WARNING
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 NO.: FC-19-CP52
DATE: 2019/11/27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1
AND IN THE MATTER OF B.M. born [….] 2013, C.M. born [….] 2015 and E.M. born [….] 2018
BETWEEN:
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
Applicant
– and –
A.M. (Mother)
Respondent
Marie-Josée Ranger, for the Applicant
Rebecca E. Rosenstock, for the Respondent (Mother)
– and –
J.M. (Father)
J.M., for himself
Respondent
HEARD: October 24, 2019
REASONS FOR DECISION
D. SUMMERS J.
Overview
[1] The three children, B.M. born [….] 2013, C.M. born [….] 2015 and E.M. born [….] 2018, were removed from their mother’s care and brought to a place of safety on June 20, 2019. They have been in the temporary without prejudice care and custody of the Society since my order dated June 25, 2019. That order also provided each of the mother and father, A.M. and J.M., with access at the Society’s discretion. The parents separated in November 2018 and have not lived together since.
[2] The Society now moves for an order placing the children in the temporary care and custody of the father subject to the terms and conditions of a supervision order under an amended protection application that seeks a three-month supervision order to him. The Society’s Notice of Motion also seeks an order for access to the mother for a minimum of four hours at least once a week. The location and level of supervision is to be in the Society’s discretion.
[3] The father consents to the relief sought by the Society. He did not file any evidence on the motion.
[4] The mother opposes the Society’s motion. She says the children will be in harm’s way if placed with him for reasons of domestic violence, substance abuse and conduct associated with his alleged sex addiction.
[5] The mother does not seek an order for the return of the children to her care at this time but does not concede risk of harm. She wants the children to remain in care a little longer under the existing without prejudice order. This will give her more time to secure stable housing and put forward her own plan of care. She asks that the Society’s motion be dismissed.
[6] For reasons that follow, I find there is credible and trustworthy evidence to establish reasonable grounds to believe that the children would likely be at risk of harm if returned to their mother’s care and that a supervision order would not provide sufficient protection. I am also persuaded, on the balance of probabilities, that it is in the children’s best interests to be in the temporary care and custody of their father subject to a supervision order.
Factual Context
[7] The mother and father lived together for five years before separating on November 17, 2018. They did not marry. Domestic violence and substance abuse marred the last few years of their relationship. After the mother and children fled the family home, they lived in a women’s shelter.
[8] The mother commenced an application in family court. The father did not defend it. At an uncontested trial on March 22, 2019, Justice H. Williams awarded the mother sole custody and primary residence of the children. Her order provided the father with supervised access at either the FSO Supervised Access Centre or with another third party who was acceptable to the parties. Williams J. also made a restraining order against the father. Later that spring, the father was charged and pled guilty to breaching the restraining order.
[9] He did not exercise access or see the children again until they were in care and the Society arranged a visit.
[10] The children have a 7-year-old step-sister, D.C., from the father’s prior relationship. He has custody of D.C. and she lives with him in the family home in the Outaouais region of Quebec. The order of Williams J. also provided for access between the mother and D.C., but it did not happen. The father did not facilitate the visits. D.C. is not involved in these proceedings.
[11] This is the second file opening for the family. The first was in December 2018.
The Legal Framework
[12] Section 94 of the Child Youth and Family Services Act[^1] (CYFSA) governs temporary care and custody hearing.
[13] Under subsection (2), where a final hearing is adjourned, the court must make one of four possible orders for temporary care and custody that provides for the child to,
(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention;
(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.
[14] If the child is not to be returned to the person who had charge immediately before the intervention, either with or without a supervision order under subsections 2(a) or (b), the Society must meet a two-part test. First, the Society must establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if the child is returned to the person who had charge immediately before the intervention it is more probable than not that he or she will suffer harm. Second, the Society must establish that the risk to the child is one that cannot be adequately safeguarded by the terms and conditions of a supervision order.[^2] Only if the Society meets this test, can the court place the child with a relative or community member under subsection 2(c) or with the Society under subsection (d).
