[19] The best interests of children include a consideration of the time requirements in the CFSA, in a resolution that does not prolong the uncertainty of a child’s future (F.B. v. S.G. (2001), 16 R.F.L. (5th) 237 (Ont. S.C.)).
Access
[20] The test for access to Crown wards is set out in subsection 59 (2.1) of the CFSA, which reads as follows:
- (2.1) A court shall not make or vary an access order made under section 58 with respect to a Crown ward unless the court is satisfied that,
(a) the relationship between the person and the child is beneficial and meaningful to the child; and
(b) the ordered access will not impair the child's future opportunities for adoption.
[21] The onus to rebut the presumption against access is on the parents in this case. The parents must meet both branches of the test as was held in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. D.P. (2005), 19 R.F.L. (6th) 267.
[22] The term “beneficial and meaningful” was considered by Justice Quinn in Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. M.J. (2004), 4 R.F.L. (6th) 245 at paras. 45-47 where he said:
What is a “beneficial and meaningful” relationship in clause 59(2) (a)? Using standard dictionary sources, a “beneficial” relationship is one that is “advantageous”. A “meaningful” relationship is one that is significant. Consequently, even if there are some positive aspects to the relationship between parent and child, that is not enough - it must be significantly advantageous to the child.
I read clause 59(2)(a) as speaking of an existing relationship between the person seeking access and the child, and not a future relationship. This is important, for it precludes the court from considering whether a parent might cure his or her parental shortcomings so as to create, in time, a relationship that is beneficial and meaningful to the child. This accords with common sense, for the child is not expected to wait and suffer while his or her mother or father learns how to be a responsible parent.
Even if the relationship is beneficial and meaningful, I think that, as a final precaution, there still must be some qualitative weighing of the benefits to the child of access versus no access, before an order is made.
[23] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. M.A., it was held that even though the access visits were generally enjoyable for the child, it was open to a trial judge to conclude that whatever benefits and meaning may accrue to the child from the visits did not outweigh the child’s need for continuity of care and for a secure place as a member of a stable family.
Current Court Proceedings
[24] On July 8, 2014, the Society apprehended the child from the care of the mother as a result of her being intoxicated. On July 11, 2014, the Honourable Justice Blishen placed the child in the care or custody of the Society with access to the parents at the discretion of the Society a minimum of two visits per week for the mother. The child was placed in a foster home and then moved to the home of a previous friend of the mother, E. P. in a “kin out of care” placement.
[25] On September 2, 2014 the Honourable Justice Polowin placed the child in the care and custody of E.P. subject to the supervision of the Society.
[26] On December 18, 2014, the Honourable Justice Polowin found the child to be in need of protection, placed the child in the care of the mother subject to supervision order which included a term that the mother would not provide the father with access unless approved by the Society.
[27] On January 27, 2015 the Society apprehended the child because the mother was providing the father with access and she was not complying with the condition regarding drug testing. On this second apprehension, the child was placed directly with E. P., the former friend of the mother as a “kin in care” placement. The child has remained in E.P.’s care since the apprehension on January 27, 2015.
[28] On March 31, 2015 the Honourable Justice McNamara made the child a ward of the Society for a period of three months. At that time, the Society was concerned about the contact between the mother and father, the level of domestic violence between them, the mother’s substance abuse and her mental health issues.
[29] On January 16, 2015, the Society filed the Status Review Application seeking a three-month society wardship. On April 26, 2016, the Society amended the Status Review Application to seek an order that the child be made a ward of the Crown without access to his parents.
Evidence of the Society
[30] The Society seeks an order that the child be made a ward of the Crown based on the following factors:
a. the effect of the domestic violence between the parents and the instable lifestyle and its effect on the child; b. the failure of the parents to address the child protection concerns raised by the Society through cooperation with the Society or attendance in community programs; c. the refusal of the mother to work with the Society; d. the father’s periods of incarceration and when he is not incarcerated, the fact that he is able to not work with the Society; and, e. neither of the parents have attended for access on a regular and consistent basis to show their commitment to the child.
Domestic Violence
[31] The father has a history of domestic violence with a previous partner which resulted in that child being placed in the care of the mother with fully supervised access to the father.
