This is a case under Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to subsections 45(8) of the Act. This subsection and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply with subsection 45(8), read as follows:

45. -(8) No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.

46. -(3) A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(c) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: C1447/13 DATE: 2016-08-30

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton Mr. J. Bland - Counsel for the Applicant Applicant

- and -

P. B (Mother) Respondent Ms. A. Williams - Counsel for the Mother

HEARD: August 24, 2016.

Reasons for Judgment

THE HONOURABLE MADAM JUSTICE McLAREN

[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton has brought a motion for Summary Judgment. They are seeking an order for a protection finding, and an order for Crown wardship without access.

[2] The child is J. J. D. B and he was born on […], 2016. For convenience I will refer to him as J. B.

[3] On May 20th, 2016, a final order was made which concluded findings that the child is not native, not Indian, not Catholic and not of any specific religion or faith.

[4] The Mother is P.B and she was born on […], 1991. For convenience I will primarily refer to her as the Mother. The child J. B is her fifth child. Her older four children are not in her care, and this has happened as follows;

i) Her oldest child, K.O-B born […], 2006, was made a Crown ward without access on December 8th, 2008.

ii) Her second oldest child, M.O-B born […], 2007, was made a Crown ward without access on December 8th, 2008.

iii) Her third oldest child, D.B-O born […], 2010, is in the care of his father. A final order dated November 24th, 2011, provided for joint custody and equal time sharing.

iv) Her fourth oldest child is R.B. born […] 2013. He was made a Crown ward without access pursuant to a final order dated July 20th, 2015, which was made pursuant to minutes of settlement.

[5] A Parent Capacity Assessment (P.C.A.) was done pursuant to Section 54 of the Child and Family Services Act R.S.O 1990, c.C.11, as amended (CFSA) in regard to the Mother’s oldest two children. That report was dated March 31st, 2008. The authors of the report recommended Crown wardship without access for those two children.

[6] It was mentioned in the recommendations that the Mother may be able to parent again one day, but that she would need to:

• Pay closer attention to her physical self-care and see one Doctor for all her medical needs.
• Consider training in assertiveness skills and social problem solving to learn alternatives to aggression.
• Access counselling on therapeutic group and programs focused on abusive relationships.
• Have individual therapy for attachment issues and continue parenting education.

[7] Affidavits were filed from the following people since the birth of the child J. B:

• Society worker Melissa Barton, sworn April 7th, 2016.
• Society worker Jessica Hall, sworn May 12th, 2016.
• Society worker Jessica Hall, sworn July 7th, 2016.
• Society worker Jessica Hall, sworn July 26th, 2016.
• Society worker Jessica Hall, sworn August 9th, 2016.
• Respondent Mother P. B, sworn August 10th, 2016.
• Society worker Jessica Hall, sworn August 16th, 2016.

[8] The Notice of Motion for this motion and the July 7th, 2016 affidavit were served on the Mother by personal service on July 8th, 2016.

[9] I denied a request for an adjournment of the motion by the Mother’s counsel since:

(a) this matter is set for a 7 day trial on the sittings of October 31st, 2016; (b) ample notice and a fixed date were given for this motion; and (c) affidavit material was filed by the Mother.

[10] As a result of that ruling, the Mother and her lawyer spoke and the motion for Ms. Williams to be removed from the record was withdrawn.

[11] The motion is pursuant to Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules (O.Reg.114/99, as.am.). Rule 16 (1) and 16(6) read as follows:

16. (1) After the respondent has served an answer or after the time for serving an answer has expired, a party may make a motion for summary judgment for a final order without a trial on all or part of any claim made or any defence presented in the case. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 16(1).

17. (6) If there is no genuine issue requiring a trial of a claim or defence, the court shall make a final order accordingly. O. Reg. 114/99, r. 16(6).

