Restriction on Publication
This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
87 (8) Prohibition re identifying child — 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.
(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.
142 (3) Offences re publication — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(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.: 676/13 Date: 2018/11/22 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario
Re: Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, Applicant And B.R., Respondent Mother H.H., Respondent Father
Before: Sheard, J.
Counsel: Chris Etherden, counsel for the Applicant Erdal Gok, counsel for the Respondent Mother Nathalie G. Fortier, counsel for the Respondent Father
Heard: November 16, 2018
Publication Restriction Notice
This decision is subject to a publication ban pursuant to subsections 87(8) – (9) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017. This judgment complies with this restriction so that it can be published.
Endorsement
[1] The Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region (the “Society”) seeks an order that the current interim order placing the child L.H., born 2013 (the “Child”) in the temporary care and custody of the Society and granting the parents access as arranged by the Society and supervised in its discretion, remain in effect. The respondent parents seek an order placing the Child in the temporary care and custody of the respondent father (the “Father”), subject to the supervision of the Society.
[2] For the reasons set out below, I grant the relief sought by the Society.
Background
Previous Society Involvement
[3] The Society was involved with the family between July 2013 and February 2016. The Child was apprehended shortly after birth and remained in care until April 20, 2015. The Society’s protection concerns related to the respondent mother (the “Mother”) included her drug use, mental health issues, and lack of insight around protection concerns for the Child. The Society’s concerns about the Father included uncertainty about his substance use, his limited knowledge about child development and the Child’s special needs, his treatment of the Mother, and his lack of insight around protection concerns.
[4] In the previous proceedings the Society had sought an order that the Child be made a ward of the Crown, without access, for the purpose of adoption. The Mother and the Father opposed that order and jointly proposed that the Child be placed with the Father subject to Society supervision. Their plan was to live in separate units in the same building.
[5] On April 8, 2015, following the trial, which took place in December 2014 and January 2015, Scott J. ordered that the Child be placed in the care and custody of the Father, subject to the supervision of the Society. Scott J. found that there was evidence that the Mother continued to have mental health problems and would not be able to manage the Child on her own without the help of the Father. Despite some identified concerns respecting the Father, Scott J. found that he had exhibited cooperation and that his conduct toward the Child reflected an ability to care for his son and that he was focused on the Child’s best interests and safety.
[6] The Society continued its involvement with the family until February 29, 2016 when the existing supervision order was terminated. At that time, the Society determined that the family had stabilized and addressed the protection concerns and the parents were working cooperatively with the Society.
[7] There is no evidence or allegations of protection concerns between February 2016 and January 2018.
Protection Concerns in 2018
Society Evidence
[8] The Society’s evidence is found in the affidavits of two of its Child Protection Workers (“CPW”) [1]. The affidavits refer to information obtained from various sources including: notes of firsthand observations of the CPWs and other community workers; information received from anonymous callers, family members, the Child’s school and the Child’s doctor; notes and records from the Mother’s doctor; police records; hospital records; and statements made to the Society by the Mother and Father.
[9] The Society’s current involvement began on January 16, 2018. On that date an anonymous caller reported that the Father should be drug tested. A CPW made a home visit that day and met with the Mother, Father, and the Child. At that meeting, the Mother told the CPW that she wanted custody of the Child and wanted to move because the home had mice and she wanted a quieter home. The Father reported that the Mother believed that police had tapped their phone and that the Mother’s mental health was up and down. He said that the Mother needed to take her medication to ensure she maintains stability. A safety plan was agreed to whereby the Father would not leave the Mother in a caregiving role for the Child.
[10] A different CPW made a second unannounced home visit on January 18, 2018. The Father was told about the anonymous call, and asked to undertake a urine screen. He refused.
[11] The file moved to “ongoing services” on January 29, 2018 and Society workers continued to make home visits. The Society notes record mental health concerns respecting the Mother from and after January 2018. Those concerns included observations of the Mother apparently hearing or seeing people who were not there and making “misplaced” statements such as: “[the Child] is hearing them too”; and, to the Father: “do you have bad numbers on your phone also?” The Mother herself reported that the home phone was tapped, that she believed that there were listening devices inside the home, and because the Child was being photographed in his room, she stopped entering his room at night.
