CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. T.A.N.B., 2017 ONSC 7164
COURT FILE NO.: C207/82-15
DATE: December 20, 2017
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT
BETWEEN:
Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex
Tim Price for the Society
Applicant
- and -
T.A.N.B. and S.D.A., sometimes known as A.S.
T.A.N.B. not appearing
Reagan Humphrey for S.D.A.
Respondents
HEARD: September 27, 28, 29, 2017; November 14, 15, 2017
MITROW J.
INTRODUCTION
[1] This is a protection application involving a five-year old male child, A.J.A., born in […] 2012 (“the child”), commenced by the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (“the Society”). The respondent, T.A.N.B., is the child’s mother (“the mother”); the respondent, S.D.A., is the child’s father (“the father”).
[2] At trial, the father, when sworn, did identify himself as “A.S.,” reversing his first and last name from what is shown in the title of the proceeding. The father explained his cultural basis for doing so. The order below does amend the title of the proceeding in relation to the father’s name.
[3] The Society seeks a finding of protection and an order of Crown wardship. The father does not oppose a protection finding, but seeks placement of the child in his care pursuant to a supervision order.
[4] The mother, although properly served, neither participated in nor attended at the trial.
[5] For reasons that follow, a protection finding is made and, in relation to disposition, the Crown wardship order sought by the Society is granted. The order below does provide for access.
BACKGROUND
A. The Mother; the Child’s Apprehension
[6] There are some largely uncontradicted stark facts that inform some of the background in this case.
[7] The child is the ninth child born to the mother; of the previous eight children, none are in the mother’s care and six of those children were made Crown wards.
[8] The respondent father is the biological father of the mother’s six youngest children and this includes the child who is the subject of this current protection application. In relation to the first five children that the respondents have had together, none of those children are in the care of either respondent and four of those children were made Crown wards.
[9] I accept the evidence of the Society workers, Cindy Templeman (“Ms. Templeman”) and Sarah Gillham (“Ms. Gillham”), as to the circumstances surrounding the apprehension of the child in May 2016, the failure of the mother to become meaningfully involved in this case and her inability, or unwillingness, to present a plan of care.
[10] The father had little meaningful evidence to contribute in relation to the mother’s care of the child and the events leading up to the apprehension as the father, on his own admission, had not seen the child since the child was approximately six months old and, further, the father was in jail serving a sentence for drug trafficking when the child was apprehended. More about the father’s criminal past later.
[11] It was Ms. Templeman’s evidence that, following the receipt of a report from police, she and a co-worker had attended at the mother’s home on May 24, 2016.
[12] The child, then age four years and four months, was observed wearing only a diaper. The child had paint all over his body; his hands, feet and face were dirty; and he presented with speech difficulties and appeared “significantly delayed” for his age. The Society workers observed macaroni noodles and cheese powder spread on the kitchen floor. The mother told the workers that the child destroys things, pulling stuff out and dumping it on the floor. The Society workers noted that the walls, floors, cupboards, couch and furniture were covered in paint, marker and pencil crayon drawings. There were random household items on the floor in different places. The mother reported that she tries to clean up but the child continues in his behaviour.
[13] The mother admitted to the Society workers that on the previous day the child had left the home; initially the child could not be found; the police attended at the home and the child was found at a playground.
[14] The mother further reported not having any supports from family or friends to assist her with the child’s care. She told the Society workers that the child had been “kicked” out of daycare due to his aggressive behaviour.
[15] The mother advised that the following day, being May 25, 2016, that the child was scheduled to see a pediatrician. The mother was directed by the Society workers to have locks installed on the doors by the following morning and to take the child to the pediatrician as scheduled.
[16] The next day, there was no answer when both workers attended for a follow-up. However, on the day following, being May 26, 2016, the child answered the door when Ms. Templeman and her co-worker attended at the home at approximately 11 a.m.
[17] The Society workers observed that the child’s pajamas were wet with urine. Ms. Templeman observed “what appeared to be feces” smeared at the entrance to the front door and on a couch cushion. There was a one-square foot hole in the drywall; the mother reported that the child had pulled down drywall that morning.
[18] The mother also reported that on the day before, she had neither installed locks on the doors, nor had she taken the child to the pediatrician as had been directed by the Society workers. The mother explained that she had not been able to manage the child’s behaviours.
