COURT FILE NO.: FC-09-348-3 DATE: 20180628 ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 87(8) OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 AND IN THE MATTER OF D.M., d.o.b., […], 2006 and N.C., d.o.b., […], 2012

BETWEEN:

THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF OTTAWA Applicant Danielle Marchand, for the Applicant

C.N. Respondent Mother – and – D.M. Respondent Father to D.M. – and – J.C. Respondent Father to N.C. Peter Stieda, for the Respondent mother D.M., Self-represented Alexandre Lafrénière, for the Respondent Father to N.C.

HEARD: June 19, 2018

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Audet J.

[1] In this motion, the Ottawa Children’s Aid Society (“Society”) seeks an order for temporary care and custody of the children; D.M. who is 11 years old, and N.C. who is six years old. The Society also seeks an order that the mother and the children participate in an assessment pursuant to s. 98 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (“CYFSA”).

[2] The mother, C.N. (“the mother”), seeks an order that the children be immediately returned to her care under a supervision order. She does not consent to an assessment pursuant to s. 98 of the CYFSA.

[3] Mr. D.M., D.M.’s father (“Mr. M.”), has been noted in default.

[4] Mr. J.C., N.C.’s father (“Mr. C.”), seeks limited supervised access to her.

Background

[5] The Society has been involved with this family since September 2008. There have been nine openings with concerns related to the children being exposed to domestic violence in their home, the unsanitary and unsafe conditions of the home, substance abuse and escorting in the home, lack of supervision and neglect of the children.

[6] D.M. was first apprehended from the mother’s care on February 20, 2009, as a result of her demonstrated inability to remain protective of him by allowing his father, Mr. M., in the home and allowing him access to D.M. despite her reported concerns regarding domestic violence and substance abuse. In the context of this first apprehension, the mother’s home was observed to be in complete disarray with piles of clothes and toys scattered throughout. There was no food in the fridge, dirty dishes piled in the sink, and dirty bedding. The bathroom was blocked with clothes and toys and the bathtub was filled with cold water. There was indication that marijuana was being smoked in the home with the child present. D.M. was two years old at the time.

[7] D.M remained in the Society’s care until August 4, 2010, at which time he was returned to his mother’s care under a supervision order. Seven months later, a final order granted sole custody of D.M. to his mother, with no access to his father, Mr. M.

[8] After N.C. was born in […] 2012, conflict between the mother and N.C.’s father, Mr. C. resulted in the Society becoming involved again. In October 2012, both children were apprehended from their mother’s care as a result of concerns with regards to alcohol and cocaine use in the home, domestic violence, as well as the mother’s escorting (activities) from the house. Police and Society intervention revealed that the mother’s home was unsanitary and unsafe. The floors were observed to be very dirty with ground in dirt in the kitchen and debris stuck on the living room floor. Old pizza crusts lay on the floors and had flies all over them. The kitty litter could be seen under the kitchen table and the stairs had clothes and items strewn on them. The kitchen was dirty with encrusted food on the counter, in the oven and in the fridge. Both bedrooms had the screens out of the windows and one window was open without any barrier in place. The crib was observed to have the mattress propped up with a pillow and the mattress appeared quite lumpy. There were no safety gates observed in the home and the basement was observed to have had a large amount of laundry and garbage bags piled up.

[9] The Society also had concerns regarding the mother’s mental health. The mother denied any such issues and was quite resistant in allowing the Society to investigate into the children’s well-being. D.M. was six years old at the time and N.C. was a baby. The children were brought to a place of safety for those reasons and a temporary order was made on October 26, 2012, placing the children in the care and custody of the Society. While Mr. M was not granted temporary access to D.M., Mr. C. was granted limited supervised access to N.C.

[10] On January 10, 2013, N.C. was returned to the temporary care of her mother under a supervision order. In her reasons for judgment, Justice de Sousa concluded that the mother had shown herself to be a great and loving parent when not living with abusive partners. But for the abusive relationships, the evidence showed that the mother could maintain a proper, clean and safe home environment for the children. Further, the judge concluded that there was no evidence of drug use or involvement in escorting activities by the mother.