[15] Section 94(10) of the CYFSA permits the court to admit evidence that it considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances.[^3] In determining the evidence that is credible and trustworthy, the court is to assess the evidence in its entirety bearing in mind that evidence not reaching the credible and trustworthy threshold when viewed in isolation might rise to that level when considered in the context of the evidence as a whole.[^4]
[16] Here, although the mother does not seek to have the children returned to her care, she has not conceded risk of harm, therefore, I must first determine whether the evidence establishes that such a risk exists. Only if the answer is yes, can I make an order placing the children in the temporary care and custody of their father or an order that they remain in Society care.
Is there credible and trustworthy evidence to establish reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that the child is more probable than not to suffer harm if returned to their mother’s care?
[17] The Society’s safety concerns for the children relate primarily to the mother’s mental health, substance abuse, and the inability to regulate her emotions and how these issues impact her parenting capacity. They contend that their attempts to work with her have not met with success and that she has not taken meaningful steps to engage in the programs and services recommended.
[18] The Society further submits that the mother has admitted risk of harm under s.74(2)(k) of CYFSA [^5] insofar as she does not seek to have the children returned to her care because she does not have housing. That provision states that a child is in need of protection if the parent is unavailable to exercise custodial rights and has not made adequate provision for the child’s care and custody, or the child is in a residential placement and the parent refuses or is unable or unwilling to resume the child’s care and custody. Here, the Society contends that the children would be at risk with the mother even if she did have housing but also argue that the absence of it and her inability to make alternative arrangements renders her unavailable to exercise her custodial rights and constitutes an admission that the children would be at risk with her.
[19] The mother denies the allegation that the children are unsafe in her care. She acknowledges that she suffers from stress that is sometimes extreme but says it does not compromise her capacity to parent. She also disputes the Society’s contention that she has admitted risk. She submits that she is available to care for the children and can provide them with housing by taking over a friend’s apartment, but she has chosen not to. She says she loves the children too much to take just any housing for the sake of putting forward a plan of care. She says the children have been through enough and she is not willing to impose additional and unnecessary moves on them – moves that would require them to change schools now and change again when she gets permanent housing. She believes that should happen in another month or two and then she will be able to put forward a plan of care that will offer stability. In the meantime, she is satisfied that the children are doing well in their foster home. She wants them to remain there where they are safe until she can seek their return. She also says that waiting gives her a little more time to prove to the Society that she can meet their expectations.
[20] As I will explain, I find that the Society has met the evidentiary standard of proof and satisfied both parts of the care and custody test. I am satisfied that the children would be at risk of harm if they returned to their mother’s care and that a supervision order would not offer adequate protection against that risk. Based on this finding, I do not need to consider the Society’s argument under s. 74(2)(k).
Analysis
[21] There is evidence that the mother has experienced considerable trauma in her life including domestic violence. There is also evidence of mental illness, substance abuse and the inability to regulate her behaviour and her emotions while caring for the children. Since March 2019, there have been multiple incidents at her home involving the police and the Society. She has been hospitalized twice under the Mental Health Act[^6] and has incurred several criminal charges. A diagnosis of bipolar disorder type 2 has been confirmed. The evidence indicates that occasionally the mother will acknowledge her mental health concerns, however, her primary tendency is to either deny or minimize the concerns and observations of workers. She will often blame others for her difficulties with the police and the Society or attribute her actions to extreme stress.
[22] The Society’s first file opening for the family occurred in December 2018 after the mother called the police to report domestic violence by the father. The incidents she described all predated separation and included physical violence and property damage, some of which the children witnessed. She also alleged harassment by the father in relation to his attempts to contact her in the shelter. The Society verified domestic violence. By March 2019, the mother had secured housing, completed safety planning and a family court proceeding was underway. The Society was satisfied that the children were safe and closed the file.
[23] The second and current file opening occurred in March 2019 when the mother’s family brought her to the hospital out of concern for her mental health. She appeared to be experiencing a manic episode and was admitted under the Mental Health Act^7 pursuant to a Form 1. The hospital staff reported the mother saying that she had been drinking heavily for two weeks and using marijuana daily. She later denied this disclosure and further declared that the referral information from her family was a lie. She acknowledged a family history of bipolar disorder but would not accept that she might be experiencing symptoms of it. She later told the Society that she was stressed and exhausted. Her family reported concerns about alcohol consumption. No formal diagnosis was made in March. Three days later, the mother was released, prescribed medication for stress and referred to out-patient psychiatric care at the Ottawa Hospital. She began working with the Society on a voluntary basis.