Society’s Position

[12] The concerns of the Society can be summarized as follows:

i) The Mother has 4 other children, none of whom are in her care. Although there was an agreement that she would share time with her third child, there is no dispute that she only has supervised access to that child now. The material showed that despite the time sharing set out in the November 24th, 2011 final order, the child D.B-O has lived exclusively with the father since April 2012 and the Mother’s access has been supervised by him.

ii) At the time of the apprehension of the child J.B, there were concerns of inadequate prenatal care, substance abuse during the pregnancy, relationships that involved domestic violence and transience.

iii) The P.C.A completed in 2008 contained several recommendations for actions to be completed in order for the Mother to parent a child again, and she has not followed through with any of them.

iv) There were concerns of drug use by the Mother over the years. A police incident report shows that within days of the birth of J.B., the Mother admitted to police that she was under the influence of drugs when they attended the home due to a domestic incident. According to Society workers she admitted using crystal meth, cocaine and alcohol while pregnant with J.B. but before she learned she was pregnant. After she gave birth, cocaine and methamphetamines were found in her urine test.

v) On June 1st, 2016, the Mother was described as acknowledging to Ms. Hall that she had yet to begin addiction counselling despite many requests from the CAS for several years. Ms. Hall stated that K.O. (the father who had the child D. B.-O. in his care) told her that he suspected the Mother used drugs still and this is why he was not allowing unsupervised access.

vi) There were multiple examples of conflict and domestic violence. Police records show that they attended at the Mother’s home due to domestic conflict on April 6th, 2015, June 13th, 2015, June 20th, 2015, July 16th, 2015, April 17th, 2016, a second time on April 17th, 2016, April 19th, 2016, May 2nd, 2016, a second time on May 2nd, 2016, May 8th, 2016, May 10th, 2016, a second time on May 10th, 2016, May 11th, 2016 and May 20th, 2016. In addition the Mother was investigated for theft under or equal to $5,000.00 in regard to her Mother’s money. On May 23rd, 2016, she was investigated for a possible assault on another woman. This was as a result of an incident at a Food Mart wherein police were called.

Many of the domestic conflict incidents involved H.O. who is the father of her 4th child. Despite a “no contact” order, H.O. was at her home frequently. On May 20th, 2016 it was noted that he was at her home doing laundry. During the Society’s involvement, H.O. has been in and out of jail for assaults on the Mother and breaches of the no contact order. In addition, the Mother was charged with assaulting him, and also with breach of probation.

The Society was concerned that the Mother had often been misleading about her off and on relationship with H.O. When the Mother was pregnant with J.B. she told the worker that her relationship with H.O. was over several months prior thereto. After the child was born however, the worker called the Mother and heard a voicemail regarding how to leave messages for the Mother or H.O. She was quoted as underestimating an assault on her by H.O. on May 20th, 2016 during which he split her lip. On June 9th, 2016, she told the worker she was “done with H.O” and would look into domestic violence counselling. On July 4th, 2016 however, she told the worker she was no longer willing to have counselling for domestic violence.

The Society has counted 17 police incident reports from April 2015 to May 28th, 2016. Nine of these incidents involved verbal or domestic conflict between the Mother and H.O. The remaining ones concerned incidents of theft, unauthorized contact between the Mother and H.O., assault and mischief. In addition, there were 4 other charges that involved the Mother and H.O. for which the police were unable to release disclosure.

vi) Concerns were expressed about the Mother’s lack of follow up with programs and counselling. She has made some inquiries or attended intake meetings but never followed through. For example, she has attended intake meeting with the Alcohol, Drug and Gambling Services (ADGS) but has never taken it further. She then has to sign up for a new intake meeting. As of the Mother’s affidavit sworn on August 10th, 2016, she said she had an appointment lined up for August 16th, 2016. She mentioned other programs to workers that she intended to get involved with but there was never any evidence of completion. This included programs through Public Health, Alternatives for Youth, ADGS, Taking Steps, Womankind, and Catholic Family Services. As recently as July 4th, 2016, the Mother was alleged to have advised the worker that did not want to participate in programming offered through the Catholic Family Services. On June 13th, 2016, the worker, Ms. Hall, said she reminded the Mother that she had still not signed up for violence against women counselling and she suggested she contact Catholic Family Services for this. However, when the subject was raised again on July 4th, 2016, the Mother informed her that Catholic Family Services only offer group sessions and she doesn’t want group sessions.

