The Children's Aid Society of Ottawa v. M.G.
CITATION: C.A.S. v. M.G., 2017 ONSC 5420
COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-62
DATE: 2017/09/13
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 A.I. (D.O.B. […], 2001) & C.I. (D.O.B. […], 2003)
Debora Scholey, for the Children
BETWEEN:
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
Applicant
– and –
M.G.
Respondent
Tara MacDougall, for the Applicant
M.G., (“the Mother”), In Person
HEARD at Ottawa: September 8, 2017
ENDORSEMENT
LINHARES DE SOUSA J.
[1] On September 8, 2017 I granted to the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“Society”) a summary judgment motion. At the end of the motion, I gave brief oral reasons for my decision, indicating that more fulsome written reasons would follow. What follows are those reasons.
[2] The Society brings a summary judgment motion with respect to the two children who are the subject matter of this protection application, namely, A.I. (D.O.B. […], 2001), and C.I. (D.O.B. […], 2003).
[3] These two children were apprehended from the care of their Mother, M.G. (“the Mother”), on January 7, 2016, as a result of a physical altercation that took place between the Mother and the child A.I. in the presence of the child C.I.
[4] The child, A.I., has been in the care of the Society since the apprehension. The child, C.I., shortly after the apprehension went into the care of his paternal grandmother, C.P. (“the Paternal Grandmother”) where he has remained since that time.
[5] By way of the summary judgment motion the Society seeks an order of Crown Wardship for the child A.I. who is now almost 16 years old. With respect to the child C.I., who is now 14 years old, the Society seeks an order of custody, pursuant to S. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 (“CFSA”).
[6] The Father of the children, S.I. (“the Father”), has been noted in default. The Mother contests the Society motion. However, at the commencement of the motion the Mother informed the court that in view of A.I.’s consistently held wish to not return to the care of her Mother, and the child’s resistance to visits with her Mother, she did not oppose the Society’s motion.
[7] Ms. Scholey, counsel for the children, confirmed that it was indeed A.I.’s wish to become a Crown Ward and that the child has been consistent in her wish to not have contact with her Mother at this time.
[8] On this basis and, having examined the history of the Society contact with this family as found in the filed material, I found that A.I. was a child in need of protection and granted a consent order for Crown Wardship. A.I. will continue to need professional help which is part of the Society plan of care for her.
[9] With respect to the question of access, while the Mother agreed to the order of Crown Wardship for the child A.I., she wished the court to impose certain conditions on the access A.I. would have to her extended family.
[10] Those suggested conditions were not consented to by the Society nor by Ms. Scholey on behalf of the child, A.I. I ruled that the issue of access that A.I. would have to her extended family would be an outstanding issue to be argued on the summary judgment motion.
[11] With respect to the child C.I., the Mother wanted the Court to return her son to her care with or without conditions of supervision.
[12] The evidence before the court indicates that the current protection concerns identified by the Society have been long standing. They are parent-child conflict, physical discipline, appropriate child supervision, not diligently and appropriately pursuing professional help for A.I.’s emotional and psychological challenges, and the use of harsh and inappropriate language when dealing with the children.
[13] Both children expressed fear of returning to the care of their Mother because of her conduct towards them. Both children have expressed their wishes not to visit with their Mother after coming into care. Both children, as reported by their counsel, have consistently expressed their wish not to return to the care of their Mother, despite efforts to reconcile the family, such as the Circle of Care, that was attempted at the Wabano Centre.
[14] The evidence shows that since commencing to live with his Paternal Grandmother, C.I. has been in communication with his Mother through texts and has had some limited visits with her. Nonetheless, he continues to refuse to have telephone conversations with her. C.I. has been consistent in his wish to continue to reside with the Paternal Grandmother where he has also been exercising contact with his father. This appears to be a positive development for C.I. and something the Mother herself indicated she had always wanted for C.I. as long as he remained safe.
[15] Based on all of the evidence, it supports the conclusion that C.I. is doing well in the care of his Paternal grandmother and has progressed in the care of his maternal grandmother. The Paternal Grandmother has reported that C.I. continues to be anxious about the uncertainty of his situation as the litigation continues. Clearly it is in his best interests to bring some finality and certainty to his circumstances as soon as possible.
[16] The Society has provided evidence that since the children’s apprehension, the Mother has not cooperated with the Society and has not been forthcoming in providing information of how she has addressed the protection concerns. It is fair to conclude that the Mother has indeed not shared with the Society what she has been doing in order to address the protection concerns. It was only on the day of this motion, although have had substantial time in which to present her proposals for the care of the children, that she did so. I permitted her to file this as Exhibit #1 and that was before the court.
[17] The Mother admitted that she acted inappropriately during her altercation with A.I. A.I. was hurt during that altercation although the Mother questions the extent of the alleged hurt.
[18] The Mother has provided evidence that she has pursued a program of counselling at the Wabano Centre for a number of months but she could not remember the name of the counsellor. The Mother indicates in her material that she has a circle of friend, family and community members who will support her in the care of the children, but she has not indicated with any specificity how these individuals would help her with the care of C.I. Her focus in this regard was towards A.I.
[19] The Mother has a good relationship with her father and at one time was putting her father forward as a plan of care or the children, but this did not go forward and does not appear to be a viable possibility at this time. The Mother has a conflictual relationship with other members of her family including her mother. The Mother is also against the children visiting with her extended family. The evidence showed that A.I. has made contact with this extended family and has visited with her maternal grandmother. The Society has not identified any safety concerns arising from this contact between A.I. and her extended maternal family. In fact, A.I. appears to have benefited from this contact.
[20] Finally, the Mother conceded that she understands and accepts that C.I. wishes to remain living with his Paternal Grandmother. She further agreed that in light of that very consistent and strong wish on the part of C.I. and given his age, her plan to have him return to her care cannot be seen as a viable one.
[21] In view of all of this evidence, I must conclude that C.I. can be found to be a child in need of protection. It is evident also from the evidence, taking into consideration all of the best interests factors enunciated in s. 37(3) of the CFSA, that it would be in his best interests to remain in the care of his paternal grandmother.
[22] With respect to the question of access relating to both children I was not persuaded that the conditions that the Mother wished to put on the access, relating to both A.I. and C.I. was justified. The Society has provided a prima facie case that they are not necessary.
[23] For these reasons I find that in this matter, taking account of all of the evidence produced by both sides to the motion, there is no genuine issue requiring a trial both with respect to whether the children are to be found in need of protection and with respect to what disposition is in their best interests. The jurisprudence regarding when and how the court ought to grant a summary judgment motion in these matters is clear and need not be repeated here. The motion for summary judgment brought by the Society is therefore granted.
[24] With respect to the child, A.I. there shall be an order for Crown Wardship. There will be an order for access to her extended family, including her sibling, C.I., in accordance to her wishes and as she shall initiate and in her best interests.
[25] With respect to the child, C.I., there shall be an order for custody to his Paternal Grandmother pursuant to s. 57.1 of the CFSA. C.I. shall enjoy access to his extended family, including his sibling A.I. in accordance with his wishes and as he shall initiate and in his best interests.
Madam Justice Maria Linhares de Sousa
Date: September 13, 2017
CITATION: C.A.S. v. M.G., 2017 ONSC 5420
COURT FILE NO.: FC-16-62
DATE: 2017/09/13
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 A.I. (D.O.B. […], 2001) & C.I. (D.O.B. […], 2003)
BETWEEN:
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Applicant
AND
M.G., Respondent
ENDORSEMENT
LINHARES DE SOUSA J.
Released: September 13, 2017