[19] While in the presence of the social workers, the child walked out of the home; the mother presented as unmotivated to retrieve the child and had to be requested to do so by Ms. Templeman as the child had wandered three houses away. When the mother returned with the child, taking a significant time to do so, the child proceeded to “hit, punch and kick” the mother who was observed as being unable to manage the child’s behaviours.
[20] The child was observed again on that occasion to leave the home and was out of eyesight before the mother came to the door; again the mother had to be coaxed by the workers to retrieve the child.
[21] The Society workers made a decision to apprehend the child immediately. Police were called to assist. Although the mother “appeared” to understand when told by the workers that the child was being apprehended, and was cooperative, the mother, after police arrived, began to report that a priest was living in her attic and the mother pointed to non-existent images on the walls that she insisted were “right there,” stating that she could see her son, faces and snakes. The mother asked the police officers if they could see the snakes moving.
[22] Over the next year or so, following the apprehension, the evidence reveals that the mother continued to struggle personally, including having issues with substance abuse. The mother’s interactions with Society workers, including her attendances at meetings, were plagued with inconsistencies, as was her attendance at supervised access visits.
[23] Eventually, by mid-July 2017, the Society’s contact with the mother had ceased and the mother no longer attended for supervised access visits.
B. The Father
[24] The father was born in Ethiopia. He has been in Canada for approximately 20 years. The father testified he is a permanent resident of Canada.
[25] The father admitted that he has an extensive criminal record. The father’s criminal record with the London Police Service was filed as an exhibit by the Society and was not challenged as to its accuracy. The criminal record shows numerous convictions from May 2000 to July 2016. Many of the convictions are either breach of probation or failure to comply with a recognizance. There are three convictions for assault. The father testified as to having a very high-conflict relationship with the mother that spawned a number of his assault and breach convictions.
[26] The conviction that led to the longest period of incarceration, almost 14 months followed by a period of 1 year probation, was the conviction in April 2016 for drug trafficking. The father admitted freely in the witness box that he trafficked in crack cocaine. He denied using crack cocaine, although he did admit to past use of marijuana.
[27] The father’s evidence is that he was charged with trafficking in 2013 and was bound by various bail conditions; he explained that he was not in a position to participate in parenting the child until his trafficking charge was dealt with.
[28] In January 2017, the father was released from jail. His conviction on the trafficking charge in April 2016, and his incarceration, had occurred about a month prior to the child’s apprehension. The father’s first contact with the child, since the child was approximately six months of age, was in February 2017 in a supervised access visit which was soon after the child’s fifth birthday.
[29] While incarcerated, the father completed two 7.5 hour programs, as verified by certificates of completion filed as exhibits; one program was for anger management and the other program was described, in part, as a “psycho-educational accredited anti-criminal thinking program.”
[30] It was the father’s evidence that he now rejects the life that he had led – that he is not the person he used to be. While the father’s professed metamorphosis, rightly, could attract a large dose of healthy skepticism, I am inclined, on all the evidence, to treat the father’s self-proclaimed path towards redemption as genuine. Evidence from the Society workers and the father’s current probation officer corroborated the sincerity of the father’s desire to atone for the mistakes of his past. The probation officer described the father as insightful and remorseful.
[31] The father made known to the Society his desire to parent the child; he has a good record of attending supervised access visits which, at the time of trial, were twice weekly for two hours each. The evidentiary record supports a finding that the supervised access visits were positive.
[32] Anna Gavin (“Ms. Gavin”), the Society facilitator for the Circle of Security program, testified that the father did well overall in that program, as was corroborated by the written report prepared by Ms. Gavin.
[33] The Circle of Security program consisted of seven modules, all attended by the father, with each module consisting of a lesson format and then interaction with the child during the access portion.
[34] In addition to his six children with the mother, it was the father’s evidence that he has two other children. His eldest child, a son, born in Kenya, came with the father when the father immigrated to Canada. On the father’s uncontradicted evidence, he separated from that child’s mother while living in London, Ontario and it was the father’s evidence that this child, now age 23, stayed with the father most of the time. The father’s other child, now age 20 or more, was born out of a relationship that the father had with the child’s mother; both the mother of that child, and that child, reside in Italy. The father described his relationship with that child as one of communication via such mediums as Facebook and video calls.
[35] The evidence suggests that of his eight children, the father has maintained an active parenting role only with his 23-year-old son who continues to reside in London, Ontario.