[11] A six months final supervision order in favour of the mother was made with regards to N.C. on March 13, 2013, with access to Mr. C. at the discretion of the Society. The same final order was made with regards to D.M. on May 29, 2013. On February 13, 2014, the final supervision order regarding D.M. was terminated and a final custody order made in favour of the mother with regards to N.C. As Mr. C. did not file an Answer, he was noted in default and therefore, not granted access to N.C. He has had no contact with her since she was six months old.

The Current Proceeding

[12] The current protection application was filed by the Society, initially, following concerns reported by D.M.’s school. On January 25, 2018, the school contacted the Society to report that D.M. had a deep cut on his forehead which according to him had been caused by his sister hitting him with a can opener. D.M. had also reported having pills in his jacket pocket which belonged to his grandmother. The school also reported that D.M. normally came to school dirty and smelling bad, and that the school had given him a toothbrush and toothpaste because he reported not having any at home. The school further advised that D.M., as of January 2018, had already missed 46 days of school. The school’s attempts to connect D.M. to a school social worker had been objected to by the mother. The school reported that they had tried consistently to be involved with the family to support them, but that the mother was very hard to reach.

[13] During a meeting between the assigned Society worker and the mother following the school’s report, the mother dismissed D.M.’s cut on his forehead explaining that “kids get cuts.” She explained that D.M.’s poor attendance at school was caused by her night shift work schedule which made it very hard for her to pick up the children at daycare and bring D.M. to school on time. She also expressed disappointment about her working relationship with D.M.’s new school, and the services provided to him at that school.

[14] Further exchanges with D.M.’s school social worker and classroom teacher revealed that D.M. had a mild intellectual delay, and had been diagnosed with ADHD, anxiety, as well as a learning language disability. D.M. is in a dual support program, which is a program that targets both learning and behavioural needs. D.M. was reported to read at a grade one level (he is currently in grade 6), and to have frequent verbal outbursts when unable to do things or when things were not going his way. The school expressed concerns about D.M.’s very poor school attendance, about its inability to contact the mother, the lack of stimulation at home (based on D.M. talking a lot about being on his tablet, playing video games, etc.), and the school’s worries that the mother might be struggling with mental health issues and possible addictions. The school added that the children often wore dirty clothing and that they smelled bad.

[15] Then, on March 25, 2018, the Society was called by the authorities following a fire in the bedroom on the second level of the mother’s home. It was later discovered that D.M. and his six-year-old sister were playing with a lit candle which had caused a fire and minor damages to the home. As a result of the children’s exposure to smoke as well as D.M. having burnt his finger, they were taken to CHEO from where they were quickly released.

[16] Upon arriving at the scene, the Ottawa Police, Ottawa Fire Services and later the Society worker discovered a home that was in complete disarray, unsanitary and clearly unsafe. On the main level of the home, which consists of the living room, dining area and kitchen area, the floor was covered in debris, garbage, and dirty clothes several inches thick. No one was able to walk on the bare floor on the main level. There were dirty clothes, garbage and debris leading up to the main level of the home. A pot with water and cigarette butts was perched on top of debris in the living room area and a large amount of mice feces could be seen throughout the entire apartment. There was a mattress on the floor in the middle of the room.

[17] In the kitchen, there were more than 20 opened cans of food and garbage covering the counters. The opened cans of food had spoiled and there were many flies in the kitchen. Several pizza boxes covered the floor and counters. There was no bed in N.C.’s bedroom, only bed rails for an infant bed. A pair of D.M.’s pyjama bottoms with feces was on the floor. D.M.’s bedroom was also disorganized and dirty. Dried up chocolate milk spilled on the floor had never been cleaned up. There were no sheets or blankets on D.M.’s bed, and garbage, dirty clothing and spoiled food covered the floor. The toilet in the washroom was clogged and the sink was full with a paint tray and a pile of dirty clothes inside it. The counter of the washroom was covered with debris, garbage and what appeared to be ash and dirt.

[18] The children were brought to a place of safety on that day to allow the mother time to address the concerns pertaining to the state of her home and her apparent lack of supervision of the children. In the context of interviews with the children conducted the next day, the children revealed that they usually eat out of cans unless it is a “junk day” (meaning junk food). When talking with them about healthy foods, including fruits and vegetables, D.M. asked what vegetables were. D.M. reported that he had never been to the doctor or the dentist, because he did not have any problems; that at home he would stay awake all night playing games or watching videos without being tired at school the next day. D.M. presented as a “parentified child”, who felt responsible for his sister’s and mother’s well-being.