[24] The mother’s behaviour continued to escalate. Between February 25 and June 20, 2019, the Ottawa police were at her home eleven times. They responded to multiple calls reporting conflict between the mother and her neighbours. The neighbours alleged that her behaviour was erratic, confrontational, and assaultive. The criminal charges laid against the mother include assault, harassment, theft, and breach of recognizance. Neighbours and an anonymous community member called the Society alleging inadequate supervision of the children, intoxication while in a caregiving role, and a lack of attention to E.M.’s medical needs that ultimately led to his admission to the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario for five days in May 2019.
[25] One of the police attendances at the mother’s home, included the evening of April 13, 2019. They arrived to find her “extremely intoxicated” and agitated. Her thoughts were scattered, she was observed to have difficulty walking and talking, the kitchen was “trashed”, and she twice dropped the three-year-old. The police described the mother’s behaviour as ranging from manic, to sad, to angry and said that the children appeared to be unphased by it. The police apprehended the mother under the Mental Health Act[^8] and transported her to the hospital. She later acknowledged to the worker that she needed to make changes to ensure the safety of the children, that she had reached “rock bottom”, and that she was angry and sad.
[26] As they had in March, her parents and siblings cared for the children.
[27] By the end of April 2019, the maternal family told the Society that the mother’s behaviours and mannerisms had become unrecognizable. The mother continued to deny alcohol abuse but admitted to the Society that she was feeling vulnerable and frustrated about connecting with supports and reaching out to her family. She said she did not think her family was a good support. She expressed her view that her mother had become too involved in her life.
[28] On May 8, 2019, the Society received a report from the housing worker that the mother attended her office the previous day looking for her key. She said the children were in the house sleeping. According to the worker, the travel time between the mother’s residence and her office was approximately 15 minutes and the children would have been alone in the house. The housing worker also advised that they were in a position to evict the mother for her behaviour. On May 16, 2019, they did issue a notice of termination.
[29] The Society received several calls about the mother throughout May and June. They continued to work with the mother and attempted to contact the father. The workers’ interviews with the child, B.M., disclosed that she loved her mom and missed her dad. She said she wanted her mom to be “better and more happier” because “she’s not happy all the time”.
[30] On June 20, 2019, the Society received a call from a neighbour advising that the baby, E.M., was outside in the rain. A few minutes later, the Society received a call from the housing worker to say that she found E.M. outside and alone in the rain. When she attempted to remove the child from his stroller, the mother appeared and intervened. The police attended and described the child as soaked, diaperless, and crying hysterically as rainwater puddled in his stroller. The officer reported that E.M. was shivering, cold to the touch and wearing only pajamas.
[31] The mother was arrested and charged with child endangerment. She disputes the charge and denies that the child was alone or wet. She says she was just a few feet away talking with a neighbour. I do not believe her. Both the housing worker and the police officer observed the child’s circumstances. Their observations are consistent with the reports made by neighbours and the Society’s that day.
[32] The children were immediately removed to a place of safety. Enroute to the foster home, B.M. spontaneously told the workers that her mother yells and she is afraid of her. The next day, the foster mother reported that both B.M. and C.M. said their mother got angry at night when E.M. cried. The following week, B.M. told the worker that she missed her father and her sister, D.C. She said he did bad drugs and her mother did good drugs. The Society also heard from B.M.’s school. It was reported that B.M. was strong academically but expressed concern that she did not always have a lunch or enough food for snacks, that she was often late and often absent.
[33] On June 24, 2019, the mother was again apprehended under the Mental Health Act[^9] and admitted to hospital. She was noted to be aggressive and agitated with her eye contact ranging from appropriate to intimidating. She was emotionally dysregulated. She indicated that her mother and neighbours are malicious and exaggerate everything. The discharge notes indicate that the mother appeared to accept that she was exhibiting behaviour that was consistent with bipolar disorder and agreed to a change in her medication. Contrary to medical advice, she left the hospital on the 27th when the Form 1 expired.