[36] While it cannot be denied that the father genuinely desires to parent the child who is the subject of the current application, and that he has put forth an earnest and sincere effort to reconnect with the child following his release from jail earlier this year, there are a number of other factors that must be also be considered, the totality of which, as discussed below, support the relief sought by the Society.
THE CHILD
[37] The child’s aggressive, non-compliant behaviour, mentioned earlier in relation to circumstances leading to the child’s apprehension, was explained in detail by the foster mother. I accept her evidence; it was reliable, credible and unchallenged.
[38] Although both the foster mother and her husband are foster parents (collectively referred to in these reasons as “the foster parents”), the foster mother’s evidence establishes that she is the more involved day-to-day foster parent in relation to the care of the child.
[39] The foster mother does not have other employment; she is very experienced, having been a foster parent for 30 years or so.
[40] The child has been in the care of the foster parents since May 2016, except for a period of approximately one month in or about the fall of 2016. This hiatus had nothing to do with the foster parents’ care of the child, but rather was because of administrative reasons relating to a cap on the number of foster children, where there was also a person in the foster home who had attained age 18 and was in receipt of adult services. Beyond that, it is not necessary for the purpose of these reasons to discuss this issue in any further detail except to note that the administrative issue was dealt with, allowing the child to return to the care of the foster parents.
[41] The foster parents specialize in providing a foster home for children with special needs, including children affected by “fetal alcohol,” autism, developmental delays and post-traumatic stress disorder.
[42] The foster parents have one adult person in their home who is in receipt of adult services, and five children – two of those children having been adopted by the foster parents; the remaining three children are foster children, including the child who is the subject of this protection application.
[43] Although the child is age 5, the foster mother described him as a “very big boy,” the “size of a 10 or 12-year old boy,” who behaves at a level of a 2-year old. The foster mother described herself as five feet tall and stated that the child was close to her height.
[44] The child’s psychiatric assessment report dated March 8, 2017, filed as an exhibit, noted the child’s weight and height at the time of the assessment to be 34.9 kilograms and 131.4 centimetres, respectively, corroborating the foster mother’s description of the child’s size and stature.
[45] The foster mother testified that the child has temper tantrums; she described him as aggressive, oppositional and defiant. According to the foster mother, the child hits, kicks, spits, slaps, pulls hair, throws items and he is destructive.
[46] The child can engage in aggressive behaviour with little warning, including being aggressive with other children. The foster mother explained that shoving other children is something that the child does; this is a particular concern given his significant height and weight advantage when compared to other children his own age.
[47] In relation to throwing things, the foster mother described situations where the child will “clear the table” if he is upset, meaning he will take his hand and intentionally swipe everything that is on the table onto the floor. The child will throw toys that other children are playing with; also, he will empty his own toy containers, throwing toys across the room.
[48] The child displays similar outbursts at school. The child started junior kindergarten in September 2016. He had to be nurtured, slowly, to integrate into the school because of his special needs. Initially, when the child started junior kindergarten, he was in the classroom only for about 15 minutes. He is now in senior kindergarten and has progressed to being in the classroom for approximately half days.
[49] The foster mother has regular contact with the school, including having to attend at the school because of the child’s aggressive conduct towards other children and the teaching staff.
[50] The foster mother described one occasion occurring around June 2017, when she received a call and had to attend at the school. The child “had cleared the whole coat room,” meaning that items contained in his classmates’ cubby holes, such as bags, lunches, coats and shoes, had been thrown onto the floor. The child was non-responsive to requests from the teaching staff and other school officials to put the items back. When the foster mother arrived at the school, she was able successfully to direct the child to place all the items back where they belonged.
[51] The foster mother testified that the child does have a very positive side; however, he is supervised continuously. Outbursts can happen with no warning “… unless you’re very tuned in,” as the foster mother explained, adding that she is “very tuned in” and that this enables her at times to anticipate when the child may be upset and to employ appropriate preventative strategies.
[52] I find, on the evidence, that the foster mother is a loving, patient and dedicated caregiver for the child; she is familiar with all aspects, including the fine nuances, of the child’s behaviour which enables her, most likely better than anyone else at this time, to manage and respond effectively to the child’s behaviour.
[53] The Society child protection worker, Ms. Gillham, corroborated the child’s aggressive behaviour at the time he came into care. Ms. Gillham testified that when the child first came into care, he was in a foster home where the foster parents could not manage him and asked to have him removed after one day.