[19] On March 29, 2018, the Society filed a protection application alleging that D.M. had suffered physical harm caused by the mother’s failure to care for, provide for, supervise or protect him adequately, and that both children were likely to suffer physical harm caused by the same conduct and by a pattern of neglect. The Society further alleged that there was a risk that the children were likely to suffer emotional harm as demonstrated by serious anxiety, depression, withdrawal, self-destructive or aggressive behaviour, or delayed development resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the mother. They sought an order for interim Society care for period of six months.

[20] The children have remained in care since being brought to a place of safety on March 25, 2018, under a without prejudice order which provides for three access visits per week to the mother, of at least two hours each, semi-supervised by the Society. The location of the visits is to be at the Society’s discretion, with at least one of the three visits taking place in the community.

Temporary Care and Custody

[21] The Society takes the position that a return of the children to the mother’s care at this time, pursuant to supervision order, is premature and would not ensure the safety and well-being of the children for the following main reasons:

1. there is a documented pattern of the court granting supervision orders in the past in order to mitigate the child protection concerns, and although the concerns appear to have been addressed at the time including state of the home, mental health and meeting the children’s basic needs, the same concerns have re-emerged on more than one occasion;
2. The mother has demonstrated some resistance to working with the Society in the current file opening which is an essential requirement for a supervision order to be effective;
3. The mother appears to lack insight into the Society’s concerns, blaming them on others or circumstances out of her control.

[22] The mother takes the position that she has sufficiently attended to the concerns of the Society to allow the children to be returned to her care. She says that she recognizes the insalubrious state of her home, and has taken steps to clean it up and to deal with the mice infestation issue. She states that she is solely focused on attending to the needs, safety, wishes, and best interests of both children, and that she is making every effort to ensure that the emotional needs of the children are being attended to. She says that she has demonstrated a great diligence in attending all access visits on time, and her visits have all been very positive. She takes the position that the Society has provided little in the way of evidence substantiating mental health issues on her part, and indicates that she does not suffer of any mental health issues. While she consents to see a counsellor in order to explore whether or not there is indeed the need for same, she says that the Society has not advised her of the issues for which they believe she needs counselling. She states that the Society appears to have no concerns leaving her alone with the children, as it allowed her to remain with the children unsupervised at a park located approximately 250 meters from the Society building.

[23] The mother further expresses the view that there is a strong likelihood that the children will suffer emotional harm with ongoing placement in foster care. She explains that D.M. was traumatized the last time he was taken into care (at age 6) and this trauma is the reason for his poor attendance at school (since he was apprehended at school back in 2012). She submits that if in fact there is a risk of harm to the children being returned to her care, any such risk can be sufficiently addressed by a supervision order.

[24] Counsel for D.M. advocated for the return of the children to the care of their mother under a supervision order. He indicated that D.M. had consistently expressed his clear wish to return to his mother’s care with his sister. He further added that D.M. had expressed feelings of guilt about this latest apprehension, and his counsel was of the view that remaining in care would increase those feelings to a point of causing him emotional harm.

Test for a Temporary Order for Care and Custody

[25] Sections 94(2) and (4) of the CYFSA set out the legal test to be applied in the context of a temporary care and custody hearing as follows:

94 (2) Custody during adjournment a) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child, b) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part; c) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the society's supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; d) be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the society's supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; or e) remain or be placed in the care and custody of the society, but not be placed in a place of temporary detention, of open or of secure custody.

(4) Criteria The court shall not make an order under clause (2)(c) or (d) unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause (2)(a) or (b).

[26] Under subsection 94(4) of the CYFSA (as under its predecessor s. 51(3) of the CFSA), the Society must establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if the child is left with the parents, it is more probable than not that he will suffer harm. Further, the Society must establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order to the parents; Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., at para. 10.

[27] When making an order affecting a child under the CYFSA, the court must at all times be mindful of the paramount purpose of the act which is to promote the best interests, protection and well-being of children. An additional purpose of the Act is that the least disruptive course of action that is available and appropriate in the particular case to help the child, including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and the community support services, should be considered. As stated in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.P., 2010 ONCJ 320:

A court must make an order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with the adequate protection of the child in accordance with section 1(2) of the CFSA. The degree of intrusiveness of the Society intervention and the temporary protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk.