[12] The Father continued to report mental health issues with the Mother. On April 12, 2018 the Father told the Family Enrichment Worker (“FEW”) that the Mother had called the police on herself because she thought there were voices in the home. The Mother’s explanation was that she had been left alone with the Child and called the police because the Child became out of control and she could not manage him without the Father.
[13] Despite his reports of the Mother’s mental illness, on at least two occasions, the Father was observed to be discouraging the Mother from seeking mental health support. Despite the efforts made by various mental health and other workers, it appears that the Mother has not accessed needed mental health services and that as at July 31, 2018, the Mother was still not taking her medication. [2]
[14] The Society was also receiving reports of concern from the Child’s school: In February, 2018 the principal of the Child’s school reported that the parents had failed to pick up the Child and when the emergency number was called, the Child’s adult sister came for him; the principal also reported that the Child’s lunch bag was dirty; his hair had things in it and needed washing; he was observed to be sick for three days and needed to see a doctor; and that he was absent on Fridays. In late June 2018, the principal again expressed concerns about the Child’s cleanliness and about the Mother’s stability and pick-ups from school. Specifically, the principal advised that on one Friday, the school could not reach the family and the Child was left at school until 6 p.m., when another relative came to get him.
[15] With respect to his failure to pick up the Child from school, the Father explained that he had fallen asleep.
[16] Notwithstanding the Society’s safety plan with the Father that he would not leave the Mother alone in a caregiving role, that appears to have happened on more than one occasion. For example, on April 3, 2018, the principal of the Child’s school reported that the Mother picked up the Child without the Father. At the home visit the following day, the Mother reported that the Child could not use the potty in his room because the street was too loud and there were “sniffers” out there.
[17] In June 2018, the school principal and the Child’s teacher both expressed concerns respecting the Child’s development: he was not toilet-trained, had a potential visual impairment, was behind in his gross motor skills and had a possible learning disability. A formal assessment was suggested. The principal noted that the Child’s behaviour was a large concern and worried that there were insufficient supports for the Child in the home.
[18] The Society was also receiving reports from the Father’s sister and his adult daughter. They reported that they had been called to collect the Child from school and on one occasion believed the Child was unwell. They also stated that the Mother had told them that the Father was using drugs in the home and that once he woke her up to put a crack pipe in her mouth. Their own observations of the Father led them to believe that he was using drugs, although they did not observe any drug use or paraphernalia in the home.
[19] The Society also received a call from a neighbour on March 14, 2018 who reported that the Father was on a “crack bender” and that he was seen having parties and that the Mother could not enter her kitchen because the Father was actively “using”.
[20] On the home visit that followed, the home was found to be “marginal and cluttered”. When asked directly about his reported drug use, the Father denied any current or historic use of crack [cocaine]. However, the Mother reported that she was concerned about the Father’s drug use because he would leave for hours on end at night. The Mother also advised that she was not taking her medication because she was not hearing voices.
[21] As a result of authorizations provided, the Society was allowed to obtain information from the doctors who treated the Mother and the Child. In February 2018, the Child’s doctor reported that he had last seen the Child on November 29, 2017 and that his immunizations were current but he had missed a hearing appointment.
[22] On May 23, 2018, the Mother’s doctor, Dr. Eltoft, reported to the Society that the Mother had tested positive for cocaine; she also reported to Dr. Eltoft that the Father had provided her with the cocaine. On a home visit that day, the Mother denied using cocaine but reported that the Father’s friends came into the home when the Child was in bed and smoked cocaine for which the Father was paid.
The 2018 Apprehension
[23] On August 2, 2018, the Father suffered a drug overdose at home. An ambulance arrived around midday and found the Father unconscious, his pupils constricted, and showing only mild response to painful stimuli. [3] The first responders treated the Father with Narcan, with “some effect” and he was then taken to the hospital by ambulance. The Mother and Child also went to the hospital. The Society was called due to concern of drug use in the home.
[24] The Child was apprehended at the hospital on August 2, 2018 and has remained in foster care.