[32] A file was opened with the Québec child protection authorities (Centre Jeunesse Outaouais “CJO”) on August 19, 2013 regarding allegations of domestic violence by the father towards the mother in the presence of the child who was six weeks old. A Quebec court order placed the child in the care of his parents requiring them to both complete anger management courses.
[33] Between October 6, 2013 and April 11, 2014, the Gatineau Police Service attended at the parent’s residence five separate times finally resulting in the arrest of the father on April 11, 2014. The father was released and one of his conditions was that he was to have no contact with the mother and the child.
[34] Four days later on April 15, 2014, the Gatineau Police Service assisted the CJO to remove the child from the mother’s care as a result of the father being present at the mother’s home contrary to his bail conditions. The police attended at the residence, found the father hiding in a closet and arrested him. The father apparently remained in custody overnight. The police did not apprehend the child but arrested the father.
[35] The workers at CJO were having trouble seeing the family as they were refusing to meet with her. The worker was concerned about the breach of the noncontact provision. On April 18, 2014 the father was charged with a second assault on the mother.
[36] On May 8, 2014, a worker from CJO contacted the Society to advise that the mother and the child had relocated to Ottawa. Concerns were raised regarding domestic violence and the use of marijuana.
[37] The Society attempted to work with the parents on a voluntary basis but they were unsuccessful.
[38] The father was arrested for various breaches of his bail conditions as indicated in the police reports.
[39] On February 25, 2015, the mother reported that the father had assaulted her two days before because the maternal grandmother called the Society and the mother had bruises all over her body.
[40] Despite the serious domestic violence involved in this party’s relationship, they continued to reconcile. On February 3, 2015 the mother admitted the father had been living with her the whole time that the child was in her care and that he hid in the home when the Society workers came for a visit.
[41] The mother reported physical and sexual assaults on March 17, 2015 by the father, however, statements to the police and the Society were not consistent. More troubling was that she indicated that she was having contact and was in a relationship with the father.
[42] On March 13, 2015 the Society became aware that the mother had contacted the father’s probation officer to revoke the noncontact order. One day before a court appearance, the mother put back in place the no contact order.
[43] On April 16, 2015, the mother was apparently assaulted by the father with a 2 x 4 lumber piece after the father followed the mother to her job site. The mother was asked to leave the job site at which point the father forced her into a vehicle, forced her to call in sick to miss an access visit with the child and smashed her phone so she could not call for help. The mother states that the father kept her captive into the evening of April 19 at which point he drove her back to a mall near the women shelter. The mother stated that she was sexually assaulted and physically assaulted multiple times while being held by the father during that incident.
[44] On April 21, 2015, the father was arrested when he tried to have contact with the mother outside the offices of the Society.
[45] Despite these allegations, on May 14, 2015, the mother and father were observed playing Frisbee together and having a picnic in an Ottawa suburb when a Society worker ran into them at the park. On May 15, 2015, the mother and father were observed together at a downtown pub. When confronted with these facts, the mother admitted the meeting in an Ottawa suburb but denied being in a pub with the father.
[46] On May 19, 2015, the mother advised the Society that the father had assaulted her and he was charged. The father was incarcerated until September 2015.
[47] The Society provided evidence from private investigators that confirm that in February 2016 the parties were having contact. The parents denied that they were having contact. This is when the Society decided to have the access visits at the offices of the Society as of February 16, 2016.
[48] When the Society met with the father on March 16, 2016, he denied that the parties had any contact.
[49] On March 16, 2016, the father was arrested for an assault on the mother. The allegations were that the father broke into the mother’s apartment while she was sleeping and proceeded to assault her by kicking her, punching her, breaking her nose, and putting knife to her throat. The mother admitted that the father had been texting her in the days leading to the assault in breach of a noncontact order.
[50] At the time of this hearing, the father was in custody awaiting sentencing on the assault charge.
Attempts to Work with the Family
[51] The Society has attempted various options with this family.
[52] Originally, the Society tried to work with the parents. Despite these efforts, the Society apprehended the child on July 8, 2014.
[53] On December 18, 2014, the Society agreed to a supervision order to the mother for six months with conditions including a non-contact order with the father.
[54] The parents breached the no contact order and the child was apprehended on January 27, 2015. Further, the mother was not compliant with the requirement for drug testing. The Society agreed to a four month Society wardship order on March 31, 2015 with access to the parents.