[54] In addition, in relation to the approximate one month that the child was in another foster home due to the administrative issue as described earlier, Ms. Gillham and the foster mother both testified that the child had to be removed from that foster home as those foster parents were unable to manage the child’s behaviours.
[55] The foster mother added in her testimony that those foster parents were very experienced and that the foster mother had assisted in the transition, which included having the new foster parents come to her home to meet the child.
[56] During her evidence in-chief, the foster mother was asked how often the child engages in aggressive behaviour; her response was “a lot.”
[57] Later, when asked by the court to describe how frequently the child acts out, meaning behaviour that ranges from fairly moderate to a high level of aggression, such as hitting, pulling someone’s hair, throwing things, clearing the table, kicking, shouting, screaming, running around uncontrollably or slamming a door, the foster mother testified “… I would say a hundred times in a week …” Neither counsel, when invited, chose to ask the foster mother any questions in relation to the foster mother’s testimony flowing from questions posed by the court.
[58] Although one might question whether the frequency of the child’s behaviour, as described by the foster mother, can be that extreme, the fact is that the foster mother was not challenged on this evidence. The evidence that two previous foster homes were unable to manage the child’s behaviour attests somewhat to the severity of the child’s conduct. Further, as discussed below, the child’s psychiatric assessment report corroborates to some degree the foster mother’s evidence. Accordingly, I do accept the foster mother’s evidence as to the frequency of the child’s aggressive behaviours.
STATUTORY AND PROTECTION FINDINGS
[59] Pursuant to s. 47(2) of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 [as amended] (the “Act”), I make the following findings:
(a) the child’s name and date of birth are as set out in Ex. #15;
(b) there was no evidence of any religious faith in which the child is being raised;
(c) the child is not an Indian or a native person; and
(d) the child, on apprehension, was removed from the mother’s residence in London, Ontario.
[60] The circumstances surrounding the apprehension of the child support a finding, which I make, that the child is in need of protection pursuant to ss. 37(2)(b)(i) and (ii) of the Act.
DISPOSITION
[61] Although there are positive aspects to the father’s decision to parent the child including his regular attendance at access visits, the fact remains that the father was absent from the child’s life for many years. The responsibility for that sad reality lies at the feet of the father – he chose a criminal lifestyle at the expense of being able to enrich his life by being a parent to his son.
[62] The presentation of the mother at the time of the apprehension, and the description of the child’s behaviours as observed by the Society workers, raise serious concerns as to how long the mother was struggling to manage and control the child’s behaviour.
[63] Despite the father’s stated intention to cooperate with the Society and to do what was necessary to be able to parent the child, I find that the father, during his testimony, displayed some unfortunate stubbornness. Despite the Society’s multiple requests, which were put in writing, the father continued to refuse to attend a formal assessment at Addiction Services of Thames Valley (“ASTV”), except after the trial started.
[64] I accept Ms. Gillham’s evidence that, on one occasion when she was recommending to the father that he should attend at ASTV, that the father was opposed to her recommendation and that he communicated his opposition to Ms. Gillham in a raised voice. The father’s history of drug trafficking, and his admitted use of marijuana, does present a genuine concern, and the Society’s request for the father to attend at ASTV, in the circumstances, was reasonable. It was only after the Society completed its case, and the trial was adjourned for a number of weeks for the father to present his case, that the father attended at ASTV for a two-hour group session. This, I find, was too little too late, and prompted most likely not by the father having an open mind to receive sage advice about substance abuse, but rather prompted more by “damage control” after listening to the Society evidence.
[65] In a similar vein, again stubbornly, the father resisted the Society’s request to attend for the “Caring Dads” program that was described in the Society letter dated March 2, 2017 as a program designed “to better understand how abuse, neglect and domestic violence” can affect children.
[66] I accept, also, the probation officer’s evidence that the father was non-compliant to the probation officer’s suggestions to attend ASTV and an anger management program.
[67] The Society letter dated March 2, 2017 had set out a number of expectations that the father was expected to meet, including parenting courses and attendance at ASTV. In relation to parenting programs, the father did register for an eight week program, “Parenting School-Aged Children” that started October 24, 2017, which was during the time that the trial was adjourned for completion of the evidence. This program was still in progress when the trial ended.
[68] There was evidence from the father that in March 2017, after receiving the Society letter, that he had called Merrymount – Family Support and Crisis Centre (“Merrymount”) and had spoken to Ms. Wendy Tapp-Moore (“Ms. Tapp-Moore”), who told him that this program was next available in October 2017.