vii) There were concerns about the Mother’s access with J.B. Visits were put on hold on May 20th, 2016, due to poor attendance. When they resumed, they were scheduled for once per week instead of twice. From between April 27th, 2016 and August 9th, 2016 the Mother attended 6 out of 15 scheduled visits.

viii) There were concerns about the number of moves the Mother had had over the last few years. She was described as being evicted twice from November 2011 to April 2012, and then lived as follows:

• with H.O.’s Mother
• in a shelter
• with H.O.’s Mother again
• in her own home
• in a shelter
• with an aunt
• with a friend
• in an apartment with H.O.
• “couch surfing”

She has been at the same address for 5 months now, but recently asked for a letter to help her get new housing.

ix) There were historical concerns about the Mother not being forthright with the Society. For example, she told a worker on March 31, 2015, that she missed an access visit with R.B. because she had an abortion the day before and didn’t feel well.

On April 15th, 2015, she told the same worker, Ms. Hall, that she did not have an abortion. She was also seen as being misleading about her relationship with H.O.

The Mother’s Position

[13] The respondent Mother is opposed to the motion. The following was mentioned in her affidavit and submissions:

i) She believes she should be given a chance to parent because the child is only 4 months old and the legislation allows for a year.

ii) The P.C.A. is over 8 years old and she has had many gains since then.

iii) She should not be prejudiced by the fact that she has had other children who were made Crown wards. This is a different child and the circumstances are different. She was only 17 years old when her oldest 2 children were made Crown wards.

iv) She had a drug and alcohol problem in the past but has been sober since April 26th, 2016, she never used opiates as alleged.

v) She has an appointment with ADGS on August 16th, 2016 to commence a course.

vi) She will be seeking more access to the child D.B.-O.

vii) She does stay away from H.O. as requested and she expects outstanding charges against her to be dropped.

viii) She is not about to be evicted.

ix) She admitted using drugs during her pregnancy and this is a reflection of how she is honest with the CAS.

x) She believes the worker, Ms. Hall, is judgmental of her and doesn’t appreciate that she is prepared to take any courses recommended.

xi) She did not fail to follow through with access to the child. The worker cancelled the Wednesday visits but kept the Friday visits after she asked Ms. Hall to switch mornings to afternoons because her Mother was not well. She missed access because of being ill, for court attendances, or because of appointments.

xii) She has been in her current residence since March 23rd, 2016.

xiii) She will comply with any terms of supervision that would be made if the child is returned to her.

xiv) She denies that there was a lack of prenatal care. The Society said she missed 2 visits. She says that she only missed one visit and that was because she was still confused and depressed over the loss of her children.

xv) She agreed to the child R.B. being made a Crown ward without access because she was very unstable and depressed at the time and felt it was best for R.B. The circumstances are different this time and she is willing and able to parent J.B full time.

xvi) She said she has taken a “violence against women” course through Catholic Family Services.

xvii) She did the right thing by calling the police 4 times on May 10th, 2016, to seek their assistance with H.O. coming to her home. She said she was charged with assaulting him later that night outside a Food Mart but she was only defending herself.

xviii) She takes antidepressant medications because she recognizes that she had emotional problems due to the loss of her children.

xix) She realizes the abuse that H.O. is capable of and they are not in a relationship and were not as of J.B.’s birth.

xx) She loves J.B. and believes it is in his best interests if she has a chance to parent him.

xxi) She did not attend the counselling through Catholic Family Services because she doesn’t like the open group concept for counselling.

[14] The Society responded to the Mother’s material with a further affidavit form Ms. Hall. She said that she was at the Mother’s home on August 15th, 2016 and H.O. called her from jail. It was pointed out how often he was the Mother’s home when the police attended. The Mother was described as cancelling access on February 3rd, 2015 because she was in treatment but then admitted on March 2nd, 2015 that she was not in treatment, so she had not been forthcoming with the Society.

[15] Ms. Hall referred to paragraphs in an earlier affidavit that deal with missed appointments by the Mother with herself, and with doctors while pregnant. One doctor would not accept her back because she did not attend an appointment.