[34] In August, B.M. continued to indicate to the worker that her mother makes her happy and she would like everyone to live in the same house. She also talked about their neighbours being angry with her mother and indicated that her father was a worry because she had seen him punching and hurting her mother. In September, B.M. told the worker that her mother did not tell the truth about why they were in care. B.M. said she remembered seeing her little brother outside in the rain and her mother was not there.
[35] The foster mother and various society workers observe that B.M. appears to be somewhat parentified. She easily assumes a caretaker role with her younger siblings and, on occasion, her mother. The access worker recounted one visit in the summer of 2019 when the mother was unable to control her emotions and crying. B.M. tried to comfort her telling her not to cry – much like a parent would a child. Other reports describe B.M. attending to the needs of her siblings.
[36] The observations regarding the mother’s behaviour reported by hospital staff, police and neighbours are similar to the observations made by the Society – before the children came into care and since. Within a short time, the mother can vacillate between yelling, laughing, crying, and singing, between anger and insistence that she can care for the children, to admitting that she needs help and cannot care for them. She can quickly move from calm to verbally aggressive. She will admit to drinking excessively, then deny it. Her denials are at odds with the observations of police officers, the complaints of neighbours and reports from her family. Sometimes the mother will accept responsibility for her actions but mostly she blames others. At times, she appears to accept her bipolar disorder diagnosis but then disputes it and says that what she suffers from is extreme stress. The Society continues to observe her emotional dysregulation.
[37] The mother continues her bi-weekly appointments with her psychiatrist at the outpatient clinic and has attended a total of six counselling sessions in the Violence Against Women program since December 2018, but otherwise has not engaged in the programming requested by the Society. The most recent information from her psychiatrist indicates some improvement and her current medication is thought to be helping but follow-up blood tests are needed to monitor dosage.
[38] There is no persuasive evidence that the mother is better at regulating her behaviour or coping with her stress now than she was prior to the children being taken into care. I find there is a real possibility the children would be at likely risk of harm if returned to her care.
If the children are at risk if returned to the mother’s care, would a supervision order provide adequate protection?
[39] For a supervision order to be a viable option, cooperation is essential. The Society argues that the mother has not been cooperative or demonstrated the ability to follow through and meet conditions and expectations. They submit that her failure to comply in the past is persuasive evidence that she is unlikely to comply in the future and that uncertainty renders a supervision order inadequate protection for the children.
[40] The mother acknowledges that it was a mistake not to cooperate with the Society by engaging in the programs. She says she now recognizes the need for mental health programming, knows it is important and will do what is asked of her.
Analysis
[41] The Society has tried to work with the mother voluntarily since March 2019. The most recent attempt was a four-month Voluntary Services Agreement signed June 4, 2019. She was to engage in emotional regulation programming with a mental health professional; attend meetings with the Society and work with them to develop a support network; engage in programming for drug and alcohol use; and attend random drug screens. The mother has not attended the recommended programs, she has lost the support of her family and she has not followed through with the Society to develop a support network. She also failed to comply with the random drug screens. She attended two appointments but missed the next seven out of seven, without explanation.
[42] The progress made by the mother to date is acknowledged as is her stated commitment to now work with the Society, however, that is not sufficient or persuasive evidence, in the circumstances of this case, to satisfy the court that a supervision order would provide adequate protection. The passage of several months without the mother taking any steps to engage in the specific programming identified in relation to the child protections concerns leads me to conclude that she is unlikely to cooperate and comply with the terms and conditions of a supervision order at this time, regardless of her statements to the contrary. As a result, I am satisfied that a supervision order would not adequately alleviate the risk of harm to the children if they were to return to their mother’s care.
Is it in the Children’s Best Interests to be in the Temporary Care and Custody of their Father?
[43] Having found that the children cannot be safely returned to their mother’s care, I must now determine whether an order placing them in the temporary care of their father is in their best interests. Only if the answer is no, can the court make an order for Society’s care.[^10] The possible orders under s. 94(2)[^11] on a temporary care and custody motion are set out in an ascending scale of intrusiveness. The court cannot order a higher level of intervention without considering whether a lesser option would be in the children’s best interests.[^12]
[44] The Society takes the position that an order placing the children in the temporary care and custody of their father subject to supervision is the least intrusive option that is consistent with their best interests. They say he has addressed the past parenting concerns including drug use and there is no indication of ongoing risk that cannot be mitigated by a supervision order. The Society submits his home is safe and appropriate for the children.