[69] However, the Society called Ms. Tapp-Moore in reply. Ms. Tapp-Moore oversees parenting programs at Merrymount. It was her evidence that the Parenting School-Aged Children program was offered in 2017 to start in April and also in October, and that if someone had called in March 2017, then that person would have been told to call group intake for the April program and would not have been told to wait until October. Ms. Tapp-Moore testified that for the April program a person could call and register for that program as late as the morning of the program start date. Ms. Tapp-Moore further testified that there is a record of the father calling on September 6, 2017, inquiring about parenting programs recommended by the Society, including the Parenting School-Aged Children program. At that point, according to Ms. Tapp-Moore, the father had not registered for any programs at Merrymount.
[70] The father’s evidence, at times, regarding his efforts to register for programs at Merrymount was confusing. I prefer and accept Ms. Tapp-Moore’s evidence where it conflicts with the father’s evidence. I reject the father’s evidence that he was told in March 2017 that the Parenting School-Aged Children program was not available until October 2017. I find that the father procrastinated in registering for this program and that it had been open to him to have taken that program starting in April 2017. As a result, the Society was in no position to assess the father’s performance in this program when the trial ended.
[71] While the father did meet some expectations set out in the Society letter including, for example, attending at supervised access visits, obtaining counselling (which he did on a referral from the probation officer), meeting regularly with the social worker and attending meetings as required by the probation officer, I do find that the father’s failure to follow through in a timely way, if at all, with the other expectations gives rise to a genuine concern as to whether the father will be compliant with all terms and conditions if the disposition was a supervision order placing the child with the father.
[72] I find that the father demonstrated a pronounced naïve and simplistic insight into the child’s aggressive behaviour. It was the father’s view that more “one-on-one” attention and “love and affection” are required to manage the child’s behaviours.
[73] While, admittedly, any child will benefit from individual attention, love and affection, the father’s evidence belies a necessary appreciation of the extent of the child’s aggressive behaviour and the sophisticated strategies required to respond effectively to that behaviour.
[74] The foster mother referred to a specific occasion when she was at the Society office at the same time that the father was having an access visit. The worker who was supervising the access visit wanted to speak with the foster mother.
[75] The foster mother complied with this request; she observed a portion of an access visit. The foster mother described the child as “elevated” and “very upset.” It was the foster mother’s evidence that, when she tried to explain to the father why the child was acting out and explaining how to redirect the child, that the father responded “I know, I know, I know,” telling the foster mother it was the same with his other children. On that occasion, the foster mother had to interject to manage the child’s behaviour.
[76] I accept the foster mother’s evidence as to the father’s dismissive attitude towards the cogent advice offered by the foster mother.
[77] A psychiatric assessment report was filed, and was not challenged; also, while being assessed by the psychiatrist, the child was also assessed by a speech and language pathologist, whose report dated March 10, 2017 was also filed, and also was not challenged. The latter report found that the child was in the fourth percentile in listening comprehension and oral language, and in the seventh percentile for oral expression. The child was assessed as presenting ongoing challenges affecting his overall profile of communication ability. Many recommendations were included in the report to assist the child in his ability to communicate. The implementation of the recommendations will require ongoing and committed attention from the child’s primary caregiver.
[78] The child’s psychiatrist opined that the “most important” recommendation for the child is that the child be “in a stable environment with people who have expertise to manage his behaviour.” The psychiatrist also concluded that it would be “disastrous” for the child to move frequently. In addition to seeing a speech and language pathologist, the psychiatrist recommended that the child should see an occupational therapist to assess his coordination and potential sensory difficulties.
[79] The psychiatrist’s assessment report concludes as follows:
[The child] has a diagnosis of a language Disorder, Speech Sound Disorder, and probable Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, indicates a severe communication, cognitive, and behavioural disability which is a significant impediment to his education. Because of this disability, he has constant difficulties with communication skills, social skills, and self regulation. He requires constant redirection, guidance, and individualized assistance in order to benefit from his educational program. This individualized assistance is needed in order to attend, process and communicate his work. He also requires an educational program which is unique with design in order to build on his strengths while meeting on his unique needs, particularly communication skills, social skills and behavioural management skills.
[80] When making a disposition pursuant to s. 57(1) of the Act, the court must do so in the child’s best interests. I have considered the relevant factors listed in s. 37(3) in relation to the child’s best interests.