[25] In meetings with the Society worker following the apprehension, the parents have denied drug use. When asked how her urine had tested positive for cocaine in March 2018, the Mother explained that she must have come in contact with cocaine when she was “cleaning up”. The Mother also stated that she had claimed the Father was using drugs because she was mad at him and not on the right medication. She also reported that she had stopped seeing Dr. Eltoft and had chosen a new doctor. She has not provided the Society with access to her medical information with this new doctor.
[26] There has been inconsistent compliance by the Father with the Society’s request to be provided with regular urine screening and to be provided with direct access to his medical and hospital records. However, in his affidavit on this motion, the Father has produced some urine test results that were negative for cocaine or opioids.
Access
[27] The Society reports many positives with the parents: they have faithfully exercised their access to the Child, which has been supervised by the Society or by an approved family member or support person; they have been observed to be sober and appropriate with the Child and often bring snacks and activities for their visits. A less positive observation concerns the treatment and control of the Mother by the Father observed on access visits. A kin assessment is ongoing.
Affidavit of the Father
[28] The Father denies that he is a drug user. He states that those accusations come from his daughter and sister, who disapprove of him. He says that the Society workers regularly made unannounced visits and never once saw any evidence of drug use in the home. The Father attaches the caseworkers’ notes to his affidavit and points out that an unannounced visit was made to the home on July 31, 2018, only days before his emergency hospitalization, and that the Child appeared “healthy and well”. [4]
[29] The notes of July 31, 2018 also record that the Child was home as he had been expelled from camp “due to behaviours and not being toilet trained”. The Mother also disclosed that she was not taking her medication and had lost the phone numbers of her worker/nurse with Niagara Regional Mental Health. The caseworker’s note of the morning of August 2, 2018, documents the concerns about the Mother’s willingness and ability to access the mental health services offered.
[30] The Father’s urine was tested while he was in the hospital on August 2, 2018. The Ambulatory Care Report provides a narrative of the Father’s hospitalization. It states, in part, that the Father’s urine tested positive for cocaine. [5] The Father disputes the reliability of the urine testing. He denied using drugs that day and stated that he “may have been drugged by someone in an attempt to steal money” from him. He also claimed to have been assaulted because when he regained consciousness he noticed cuts on his face and a swollen lip.
[31] The Father told the Society worker that he reported the alleged assault and attempted robbery to the Niagara Regional Police (the “NRP”) and attached the worker’s notes of this discussion to his affidavit. [6] The notes state that the Father reported that he had two cheques on him, one was his “normal” cheque and one was for $130.00. He showed these to his friend who thought the cheque was for $31,000.00 and that it was his friend who then drugged him for the cheques.
Records of the Niagara Regional Police
[32] The Father’s version of the events of August 2, 2018 as reported to the Society worker are different from those contained in the General Occurrence Hardcopy [report] of the NRP (the “NRP Records”), obtained by the Society following service of the Father’s affidavit. [7] Among other things, the NRP Records document videotaped interviews of the Father and with the Mother who were reporting an alleged assault and attempted robbery. The NRP Records state that the Father reported that on August 1, 2018 he withdrew a total of $3,400.00 in cash from the bank. He put $2,000.00 cash in an envelope into his sock for safekeeping. He later joked with a friend that he had $20,000.00 in cash. His next memory is of waking up in the hospital in the afternoon of August 2, 2018. The Father and the Mother told the NRP that someone must have entered the house and drugged the Father to look for the money. The NRP Records report that the Mother said that the Father was outside with friends when she told him she did not want “all these people hanging around” and wanted “a home”. She went to bed but checked on the Father at around 1 a.m. She found him cold, but breathing. She thought he was just tired, as he had been up for four days. When he was still unconsciousness the following morning, she called 911 at around 11:22 a.m.
[33] The NRP Records include reference to the Mother’s videotaped interview in which she reportedly stated that she had found the Father outside at 11 p.m. on August 1, 2018; friends then removed a crack pipe from the Father’s hands and threw the rock of crack to the Mother to be placed in her safe. The Mother debated “calling an ambulance for fear of losing her Child because of police and emergency involvement”. Instead, she checked on the Father throughout the night. When he had not recovered by the following morning, the Mother called emergency services.
