Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: C256/15-02 DATE: January 3, 2017 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO FAMILY COURT
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
RE: CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF LONDON AND MIDDLESEX, applicant AND: A.A.E.S. and M.G.B., respondents
BEFORE: MITROW J.
COUNSEL: Ben Leschied for the Society, and as agent for Brian Doody for M.G.B. Randolph Mills for A.A.E.S.
HEARD: December 23, 2016
Endorsement
[1] This status review application seeks return of the child (born in February 2015) to the parents pursuant to a six-month final supervision order.
[2] This matter came before me on October 28, 2016. The parties sought a six-month supervision order, on consent, placing the child with the parents. A statement of agreement facts (“SAF”) was filed (Ex. #1).
[3] The court declined to make the order at that time on the basis of the statement in the SAF that both parents exhibit “significant developmental delays.” The court suggested that the Society consider a s. 54 assessment.
[4] After one additional adjournment, this matter came before me on December 23, 2016. Additional evidence, filed, included a comprehensive affidavit, with a number of exhibits from Society child protection worker Pauline Boateng, sworn December 20, 2016, and an affidavit from the respondent father.
[5] Also, the mother gave very brief oral evidence on December 23, 2016 confirming all the persons who reside in the home of the paternal grandparents, R.J.D. and K.A.D. (referred to individually as “grandmother” or “grandfather” and collectively as “grandparents”).
[6] The respondents are the father and mother of the child (“father”, “mother”).
[7] The child was apprehended at birth. On January 7, 2016, a protection finding was made and the child was made a Society ward for four months, with reasonable access to the parents, and with Society discretion as to whether the access should be supervised.
[8] The Society was of the view that the parents should have expanded access. In June 2016, a final order was made amending the access provisions to allow for the parents to have consecutive overnight access.
[9] The parents are young: father is age 20 and mother is age 18.
[10] The Society conducted a kinship assessment of the grandparents. The grandparents have five children, three of whom are adults (including the respondent father). The grandparents and all their five children reside in the grandparents’ home, together with the respondent mother.
[11] The kinship assessment noted concerns about the grandparents that included past protection concerns regarding their own five children; a recurring issue is the state of cleanliness of the grandparents’ home. Concerns were expressed that this home is quite overcrowded, with minimal space available for all the occupants.
[12] Despite some concerns, the Society still was prepared to approve the grandparents as a kinship placement for the child, although marginally so, and with some conditions.
[13] The Society and both parents resist the necessity of a s. 54 assessment. The court had asked the parties to consider a s. 54 assessment. Currently, the child spends most of his time with the parents, as compared to the foster home. The Society evidence speaks positively of the parents’ care of the child, although it is conceded that the parents continue to reside in the grandparents’ home.
[14] The Society and both parents point to a recent report, for each parent, prepared by Developmental Services Ontario. Each parent was scored on the “0 percentile” in the “Supports Intensity Scale.” The reports explain this to mean that generally each parent’s “support needs fall in the low range compared to other adults with a developmental disability ” (my emphasis).
[15] The Society evidence also includes the following: that during interactions with the mother, it was noted that the mother appeared pregnant, but was denying that she was pregnant. However, in August 2016, the mother gave birth, with the birth apparently occurring suddenly, in a hospital washroom.
[16] The parents made a decision that they could not parent that child, and a Crown wardship order for that child was made, on consent, in November 2016.
[17] In all the circumstances, but with some caution, I find it is in the child’s best interests to make a final supervision order placing the child with the parents with terms and conditions. However, a fundamental term of the order must be that the parents and child continue to reside with the grandparents. The order sought by the Society and the parents did not contain that term, but both parents and the Society were agreeable to such a term.
[18] The developmental assessments that have been prepared, while helpful, are limited because the parents were assessed as compared to other adults with developmental disabilities.
[19] There may be parents with developmental disabilities who may be able to parent children on their own, with no protection concerns being present.
[20] This case undoubtedly will need to move to the next level, that being a situation where the parents are on their own. The grandparents’ home is very crowded and, for that reason alone, the parents may wish to live on their own with the child.
[21] In my view, this case would benefit from a s. 54 assessment. The court has to make decisions in the child’s best interests, and if any future plan involves the parents living independently with the child, then expert opinion evidence as to the parents’ ability to meet the child’s needs can be important to assist the court.
[22] Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support an order placing the child in the care of parents, if the parents are living independently. The Developmental Services Ontario reports, for both parents, refer to the supports being provided in the grandparents’ home; further, the reports recommend that each parent should access the services of an adult protective services worker should that parent wish to move out of the grandparents’ home. This raises a significant question as to whether the parents will be able to meet the child’s needs, if they are living independently.
[23] While I understand that the Society is concerned about its resources and the costs of an assessment, it appears that this is a case that merits such an expenditure.
[24] The order below incorporates, generally, the terms and conditions sought by the Society in the SAF.
[25] However, given that the parents will be required to live at the grandparents’ home, conditions have been added to reflect that.
Order
[26] An order shall issue incorporating the following:
The child shall be placed in the care of the parents under a final six-month supervision order subject to the following terms and conditions: i) the parents shall ensure that the child is seen regularly by a family physician, at a frequency recommended by the physician, and follow through with all medical treatment as recommended by the physician; ii) the parents shall participate in parenting education as recommended by the Society; iii) the parents shall sign all necessary consents for the release of information to and from the Society as requested by the Society; iv) the parents shall allow scheduled and unscheduled access to the home and cooperate with a worker and/or family support worker from the Society as requested by the Society; v) the parents shall ensure that the child attends school/daycare on a regular basis; vi) the parents shall allow a worker from the Society to have independent access to the child; vii) the parents shall inform the Society of any change of address and/or telephone number change prior to such change occurring; viii) the parents shall advise the Society of the full names of any adult spending significant time in the home or residing overnight in the home; ix) the parents shall only use alternative caregivers for the child who have been approved by the Society in advance; x) the parents and child shall reside with the grandparents at the residence of the grandparents; xi) if the parents are in breach of condition x), then the Society shall consider immediately whether to apprehend the child; if the Society does not apprehend the child, then the Society forthwith shall seek the direction of the court; xii) in relation to conditions iv) and vi), the grandparents shall allow any worker, including a family support worker, from the Society to have access to their residence, on both a scheduled and unscheduled basis, including allowing the worker and family support worker to have independent access to both parents and the child; and xiii) condition x) does not prevent the Society from approving, in advance, either or both of the parents being alone with the child, occasionally, in the community, or being alone with the child, occasionally, in the grandparents’ home including on an overnight basis, when neither grandparent is present.
The Society shall serve the grandparents personally with a copy of this signed and issued order.
“Justice V. Mitrow” Justice V. Mitrow