[81] A very significant factor is the child’s special needs and the appropriate care and treatment to meet those needs. The child’s aggressive behaviours are extreme. The psychiatric assessment report gives primacy to placing the child in a stable environment with people who have expertise to manage the child’s behaviour.
[82] Despite the father’s well-meaning desire to step forward, now, after an absence of many years, to present a plan to parent the child, I am left, regrettably, with no confidence that the father will be able to meet the child’s needs, particularly given the conclusion discussed earlier regarding the father’s lack of insight into the child’s behaviour and how to manage that behaviour.
[83] The father’s plan of care to place the child with him pursuant to a supervision order carries with it a significant risk that the placement will fail. A failed placement pursuant to a supervision order would have negative consequences for the child.
[84] The Society’s plan is to place the child for adoption should a Crown wardship order be made. No evidence was led as to any potential adoptive home.
[85] The foster mother testified that if the child is made a Crown ward, then the foster parents would be prepared to care for the child on a long-term basis. Indeed, that has been the foster parents’ experience with their other special needs foster children, where the foster parents over the years have been able to develop an ongoing relationship with the foster children’s families.
[86] It was the foster mother’s evidence that if an adoptive home is found, then the foster mother would want to engage the prospective adoptive parents and to have them spend time at the foster mother’s home to ensure that all aspects of the child’s needs and behaviours, and how to manage those behaviours, are understood.
[87] I have considered that a Crown wardship order should be made only with the highest degree of caution and only on the basis of compelling evidence after a careful examination of possible alternative remedies: Catholic Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. S.(S.), 2010 ONCJ 700 (Ont. C.J.), at para. 116; Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. S.(D.), 2013 ONSC 2161 (S.C.J.), at para. 30.
[88] I find that the Society’s plan of care seeking Crown warship for the purpose of adoption is in the best interests of the child. The father’s plan is not in the child’s best interests.
[89] I comment briefly on the issue of a Society wardship order. Although the 12 month period of the child being in care pursuant to s. 70(1)(a) has long since expired, submissions were invited as to whether a Society wardship order should be considered in the event that these reasons were released in early January 2018, shortly after the child would have attained age six, in which case the applicable maximum period that a child could be in Society care would be 24 months pursuant to s. 70(1)(b), subject to a maximum 6-month extension as provided for in s. 70(4).
[90] Given the foregoing reasons, and the evidentiary record, the disposition would have remained unchanged even if the child had attained age six.
[91] In relation to access, it was the Society’s position that if a Crown wardship order was made, then some minimal supervised access could occur, something in the range of every two months for a minimum of two hours to be supervised at Society discretion with the supervision to be by the Society or its agent.
[92] There is a statutory presumption against access to a Crown ward. Section 59(2.1) provides:
(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.
[93] I have considered the Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. C.(J.), 2007 CanLII 8919 (ON SCDC), [2007] O.J. No. 1058 (Div. Ct.) as to the interpretation of “beneficial and meaningful.”
[94] The father’s relationship with the child, fostered during access visits and the Circle of Security program, was described in positive terms by a number of witnesses. I consider also a lack of any ongoing relationship between the child and his mother. The evidentiary record satisfies me that some access is beneficial and meaningful for the child, and that such access will not impair the child’s future opportunity for adoption. The order below does provide for access.
[95] I add one final consideration. At the conclusion of the trial, I did commend the father for choosing a new path in his life and abandoning his past criminal lifestyle. While this judgment will be a disappointment for the father, I continue to encourage the father to maintain the new path that he has chosen.
ORDER
[96] I make the following final order:
(1) The child is made a ward of the Crown and placed in the care of the Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex;
(2) The father shall have access to the child for a minimum of two hours per month, supervised at the discretion of the Society and, if the access is supervised, then the supervision shall be by the Society or its agent.
(3) The title of this proceeding is amended to show the respondent father’s name as “S.D.A., sometimes known as A.S.”
“Justice Victor Mitrow”
Justice Victor Mitrow
Released: December 20, 2017
CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. T.A.N.B., 2017 ONSC 7164
COURT FILE NO.: C207/82-15
DATE: December 20, 2017
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY COURT
BETWEEN:
Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex
Applicant
- and -
T.A.N.B. and S.D.A., sometimes known as A.S.
Respondents
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
MITROW J.
Released: December 20, 2017