The Case Law

[16] The CAS provided the following case law:

• Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth v. K. R., [2001] O.J. No. 5754; 114 A.C.W.S.(3d) 71 (Ont. Sup.Ct.).
• Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. J.C., [2007] O.J. No. 1058; 281 D.L.R. (4th) 328; 223 O.A.C. 21; 36 R.F.L (6th) 40; 155 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1148 (Ont. Sup.Ct.- Div.Ct.).
• Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. W. M., [2008] O.J. No 4052; 171 A. C.W.S. (3d) 135 (Ont. Sup.Ct.).
• Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.S., 2011 ONCJ 803, [2011] O.J. No. 6076; 2011 ONCJ 803 (Ont. Ct.).
• Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. L.S., 2011 ONSC 5850, [2011] O.J. No. 4512; 2011 ONSC 5850 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)
• R. A. v. Jewish Family and Child Service, [2001] O.J. No. 47; 102 A. C.W.S. (3d) 55 (Ont. Sup.Ct.)
• J.C. J.-R. v. Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County, [2003] O.J. No. 2208; 123 A.C.W.S. (3d) 501 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)
• Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. S.P. [2008] O.J. No. 4608; 172 A.C.W.S.(3d) 410 (Ont. Sup.Ct.)
• Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. E.L.L., [2000] O.J. No. 5869; 134 A.C.W.S. (3d) 263 (Ont. Ct.)
• Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. W. M., [2003] O.J. No. 3903; [2003] O.T.C.881;126 A.C.W.S. (3d) 75 (Ont. Sup.Ct.)
• Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. C. H., 2004 ONCJ 224, [2004] O.J. No. 4084; 134 A.C.W.S. (3d) 261 (Ont. Ct.)
• Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. M.A. [2007] O.J. No. 2454; 158 A. C.W.S. (3d) 766 (Ont. Sup.Ct.)
• CAS of Toronto v. R.H., [2000] O.J. No. 5853; 131 A.C.W.S. (3d) 455 (Ont.Ct.)
• Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. A.D.L., [2009] O.J. No. 4380;, 78 R.F. L. (6th) 320 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)
• Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. M. W., [2003] O.J. No. 220; 63 O.R. (3d) 512; [2003] O.T.C.51; 119 A.C.W.S. (3d) 928 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)
• Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. R.S., [2000] O.J. No. 4880; 101 A. C.W.S. (3d) 1133 (Ont. Ct.)
• Worthington v. Worthington, 13 R.F.L. (5th) 220; [2000] O.J. No. 4853; 102 A. C.W.S. (3d) 127 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)

[17] I have reviewed the above cases and I am familiar with them and the principles contained therein. Some of the principles are as follows:

• It is no longer necessary to be the clearest of cases in order to find that there is no genuine issue for trial.
• “No genuine issue for trial” means “no chance of success” or “plain and obvious that the action cannot succeed.”
• It is not sufficient to set out mere denials in the responding material. A parent must put his or her best foot forward.
• The genuineness of an issue must arise from something more than a heartfelt desire by a parent to care for the child. The court must be satisfied that the parent faces better prospects than at the time of the apprehension and has developed some new abilities as a parent.
• Child development does not wait and children should not be expected to be in limbo while parents try to change.
• If an order for Crown wardship is made the onus is on the parent to prove that ongoing access will not impair the child’s chances for adoption and that it is beneficial and meaningful for the child, before an access order will be made.

[18] The Mother did not provide case law but I am aware of the principles of the case law that would guide me in remembering that Crown wardship without access is one of the most significant orders a court can make, especially without a trial. Such an order cannot be made in the name of expediency.

[19] Parents deserve a chance to be heard and the least intrusive solution should be ordered.

Conclusions

[20] I have read the material and considered the submissions and I am of the view that there is no genuine issue for trial.

[21] On the issue of the protection finding, I have no difficulty in finding that the child is in need of protection and that he was at the time of apprehension.