[45] The mother argues that the children will not be safe in their father’s care. She says he was physically violent with her, that he is a drug addict and a sex addict. She says his alleged sobriety is too recent to be reliable. She further submits that he does not know how to care for the children, and she takes issue with the company he keeps. In particular, she focuses on one friend who she says was a fellow drug user and who now plans to move into the father’s house. She also alleges that it would not be in the children’s best interests to move to the Quebec school system from Ontario.
[46] The mother does not dispute that the children love their father but says they have settled into their new schools and are doing well in care. They report feeling happy and safe with their foster parents. She says they should remain in foster care to ensure they are safe and disrupted as little as possible.
Analysis
[47] The father admitted to the Society that he and the mother had an unstable lifestyle together. He said his drugs of choice were alcohol and speed, but he is sober now and has been since February 2019. He expressed sadness at not seeing his children after separation and worried that E.M. would not remember him. At the Society’s request, the father participated in random drug screens. All were negative, except for marijuana, however, he told them in advance that he used marijuana when not caring for his older child, D.C. He cooperated with the Society and allowed them into his home. No evidence of drugs or other risk was found.
[48] Access between the father and the children has progressed from supervised visits, to community outings, to overnights in the home. The initial reports from the access workers were positive. At the end of their first visit, both B.M. and C.M. were heard telling their father that they loved him. At the second visit, they ran to greet him and their step-sister, D.C. Now that access is unsupervised, the children are observed to look forward to seeing their father and their reports after access are positive. They also like seeing their paternal grandparents.
[49] The father’s plan of care includes the paternal grandparents. They are emotionally and financially supportive of his plan to have the children in his care and have agreed to provide full-time daycare for C.M. and E.M. while he is at work. Initially, the mother expressed relief that the paternal grandparents would be involved with the children’s care but quickly changed her mind. She alleged that both are alcoholics and that the grandfather has anger issues. There is no evidence to support these allegations. The Society has approved the paternal grandparents as alternative caregivers.
[50] The Society also contacted the Quebec child welfare agency in the father’s jurisdiction to determine if he had been involved with them. The agency confirmed five file openings in relation to the child, D.C., the most recent being April 2019. There were no protection concerns and all files were closed at intake.
[51] The Society talked to the father regarding the mother’s concerns about his friend moving into the home. He confirmed that, indeed, his friend and his two children would be living in his basement for a few months while their house is under renovation. The father denied the mother’s allegation of his friend’s drug use and told the Society that this individual had been a positive support for him. The Society said they cautioned the father and are satisfied that he understands his obligation to be protective at all times. There is no evidence that the Society ever met this individual or made further inquiries about him. Considering the mother’s concerns and the fact that he will be living in the father’s house with the children, I expect the Society will follow up with further investigation and continue to monitor the situation. Moreover, this individual should not be in a caregiving position to the children unless specifically approved by the Society.
[52] Before making a temporary care and custody order, I must take into consideration the child’s views and wishes if available, when considering their best interests and give them due weight in accordance with their age and maturity level.[^13]
[53] Here, the children are young. E.M. is only 1 year old. His views are not available. C.M. is 3 years and B.M. is 6 years of age. They were interviewed individually on several occasions by their child-in-care worker who states that she used the techniques learned in the forensic interviewing program for children. The interviews took place in private, at home and at school. To the extent that C.M. communicated anything that might be considered as an indication of her views and wishes, I attach no weight to them.
[54] Not surprisingly, B.M., had the most to say. According to the worker, the first time she told B.M. that she would be seeing her father, she gave a big smile, appeared excited and added that it was okay to see him now because he no longer did bad drugs. She shared that her maternal grandmother told her that. When B.M was told about her first overnight visit with her father, she got very excited and asked if it could happen that night. More recently, B.M. said she wanted to live with her father and told the worker that he was the “bestest daddy in the world.” She explained that he was the “best daddy to play with and snuggle with.”