[34] The NRP Records state that the Father found his envelope with the $2,000.00 in it and that if any money had been taken, he would not know the amount. The NRP found that neither a theft nor an assault could be established and described what happened as a “misadventure” that flowed form the Father having been “awake for four days and smoking crack from a pipe, that may or may not have contained an opioid.”
[35] The conclusion reached by the NRP above may have been informed by its own records of 97 documented contacts with the Father, many of which were drug-related, and a record that the Father was convicted of possession of cocaine in 2006. The NRP had similar records for the Mother: it had 57 documented contacts with the Mother and a record that she had two convictions of trafficking in cocaine (2006 and 2007).
The Mother’s Affidavit
[36] The Mother delivered a responding affidavit sworn November 9, 2018. To a limited extent, the Mother’s affidavit supports the Father’s version of events of August 2, 2018. The Mother states that she woke up on August 2, 2018 to find the Father “passed out on the couch” and she immediately called 911. She states that she did not see the Father doing drugs on August 2, 2018.
[37] The Mother’s affidavit says nothing of the events of August 1, 2018 – the date on which the Father ingested drugs that rendered him unconscious. Therefore, it offers only limited support to the Father’s version of the events that precipitated the Child’s apprehension on August 2, 2018.
[38] The Mother denied remembering what she may have said to workers when she was on medication because the medication made her sleepy and affected her perception and alertness. The Father attached the CPW’s notes to his affidavit and asks the Court to rely on that evidence on this motion. The notes record that the Mother was not taking her medication in late July 2018, and had possibly reduced it or even stopped taking it prior to July. It is therefore difficult to accept the Mother’s claim that her statements to others were confused by medication.
[39] In any event, in her responding affidavit the Mother also does not comment on the statements she made to the NRP or to Dr. Eltoft that the Father was using cocaine. The Mother does not mention the NRP interview or assert that she was confused when she gave a videotaped statement in which she described the Father’s drug use and explained that she held off calling for help out of concern that it might affect custody of the Child.
Dr. Eltoft’s Records
[40] As authorized by the Mother, on May 22, 2018 a Society worker wrote to Dr. Eltoft asking about the Mother’s mental health and medication. Dr. Eltoft returned the letter with his handwritten comments: “Recent urine testing showed cocaine use. Her husband apparently supplies it she informed me. I have only been Rxing Clonazepam 0.5 mgm bid for anxiety. No point in psychiatrist referral for drug abuse.”
[41] Dr. Eltoft’s medical notes and records accompanied the letter. In them, he noted the results of the Mother’s urine test, which was positive for cocaine on March 27, 2018; his discussions with the Mother respecting her and the Father’s cocaine use; that “her home situation is conducive to drug use because of the exposure via her husband and his friends”; that the Father supplies her with cocaine; that she was advised to reduce her Clonazepam “because of street drug use”; that the Father “deals cocaine and has never worked” and that she would like to leave him.
[42] Dr. Eltoft’s records are consistent with what is documented in the NRP Records and, in part, with what the Mother told the Society about drug use and dealing in the home.
The Child’s Situation
[43] In her affidavit, the Mother asserts that the Child has not been properly cared-for while in foster care. The Mother also asserts that the Child does not want to remain in foster care: he cries when the access visits end and does not want to leave or wants them to come home with him. The Mother also asserts that, since his apprehension, the Child is not doing well and is having difficulties at school. She attached the Child’s recent school records.
[44] The Child’s records from his current and previous school are consistent in their description of a child that has delays and behavioural issues and who requires additional educational/home supports. The school and medical records also identify a need for an assessment of the Child.
[45] The Child’s special needs are evident from his school records that identify developmental delays and challenging behaviours, all of which contributed to his being expelled from summer camp and, according to the Father, led to the Mother calling the police to help her with the Child.
Issues to be decided
[46] On this motion for a temporary care and custody order the Court is governed by sections 94(2), 94(4) and 94(10) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (the “CYFSA”) which provide as follows:
Custody during adjournment
94(2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the Child,
(a) 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;
(b) 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;
(c) 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
(d) 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.