[22] Sections 37 (2) (b)(i) and (g) of the CFSA are appropriate in that they deal with risk of harm. Given the Mother’s history with 4 older children, the number of incidents of conflict, the concerns of drug use, and the lack of counselling, I can say that there was a risk of harm at the time of apprehension and now.

[23] Section 37 (2)(b)(i) reads as follows:

There is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s

i) failure to adequately care for, supervise or protect the child.

[24] Section 37 (2) (g) reads as follows:

There is a risk of harm that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f)(i)(ii)(iii)(iv)or (v) resulting from the actions, failure to act, or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child.

[25] There is no genuine issue for trial in my view regarding a finding under one of the above sections.

[26] Once a child has been found in need of protection, the court must make an order under Section 57(1) of the CFSA. That section reads as follows:

57. ORDER WHERE CHILD IN NEED OF PROTECTION – (1) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall made one of the following orders or an order under section 57.1, in the child’s best interests:

58. That the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the society, for a specified period of at least three months and not more than 12 months.

59. That the child be made a ward of the society and be placed in its care and custody for a specified period not exceeding twelve months.

60. That the child be made a ward of the Crown, until the wardship is terminated under section 65.2 or expires under subsection 71(1), and be placed in the care of the society.

61. That the child be made a ward of the society under paragraph 2 for a specified period then be returned to a parent or another person under paragraph 1, for a period or periods not exceeding an aggregate of twelve months.

[27] Section 70 (1) of the CFSA states that a child under the age of 6 can only be a ward of the Society for a total of 12 months. By the time a trial would be heard in this matter, and a decision released there could only be a brief period of Society wardship.

[28] I am not able to foresee a situation where the child would be returned to the Mother after only a few more months of foster care. My reasons are as follows:

1. I appreciate the Mother’s argument that the P.C.A. is 8 years old. However, it is important to note that this report contained specific recommendations for any future parenting by the Mother and so we have something to use to assess how she is doing today. The criteria for future parenting has not been met. The Mother has provided no evidence that she has taken any counselling or programs for domestic violence abuse. Her explanation that she wasn’t interested in group sessions is not acceptable. The fact that she is still planning on attending her first program with ADGS is a sign of a lack of commitment on the part of the Mother. She says that she has made many gains since the P.C.A. was completed but there is no evidence of this. All of the criteria set out in the P.C.A. were included in the Society’s Plan of Care for this action.

2. While the Mother says she has been clean and sober since April 2016, it is important to note that she has yet to take a program for alcohol and drug abuse, and it was these concerns that caused the father of her third child to reduce access that was an equal time sharing to supervised visits. Alcohol and drugs were used by the Mother when she was pregnant with the child J.B., early in her pregnancy. They were a factor in some of the incidents set out in the police reports. If it is true that she hasn’t used drugs or alcohol for the last few months, it is difficult to understand why she wouldn’t have committed to a program through ADGS or Womankind before now. She has known the Society has expected this of her for quite some time. It is also a concern that she used drugs in the early part of her pregnancy and shortly after the birth of J.B. despite the historic concerns.

3. There have been numerous incidents of conflict in the Mother’s past through her relationship with H.O. She would have known this was a concern since it was a concern before. It has been a concern since the birth of J.B. as seen by the number of police reports for incidents at her home since J.B.’s birth and an assault charge against her. I understand her argument that she was right to call the police about H.O. four times one day, but she has also shown signs of being in his company by choice long after there were concerns about him. She was described as minimizing an assault on her by saying the police “over reacted” when he was charged with assault on May 20th, 2016 even though he split her lip. On June 9th, 2016 she told the worker she was “now done with H.O.” This should have been much sooner.

4. Since the Parenting Capacity Assessment was completed the Mother had 2 other children who are not in her care, the last of whom was made a Crown ward. This shows that there has been a lack of follow up on the recommendations since that assessment was completed.

5. Of particular concern is the fact that within a short time after the Court Order was made in November 2011 regarding her third child D.B.-O. was made, access was drastically reduced from an alternate weekly time sharing to brief supervised visits. She did not give any reasonable explanation for this. The only explanation I have is from the CAS who claim that the father of D.B.-O. was concerned about her drug use. There is also no evidence of the Mother doing anything to obtain her former generous access back again, or even to have unsupervised access.