[55] On June 25, 2015, the Society commenced a Status Review Application seeking a further three month Society wardship order and a s.54 CFSA assessment.
[56] On April 26, 2016, the Society amended the Status Review Application seeking Crown wardship with no access.
[57] The Society attempted to work with the mother and the father, but the parents have not been cooperative with the Society. The mother has refused to meet with the Society workers. The Society attempted to work with the mother and sent a request for information which she ignored.
[58] Over a two year period, the Society sought the least intrusive plan for this family. The plan has evolved from working with the family to the present application for Crown wardship.
Access
[59] The parents were afforded the opportunity to have access to their child. When the child was apprehended in July 2014, access to the parents was to be at the discretion of the Society, with a minimum of two visits per week for the mother.
[60] Prior to returning the child to the mother’s care, the Society extended the mother’s access visits for the purpose of reintegrating the child. The Society made it clear to the mother that she was to call the police in the event that the father attended at her residence.
[61] The father was granted access once per week.
[62] The child was returned to the care of the mother in December 2014, but she allowed the father access, contrary to the terms of the supervision order. After the child was apprehended on January 27, 2015, the parents were again granted access.
[63] On February 3, 2015, the mother admitted to the Society workers that she had been living with the father the whole time that the child was in her care. The mother further admitted that the father had been hiding in the home when the Society’s workers visited the home. On February 6, 2015, the father admitted to the Society workers that he and the mother had been living together since November 2014.
[64] On February 17, 2015, in a meeting with the Society workers, the parents denied there was any violence in their relationship. They both denied that the assault that had resulted in the father’s previous conviction had actually occurred.
[65] On February 24, 2015, the mother called a Society worker advising that she wished to have the visits with the father together.
[66] The evidence from the Society workers confirms that the mother raised her voice, swore at them, ridiculed them and failed to cooperate with suggestions made by Society workers. This pattern of uncooperative behaviour by the mother and father has been consistent throughout the involvement of the Society.
[67] On March 31, 2015, as a condition of the order placing the child, with the Society for a period of four months, the mother was granted supervised access a minimum of three times per week.
[68] On June 25, 2015, the Society commenced a status review application for a further three month Society wardship order. On July 9, 2015, the Court ordered that the mother have four visits per week with the child for a minimum of three hours either in her home or in the community with the level of supervision to be at the discretion of the Society.
[69] In September 2015, the mother complained about the access visits. The Society provided a new revised access schedule being Mondays from 9:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at a playgroup, then access until 3:00 p.m.; Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. at a playgroup then access until 3:00 p.m. and then Thursday 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. in the mother’s home.
[70] By October 2015, the Society reduced the access to four times a week for three hours, fully supervised at her home or in the community, because of the mother’s inability to follow through with answering her phone, being unable to be where she said she would be and allowing unapproved visitors.
[71] On November 23, 2015, the Society increased the access to three times per week with each visit lasting approximately six hours to accommodate the mother’s request for more time. By December 2015, the mother was having access three times a week being Monday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.; Tuesday from 9:00 a.m. until 3:15 p.m. and Thursdays from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. semi-supervised in the mother’s home and in the community.
[72] On December 17, 2015, the mother brought a care and custody and access motion. The Honourable Justice Blishen granted the mother a minimum of 12 hours per week of access with other parameters at the discretion of the Society.
[73] Unfortunately, the mother’s access in 2016 has been very inconsistent as follows:
a. January 2016, she attended eight of 11 visits; b. February 2016, she attended 7 of 9 visits; c. March 2016, she attended 2 of 14 visits; d. April 2016, she did not attend any of the 13 visits; and e. May 2016, she attended 3 of 12 visits.
[74] On June 22, 2016, the Court varied the mother’s access reducing it to two times per week for a total of four hours. Prior to the granting of the order, the mother had made three of six visits from June 1, 2016 to June 21, 2016.
[75] After the order of June 22, 2016 until July 26, 2016, the mother attended three of eight visits.
[76] With respect to the father’s access, in the last nine months in September 2015, the father has had four visits with the child. He was released from jail in September 2015 and took one month to contact the Society. He missed his first three visits on November 4, 9 and 11, 2016. In January 2016 until March 2016 when he was arrested for assaulting the mother, the father attended four of 10 scheduled access visits.