Criteria
94(4) 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).
Evidence on adjournments
94 (10) For the purpose of this section, the court may admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances.
[47] Under subsection 94(4) of the CYFSA, the burden of proof is on the Society to satisfy the two-part test to establish: i) reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that a Child is likely to suffer harm; and, if so, ii) that the Child cannot be adequately protected by an order returning the Child to parental care with or without an interim supervision order.
[48] Courts still apply the test applicable on a temporary care and custody hearing as set out by Blishen J. in Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., [2000] O.J. No. 2273 (SCJ), at para. 10:
The Children’s Aid Society must establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that, if the Child is returned to his or her parents, it is more probable than not that he or she will suffer harm. Furthermore, the Society must establish that the Child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order to the parents. [8]
Analysis
[49] The Society has been clear in its submissions that the need to make and to continue the temporary care and custody order to the Society arises from the concerns that came to light in 2018. Those concerns included the Mother’s mental health “ups and downs” and the reported substance abuse by one or both parents (and others) in the home, and reports concerning the Child’s needs and the level of care provided to the Child from and after January 2018.
[50] The Society put forth a great deal of evidence to support its protection concerns: first-hand observations by Society workers and others, including the Father, of the Mother’s behaviours suggesting significant mental health issues; the Mother’s family doctor records reporting drug use, and reduction and/or inconsistent use of medication prescribed for her mental health; the Father’s drug overdose, as evidenced by the hospital and police records; concerns identified by the school: serious behaviours in the Child, chronic absenteeism (Fridays), parents failing to pick up Child from school and being difficult to contact, the need for an assessment of the Child; the NRP Records, that documented statements made by both parents; and, most significantly, the Mother’s own statements to various persons, about her and the Father’s drug use, and the drug dealing and use in and from the home.
[51] The Father denies ever using drugs. The Mother now denies that she has used drugs or ever seen the Father using or dealing drugs. Those denials conflict with the NRP Records of the parents’ historic involvement with cocaine. Also, the parents’ conflicting versions of the events that led to the Father’s drug overdose on August 2, 2018 seriously undermines their credibility on this issue.
[52] The parents further assert that if there was drug use or dealing at or from home, the Society workers would have seen signs of it on their unannounced visits, which they did not.
[53] The parents also assert that there have been only minor concerns about the Child: they forgot to pick him up from school on only a few occasions (because the Father fell asleep) and that there is inconsistent evidence that the Child has arrived at school with dirty hair or lunch bag. By contrast, there is a lot of evidence that the Child is properly fed; has received regular medical care; that he has a close bond with both his parents and has appeared happy and well on Society home visits.
[54] The parents submit that much of the evidence put forward by the Society is unreliable and inadmissible and ought to be given no or little weight. The parents assert that the accusations of drug use or of poor care of the Child is hearsay, and comes in part from spiteful relatives, and that the positive drug tests ought to be ignored as unreliable. The parents also point out that they have cooperated with the Society to a significant degree and are prepared to agree to terms of a supervision order that will satisfy the Society that they are not using drugs.
[55] I accept the parents’ submissions that not all of the evidence put forward by the Society should be accepted on its face as “credible and trustworthy”. For example, the allegations of the Father’s daughter and sister has been untested and may be unfairly influenced by past family grievances. A further example might be seen in the untested information from unnamed neighbours.
[56] However, the Society has put forth other evidence, including the notes and records obtained from impartial professionals who are required to keep records, that I conclude does meet the credible and trustworthy standard. Such evidence includes Dr. Eltoft’s records, the NRP Records, and the hospital records (some of which were put forward by the Father). I also accept the notes made by the Society workers as a credible and trustworthy record of the first-hand observations of the record-maker and of the information received by the Society.
[57] Based on the information contained in the records that I consider to be credible and trustworthy, I conclude that there is compelling evidence that both parents have been abusing drugs in the home; that the drug use and lifestyle have negatively affected the parents’ ability to care for the Child and have put the Child at risk of harm. In the case of the Mother, because of her drug use she was encouraged to reduce the medication prescribed for her mental health needs, which may have exacerbated her mental health problems. I also accept the observations of many involved professionals that the Father was aware of the Mother’s mental health problems but has discouraged and/or interfered with her seeking and receiving treatment. Further, I find that the Father has put the Child at risk by failing to abide by the agreed safety plan by which the Mother would not be left alone in a caregiving role for the Child.