6. Another major concern is that the Mother has missed a number of visits with J.B. to the point where they were put on hold and then reduced from twice a week to once per week. I appreciate the argument that she may have had reasons but there were times when she did not have a sufficient reason. I also note that she has not been able to increase access.

7. The law is clear that a child does not have to be in limbo while waiting for a parent to make the necessary changes. It is true that she has only had over 4 months to show if she can parent this child. However, the concerns have been ongoing since the birth of her first child in 2006. There has been ample opportunity and reasons to be motivated to make the necessary changes.

8. I believe that an order for Crown wardship without access meets the criteria set out in Section 37(3) of the C.F.S.A. That section reads as follows:

Best interests of child

(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant:

1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs.

2. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.

3. The child’s cultural background.

4. The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.

5. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family.

6. The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community.

7. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.

8. The merits of a plan for the child’s carer proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent.

9. The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained.

10. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case.

11. The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent.

12. The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

13. Any other relevant circumstance. R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 11, S. 37(3); 2006, c. 5, s. 6(3).

[29] Of these sections I note the following:

(1&2) The child has no particular health issues. The Mother is not able to care for the child, and adoption is appropriate.

(3) The child has no particular cultural background and this issue was not raised by anyone.

(4) The child is of no particular religion.

(5&6) The child is too young to know his family members and he has only had brief supervised visits with his Mother. He would not have emotional ties to family members. There were no kin care proposals for placement.

(7) The child is too young to notice a disruption in his care, which would happen anyway, if he is placed for adoption or returned to the Mother.

(8) The child can have a permanent home if adopted. If he is returned to the Mother there is the chance that the C.A.S. will have to intervene again.

(9) The child is too young to have views and wishes.

(10) We do not have much time for delays as the child can only be in care for 12 months. If returned to the Mother a long period of supervision would be needed and there is a risk of the child being reapprehended again, given the Mother’s history.

(11&12) As stated earlier, I believe there is a risk of harm if the child is returned to the Mother, given her history and the fact that her access to J.B. was greatly reduced.

[30] For all of the above reasons I am of the view that there is no genuine issue for trial. This child should not have to wait until his Mother shows a satisfactory period of a conflict free lifestyle, successful period of drug and alcohol treatment, meaningful counselling for domestic abuse issues, and an absence of concerns about access to her other child D.B.-O.

[31] Once an order for Crown wardship has been made, there remains the issue of access.

[32] Section 59(2.1) of the C.F.S.A. reads as follows:

Access: Crown ward

(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. 2006, c. 5, s. 17(2).

[33] The material did not mention evidence of specific things that went wrong during access other than the fact that some visits were missed. However it is difficult to see how access can be beneficial and meaningful when it is still only one supervised visit per week. In addition, I have concerns the Mother’s access to her third child decreased from an alternating weekly schedule to supervised visits. I cannot say that brief supervised access visits are beneficial and meaningful to the child. Even if I were to find access to be meaningful and beneficial to the child, I am bound by the 2 part test in Section 58(27). I would also have to be able to say that access would not impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption. Clearly this test could not be met here. J.B. is almost 5 months old and he has been described as doing well in his foster home placement and meeting all his developmental milestones. An access order would impair his chances for adoption. For the above reasons, I will make an order that there be no access.

[34] The parties consented to an order that says that there is no other person who qualifies as a parent under the C.F.S.A. The evidence supports such an order and I will make this order.

Final Order to Issue

1. The child’s name and date of birth in this proceeding is J.J.D.B. born […], 2016.
2. There is no person, other than the respondent Mother P.B. who qualifies as a parent to the above named child and who would be entitled to notice of this proceeding under the Child and Family Services Act.
3. The child J.J.D.B. is found to be in need of protection pursuant to sections 37(2) (b)(i) and 37(2)(g) of the Child and Family Services Act.
4. There shall be an order for Crown wardship without access in regard to the child J.J.D.B. born […], 2016.

McLaren, J. Released: August 30, 2016