[28] The underlined portion of this additional purpose of the Act, which indicates new wording which was not present in the old CFSA, puts particular emphasis on the Society’s duty to focus on prevention, early intervention and community support.

[29] Of particular relevance in the present case are also the following additional purposes set out in subsection 1(2) 3. of the CYFSA:

3. Services to children and young persons should be provided in a manner that, i. respects a child's or young person's need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment, ii. takes into account physical, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children and young persons, v. provides early assessment, planning and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children and young persons in accordance with their best interests, and vi. includes the participation of a child or young person, the child's or young person's parents and relatives and the members of the child's or young person's extended family and community, where appropriate.

Reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm

[30] I find that it is more probable than not that the children are likely to suffer harm if they are returned to their mother’s care at this time.

[31] There are some very positive things to say about the mother’s ability to care for the children. I find that the children have a very strong bond with their mother and that they both wish to return to her care (immediately, as far as D.M. is concerned). The mother is a loving parent. Her visits with the children have all been very positive. The children’s immunizations are up to date, and her uncontested evidence is that they have attended regular dental appointments. Although the mother has not worked cooperatively with the Society in the context of this current proceeding, she has demonstrated in the past that she could work cooperatively with the Society. She has very recently taken steps to meet with a counsellor at Family Services Ottawa, although no such meeting has yet occurred due to long wait lists.

[32] Despite all of these positive things about the mother, there are many significant risks associated with a return of the children to her care at this time. While I acknowledge that the mother has taken clear steps to clean up her home and make it sanitary and safe for the children, this is not the first time that the Society has had to intervene as a result of the unsanitary conditions in which the children were living. Pictures of the state of the mother’s home at the time of the children’s apprehension were very disturbing. Despite the mother’s clear progress in that regard after the children were brought to a place of safety in 2012, the fact that she has allowed her home to deteriorate once again to the state it was in at the time of the most recent Society intervention raises significant concerns about her ability to sustainably maintain a safe home for the children. Adding to the court’s concerns in that regard is that the mother, during her conversations with Society workers, denied that her home was in such bad state and then attempted to justify same on various circumstances which could not possibly have been the cause for such unsanitary conditions and disarray (for instance, problems with the hot water tank).

[33] There are also significant concerns with regards to the mother’s ability to adequately supervise and care for the children while they are in her care. The fact that the children had access to, and were allowed to play with a lit candle without supervision could have had very serious consequences. I find as a fact based on the evidence before me that the mother was sleeping on the couch when the fire arose and had to be woken up by the children before she took action.

[34] In addition to this isolated incident, the evidence strongly suggests that D.M. is allowed to watch TV and play video games all night without limitation, and that he shows signs of a “parentified” child who is often responsible for his younger sister’s well-being, including her meals. School officials reported that the children were generally dirty and unkept when attending school, and the children reported being left at home on their own when their mother goes out. Despite being prescribed medication to deal with his anxiety, the mother only sporadically made this available to D.M., and her response to the question as to whether or not D.M. was in fact under medication varied from one person to the other.

[35] The mother’s ability to ensure D.M.’s attendance and progress at school is also of concern. School staff indicated that by January 2018, D.M. had already missed 46 days of school. While this can be explained, in part, by the mother’s transportation issues while she worked night shifts, evidence suggests that this problem continued to be a recurring issue after the mother stopped working in December 2017.

[36] There is also, in my opinion, sufficient evidence before me to raise important concerns about the current state of the mother’s mental health. Both Society workers and school staff have observed behaviours on the part of the mother which suggest that she might be suffering from mental health issues. The mother herself acknowledges that the past year has been very challenging for her, and she suggests that it is as a result of those challenges (loss of employment, car accident, and physiotherapy) that she has allowed her home to deteriorate the way it has. The evidence shows that the mother’s response to basic questions (for example whether she or D.M. had been diagnosed with mental health issues and whether they were taking medication) and perception of events (her interaction with Society workers) often varied over the course of the past months. She appeared emotional and/or confused at times during her meetings with Society workers and the school. While the mother admits that she has suffered from depression and anxiety in the past, and for which she was briefly medicated, she denies suffering from any mental health issues but asserts that she is now prepared to “explore” this by “seeing a counsellor.”