[58] Based solely on the evidence that I have found to be credible and trustworthy, I find that the Society has met the first part of its onus on this motion and has established that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the Child is likely to suffer harm if he is returned to the care and custody of the Father, as sought by the parents.
[59] Further, and again, based only on the evidence I found to be credible and trustworthy, I find that the Society has shown that the Child cannot be protected adequately by the terms and conditions of an interim supervision order under s. 94(2). Specifically, the evidence establishes that despite the Society’s involvement with the family in and after January 2018, the parties were successful in keeping information from the Society that they knew was relevant and important.
[60] Of particular concern is the Father’s statement in his affidavit, repeated in his Factum, that he and the Mother do not live together. The Mother’s affidavit is silent on that point. As stated in the latter of the two CPW affidavits, the Society believed, and was led by the parents to believe, that the parents and the Child lived together as a family unit. [9] The Father’s evidence on this motion is contradicted by the address he has used in his Answer and Plan of Care (V4, T5, Part 4, p.3), at which he also states that he would live with the Mother. Similarly, in her Answer and Plan of Care, the Mother states she and the Child lived with the Father from April 20, 2015 to August 2, 2018.
[61] If the Father’s evidence is accepted, then it must be concluded that he, at least, deliberately kept this fundamental piece of information secret from the Society, while purporting to agree to a safety plan that would ensure that the Mother was never left alone as the Child’s caregiver. The evidence satisfies me that the Mother’s mental health issues pose an impediment to her ability to provide good and competent parenting. Further, the apparent lack of full disclosure by the parties about where and with whom the Child is living, exacerbates the other concerns about what has gone on in the home in which the Child has been living.
[62] As stated above, I accept as credible and trustworthy the Mother’s statements to her doctor (corroborated in part by her positive urine test), to the Society, and as found in the NRP Records, concerning the drug use and dealing in the home in which the Child was living. The fact that the drug use and dealing in the home was so effectively concealed from the Society leaves me with no confidence that a supervision order would or could protect the Child from the harm to which he is likely to be exposed if the Child were to be returned home.
[63] The evidence on the motion could support a finding that the Child did, in fact, suffer harm when his parents were not able to care for him for reasons associated with drug use and/or untreated mental health issues. It is reasonable to conclude that the Child suffered harm when he was exposed to drug use at home, including the smoking of crack cocaine, and when he witnessed his unconscious Father being treated for an apparent drug overdose and taken to hospital by emergency responders. Based on the recent past events, I conclude that it is more probable than not that the Child would suffer harm if returned to the care of the Father and that, in the circumstances, the terms and conditions of an interim supervision order to the Father and/or parents would not adequately protect the Child.
Disposition
[64] Based on my findings above, I grant the Society’s motion to continue the existing temporary care and custody order placing the Child with the Society with access to the Child by the parents to be as arranged by the Society and supervised in its discretion.
Sheard, J. Date: November 22, 2018
Footnotes
[1] Continuing Record, Volume (“V”) 4, Tab (“T”) 3; and V4, T12.
[2] In a letter of November 5, 2018, Gaynor Quieros, RN, a community mental health nurse provided a summary of the Mother’s psychiatric consultation with Dr. Skladman of August 22, 2018. Dr. Skladman’s records were not put before the Court.
[3] Niagara Health Emergency Department Record, Affidavit of the Father, Continuing Record Volume 4 (“V4”), Tab (“T”) 11, Exhibit “H”.
[4] Affidavit of the Father, V4, T11, Exhibit “D”, Notes at p. 133 of 232.
[5] Affidavit of the Father, V4, T11, at Exhibit “H”.
[6] V4, T11, Exhibit “K”.
[7] Affidavit of Bethany Cowley, sworn November 9, 2018, V4, T12, Exhibit “A”. The NRP Records were received by the Society on November 9, 2018.
[8] Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. T.L., 2018 ONCJ 691, at para 48.