[77] Despite such little interaction with his child, the access notes of the father’s visits indicate that the visits are positive, the father is prepared, he is actively engaged, he encourages age-appropriate activities and he is cooperative with the Society workers.
Mother’s Instability
[78] The mother lived in two units in Gatineau, Quebec until the spring of 2014. Prior to the July 2014 apprehension, she lived in three separate locations with family. In the fall of 2014, she obtained a new residence with the assistance of the father as part of the plan to reintegrate the child with her. In February 2015, the mother moved to a shelter after being assaulted by the father.
[79] In June 2015, she moved into a new residence. She currently resides in an apartment in Gatineau, Quebec.
Dr. Worenklein’s Assessment
[80] On December 5, 2015, Dr. Worenklein completed the s. 54 assessment. The assessor met with the parties as well as reviewed documentation from the Ottawa Police Services, the Society, documentation from the parents and the court orders. He also conducted a home visit at the mother’s home on September 16, 2015.
[81] The assessment was designed to evaluate various factors including the parental abilities of the parents, assisting the court in determining whether the mother has the necessary abilities to fulfil the child’s needs, providing an opinion regarding the child’s attachment to the mother, considering the possible effect the continuation or rupture of this relationship may have on the child, evaluating the father and providing an opinion regarding the parenting capacity of each of the parents.
[82] Regarding the mother, the doctor concludes that there is no doubt that the mother loves her child, but he was quite concerned that there were significant unresolved issues from the mother’s past that needed to be dealt with therapeutically. He concluded that the mother did not have insight to recognize that she requires intervention to deal with her past which included attempted suicides, drug abuse, self-cutting and running away.
[83] After setting out the extensive history of the relationship of the mother and the father during the assessment, the assessor states at p. 7:
J.T. was cooperative during the interviews with her. It did appear that she had a great deal of ambivalence with respect to J. B. and that she maintained that the child was not being cared for by her in large part because of her association with the father, who used drugs and alcohol and consequently would become violent. There clearly was a lack of insight when discussing the possible side effects on K.T.; of being exposed to the violence although at the same time she did report that J. B. was “appropriate and involved with K .T. except for his ongoing violence all the time”, to which time K.T. was exposed. She furthermore was quite emphatic that the violence was not related to what she did in that J. B. would wake up and was “naturally pissed off”. When questioned regarding her self-cutting, she reported that she did self- inflict upon herself “because of everybody else doing it.”
[84] With respect to the mother’s use of alcohol and marijuana, the doctor indicated that she needed to deal with these issues to assist in her own mental health and to provide the child with appropriate parenting. The doctor indicated at p. 14 of his report:
However, at the present time, she was clear that she did not feel that she has to see any other professional for any interventions.
[85] The doctor concluded at p. 29 of his report as follows:
I would recommend that until such interventions are taken, including interventions for the drug alcohol use or to prevent relapse, the child to remain in foster care with the same access to his mother. However, if the mother does not get the mental health interventions that are required to deal with the domestic violence that she has experienced in the past and the interventions regarding her substance abuse, one would need to consider crown wardship particularly in view of the child’s age. It is important to consider that “one cannot treat the measles with makeup” but would require to deal with the events, possibly traumatic that would have happened in the past.
[86] With respect to the father, the assessor could not make any recommendations as the father did not complete the evaluation with no explanation provided. Subsequent to that report, the assessor did have the opportunity to observe the interaction between the child and the father on January 27, 2016. In that letter dated February 5, 2016, the doctor indicated that the child was focused on the father, that they adjusted very quickly to each other, that the child had no difficulty in relating to his father and that there was no anxiety or discomfort with the child. However, the assessor indicated that the father had still not completed his evaluation.
Analysis
[87] The Society’s evidence sets out very specific material facts in support of the relief claimed in their notice of motion for summary judgment. The Court finds that on a prima facie basis, the Society has met its evidentiary burden to show that there is no genuine issue for trial. Consequently, the burden now shifts to the parents to file affidavit evidence setting out the material facts in dispute giving rise to a genuine issue that requires a trial.