[37] I find that the mother’s lack of insight into the concerns raised by the Society casts significant doubt about her ability to address those concerns presently. The evidence confirms that the mother does not present well during her meetings with Society workers, that she is emotional, difficult to engage, upset and often loud. Until a few weeks ago, the mother had refused to provide consent for the Society to speak with her treating physicians. She denies that there is any concern with her parenting and ability to care for the children, and she maintains that she does not need counselling, services or support. When she met her worker on June 6, she expressed frustration that all this was happening “because of one bad weekend.”

[38] Further, the mother has increasingly isolated herself over the years, and she has no support network around her. She has no contact with her sisters or her parents, and appears to have no friends or community support. While the mother’s counsel suggests that returning the children to their mother’s care during the summer would alleviate the concern of their absenteeism at school, I am of the view that returning the kids to their mother’s care during the summer months actually creates a further risk by removing the safety net associated with the children being seen in the community.

[39] For all those reasons, I find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the children are likely to suffer harm if they are returned to their mother’s care at this time.

Can the children be adequately protected by a supervision order?

[40] I agree with the Society that, to mitigate the concerns about the mother’s ability to care for and provide the children with a safe environment, the court must be reassured that the mother will allow Society workers in her home, meet with them regularly, cooperate with the Society, allow Society workers to speak with collaterals to assess the family’s needs and appropriate services to address those needs, and to demonstrate some level of openness to the services suggested to help the family.

[41] While I am of the view that a supervision order with very strict conditions, if followed, may adequately protect these children from further harm, at the present time the evidence strongly suggests that the mother is not prepared or able to abide by the terms of a supervision order. While her counsel argues that, once her children are returned to her care, the mother is prepared to abide strictly by the terms of a supervision order, I am of the view that the children’s long-term best interests require that the mother show the court her willingness to engage and cooperate with the Society before the children are returned to her.

[42] While I am mindful that I could order the return of the children to their mother’s care under a strict supervision order, and order the Society to act immediately if there is a breach of any of its terms, I am of the view that a return of the children to their mother’s care followed by another apprehension would be devastating to them, and cause them more harm, emotionally, than the potential harm that might result from an extended period of Society care.

[43] I arrive at that conclusion based on the evidence before me that D.M., in particular, has exhibited anxiety behaviours after he was brought to a place of safety in 2012, and that he has struggled with transitions and changes in the past. In the context of his present apprehension, and while he was excited to live in a clean home with a real bed at first, he has since been struggling emotionally and blaming himself for being removed from his mother’s care. N.C., on the other hand, appears to have made significant progress in care and, while she misses her mother dearly and expresses the wish to return to her care, appears to be doing quite well in her foster home.

[44] Based on all of the above, I am of the view that the potential risks to the children of returning to their mother’s care without significant confidence in her ability and willingness to abide by the strict conditions of a supervision order, potentially leading to a re-apprehension, outweighs the potential risks to the children of remaining into care until a more permanent plan can be put into place for them with the insight of a comprehensive assessment by the Family Court Clinic.

[45] As the children’s return to their mother’s care depends on her ability to engage and cooperate with the Society and to access the services that she needs to address all of the concerns raised by the Society on a long-term, permanent basis, the children shall be placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society pending disposition of the Protection Application and access to the mother shall continue in accordance with the existing temporary order.

Section 98 Assessment

[46] I am of the view that an assessment of this family is necessary to allow the court to understand whether there are underlying issues that need to be addressed in order for the mother to be in a position to offer these children safety, stability and permanency, and for the Society’s concerns to be addressed in a sustainable way. I arrive at this conclusion based on the following.

[47] The Society has a long history with the mother and her children as outlined above. Despite receiving ongoing services by the Society for extended periods in the past as well as previous court involvement, the removal of the children from her care and supervision orders in place, there continues to be concerns with regards to the mother’s home being unsanitary and unsafe for the children. This has been a chronic and recurring issue that remains unaddressed despite measures being implemented to address the concern.

[48] On each occasion where the state of the home was an issue in the past (twice), the mother demonstrated an ability to clean her home after the Society intervened on this issue. However, the current involvement results from the issue of the home again being unsafe for the children resulting in the children being removed from the mother’s care once again. The mother has not demonstrated ability over time to maintain the state of the home consistently safe for the children.

[49] The mother denies any issue with her mental health, she is not open to accessing services and has refused to sign consents allowing the Society to speak with medical professionals with whom she is involved. The court believes that the state of the home may be a symptom of an underlying issue that has not been addressed, such as the mother struggling with an undiagnosed and untreated mental health issue. Without appropriate assessment of the issue and understanding of it, the same issue will continue to occur in the future and will place the children at further risk of harm in their mother’s care.

[50] A further chronic and recurring concern throughout the Society’s previous and current involvements has been the mother’s lack of acknowledgement, accountability and insight regarding the child protection concerns of the Society which has resulted in her refusal to follow through with services and supports that she requires in order to meet the children’s needs consistently. The mother has demonstrated a pattern of isolating herself and not building a support network around herself and the children to mitigate the concerns and to ensure the same situation does not happen again. If these issues remain unaddressed, they will continue to occur in the future placing the children at risk resulting in their future removal from the mother’s care, once again.

[51] For all these reasons, an assessment pursuant to s. 98 of the CYFSA is both necessary and in the children’s best interests.

Access between Mr. C. and N.C.

[52] Mr. C. brings a motion seeking limited supervised access to N.C., once per week.

[53] Pursuant to s. 104(1) of the CYFSA, the court may, in a child’s best interests, make, vary, or terminate an order respecting a person’s access to the child and may impose such terms and conditions on the order as the court considers appropriate. Section 74(3) sets out a list of relevant factors which the court must assess when determining if an order would be in a child’s best interests.

[54] Mr. C. has not seen N.C. since she was six months old (over five years ago). N.C. does not know her father at all. The Society and the mother both expressed significant concerns about allowing access between N.C. and her father. The evidence presented by the Society confirms that Mr. C. currently has an open file with the Society with regards to other children. Current concerns relate to anger management issues, violence and drug use. The Society is seeking an order for extended Society care in that other proceeding. The Society’s evidence reveals that the father is prone to angry outbursts at Society meetings, that he hangs up the phone on workers and that he is unable to regulate his emotional reactions.

[55] These are the same recurring issues as the ones present in the context of N.C.’s first apprehension in 2012, and the reason for Mr. C. being only granted supervised access to her at that time. Strict conditions were imposed on Mr. C. related to his anger management issues, among other things. I also note that he did not participate in the status review proceeding which led to a custody order being made in favour of the mother not including any provisions with regards to access between Mr. C. and his daughter.

[56] Mr. C. does not present a plan to care for N.C. He submits that he wishes to build a relationship with her. Unfortunately, Mr. C.’s track record does not give this Court any confidence that such a relationship can actually be built or that Mr. C. will be able to remain in N.C.’s life on a long-term basis. Given the current child protection proceeding related to Mr. C.’s other children, his complete lack of involvement in N.C.’s life in the past and his existing ill feelings towards the mother (which, as the evidence makes clear, have not dissipated one bit over the past five years), I have significant doubt about his ability to develop a positive relationship with her at this time, or to provide her with a secure place as a member of his family. Finally, the mother strongly opposes Mr. C.’s request for access to N.C.

[57] N.C. is presently going through a lot. She has been removed from the care of the only caregiver she has ever know, has had to adjust to a new, temporary caregiver and a new environment in the Society’s care. The evidence presented by her Child in Care Worker, Ms. Allan, shows that N.C. is doing very well in care and that she has made excellent progress both in school and with her social and emotional presentation, as well as in her ability to regulate her emotions. She is only six years old and as such, may have difficulty grasping why the father she has never known is now wanting to see her and have contact with her. She has no existing emotional ties to her father, and I have grave concerns about the impact of any contact between N.C. and her father on her emotional well-being. Further, I am of the view that visits between the father and N.C., even if supervised, may very well cause her emotional harm as a result of the father’s anger management issues, inability to regulate his emotions and significant ill feelings towards the mother.

[58] As a result, the father’s motion for temporary access to N.C. is dismissed.

Madam Justice Julie Audet Released: June 28, 2018