[88] The father has not filed a detailed affidavit but rather his counsel has filed an affidavit from her legal assistant attaching access records of the father’s access from the Society as well as a copy of Dr. Worenklein’s letter dated February 5, 2016. The Court finds that this evidence does not meet the test set out by the jurisprudence required by a responding party to “put their best foot forward.” Further, the assessor could not complete the report regarding the father because he never completed the assessment process. This action by the father speaks louder than words. The Court concludes that the father is not engaged or focused as to the best interests of his son.
[89] The mother has filed an affidavit in opposition of the Society’s motion for summary judgment. The affidavit deals with her access to the child and attempts to address the concerns raised by the Society and sets out her plan of care. The mother’s affidavit fails to respond to the multitude of material facts raised in the Society’s materials. The mother’s affidavit is a general statement. Her affidavit attempts to deal with all the Society’s concerns in four short paragraphs. She fails to deal with the assessor’s recommendation especially with the mother’s need for therapeutic intervention to deal with her mental health.
[90] On the issue of access, the mother complains that she is unable to do many of the activities that she had done in the past because her access has been reduced to one supervised access visit per week for two hours. Further, she cites transportation difficulties in attending the access. She, however, fails to address the specific factual assertions made by the Society regarding the poor attendance at access.
[91] The mother states that she does not use drugs beyond the marijuana cigarette and since the assault by the father on March 17, 2016; she required time to heal and get her life back in order. On the issue of her plan, she has indicated that she cut all ties to the father and has no intention of seeing him and is currently working piecemeal work in the field of construction. She proposes that if the child is returned to her care, she is willing to move further away to protect him from the father and that she would go back on Ontario Works so that she can take care of the child on full-time basis.
[92] The Court finds that the child has been exposed to significant domestic violence. The Court finds that the mother and the father have consistently lied to the Society with respect to their relationship. The mother and father told the assessor that there was really no domestic violence in their relationship. The Court finds that, in the past, the parents have denied that domestic violence existed. This indicates a significant lack of insight as to the best interests of the child.
[93] The mother has not undertaken any rehabilitative programs as envisaged by the assessor to deal with the mental health issues that he raised in his report. On December 5, 2015, the assessor recommended that the child remain in care, but in the event that the mother did not undertake the required measures to deal with her mental health issues, he was a proponent of an order of Crown wardship.
[94] The Court finds that neither parent has exhibited the required commitment to maintain a relationship with their child as evidenced by the lack of consistency in exercising access.
[95] The Society has attempted various plans for this child. At the outset, they tried to work with the family. They apprehended the child, but returned the child to the mother under a supervision order. They then re-apprehended the child after discovering that the mother breached conditions of the supervision order at which time the parents admitted that they had lied to the Society about living together. The Society sought Crown wardship. When the Society commenced a status review application, they sought a further Crown wardship. They sought a s. 54 assessment to identify the issues for this child and what the parents could do. The father did not complete the assessment process. Recommendations for the mother were ignored. Finally, the Society sought Crown wardship in April 2016.
[96] The CFSA requires that the Court consider the statutory requirements to provide the child with stability and permanency of care. The child has been in the care of E.P. since January 27, 2015. The child has done extremely well in that care and if the child is made ward of the Crown, E.P. intends to seek an order of adoption.
[97] The Court is required under s. 37 of the CFSA to consider the best interests of this child. The Court has considered the statutory considerations set out in that section. At a certain point, the Court must intervene to provide the child with stability, permanence and a plan that is in his best interests. The parents have been given the time and opportunity to address their significant issues. They have failed to do so.
[98] The Court finds that the best interests of this child require that the child be made a ward of the Crown.
[99] The Court must consider whether access is to continue after the order for Crown wardship. The burden is on the parents to provide sufficient evidence to discharge that burden to show that access will be meaningful and beneficial to the child and in the child’s best interests.
[100] The access attendance record of both parents does not indicate a commitment towards their child. The Court finds that the parents have not discharged that burden. The father has only partly been involved with the child by having 4 visits in the last 9 months. The mother has not been consistent and the Court finds that her excuses for missing access show a lack of insight as to what is in her own child’s best interests. The Court finds that there should be no access by these parents.
Disposition
[101] This Court finds that there is no issue for trial.
[102] This Court grants the Society’s request for summary judgment and orders that the child, K.T.B., born […], 2013 be made a ward of the Crown pursuant to sections 1, 37 and 57 of the Child and Family Services Act without access to the parents.
Mr. Justice Mark Shelston