[55] I consider B.M.’s remarks only insofar as there is some consistency between them and the child’s earlier comments. Considering B.M.’s age, I do not attach any weight to her statements and behaviours in relation to her views and preferences, but I do regard them as an indication of her attachment to her father in assessing her best interests.
[56] Turning to other best interest considerations, I am satisfied that the father can provide the children with a safe home and appropriate care that will meet their physical, emotional, and educational needs. Both the father and the children will have the care and support of the paternal grandparents. If the children live in the father’s temporary care and custody, they will also be re-united with their older step-sister, D.C., with whom they lived prior to their parents’ separation. B.M. will attend the same school as D.C. where she will learn about her linguistic heritage. With respect to the children’s education, I am mindful of the mother’s concern around the children attending school in Quebec. She says children in Ontario start school at a younger age than they do in Quebec and believes this will result in B.M. being set back a grade. She provided no evidence to indicate whether this would indeed be the case if B.M. attends school in Quebec nor did she offer any evidence to support her contention that, at age 6, it would be contrary to B.M.’s best interests if it did happen.
Disposition
[57] Having considered the evidence as a whole, I am satisfied that the father can provide the children with a safe home and meet their needs. I am also satisfied that the children love him and are bonded to him. I find that it is in their best interests to be in the father’s temporary care and custody subject to the terms and conditions of a supervision order. It is the least intrusive option that provides the children with adequate protection and is proportional to the degree of risk.
Access
[58] The Society proposes access to the mother once a week for a minimum of four hours. They seek discretion over the location of access and the level of supervision. The mother seeks two visits per week but does not say for how long. She did not make submissions regarding supervision or the location of access. Her current access is twice a week for one and a half hours.
[59] By all accounts, the visits between the children and their mother are largely positive. She is affectionate and loving. The Society reports the children are excited and happy to see her. Early on, she missed some visits but overall, her attendance has been consistent.
[60] The Society notes some improvement in the mother’s ability to regulate her emotions during access, however, there are still concerns. The visits of July 26, August 13, and September 3, 2019 provide evidence of the mother’s inability to control her emotions. On occasion, she cried. Other times she had to be cued by the worker to remain child focused and not talk about adult topics. She was observed to become especially agitated when the children talked about their father and their visits with him. It was also noted that the children would fall quiet and stop their play if they became worried about their mother’s behaviour.
[61] The Society also expressed concern around the mother’s ability to monitor the children during access. On two recent occasions, the worker had to intervene to prompt her that E.M. was either walking around with something in his mouth or carrying an object that was potentially unsafe for him.
[62] No submissions were made to indicate whether the distance between the father’s residence in Quebec and the Society’s premises in Ottawa is a barrier to facilitating more frequent access. I assume it may be a factor, however, it is my view that the children should have a second visit with their mother for one and a half hours each week, if it can be arranged. The evidence indicates that the children love their mother and are accustomed to seeing her twice a week. One week between visits is too long, especially for C.M. and E.M. who are just 3 years and 1 year of age, respectively.
[63] For the reasons given, I make the following order.
- The children, B.M., born [….] 2013, C.M. born [….] 2015, and E.M. born [….] 2018 shall be in the temporary care and custody of the father, J.M., subject to the supervision of the Society pending final disposition of the application, with the following conditions:
The father, J.M.:
1 Shall work cooperatively with the child protection worker by
i. meeting regularly;
ii. notifying the Society in advance of any change of address, telephone number or family constellation;
iii. following reasonable recommendations made; and
iv. allowing the Society worker private access to the children, on an announced and unannounced basis, in the home or in the community, a minimum of once (1) a month.
2 Upon consultation with counsel if desired, the parent shall sign consent forms allowing the Society and various professionals and workers involved with the family to share information about their involvement and observations.
3 The father shall maintain sobriety and complete random supervised drug screens as requested by the Society.
4 The father shall continue to work with the Society worker to build a safety net of the parent’s extended family, friends, kin, community supports etc., will assist the parent with providing respite and ensuring the children always have an appropriate caregiver.
5 Shall meet the needs of the children, including physical, emotional, developmental and educational needs.
6 Shall not allow alternate caregivers to be in a caregiving role to the children, unless pre-approved by the Society or an order of the court.
7 Shall not have contact with the mother while in the presence of the children.
8 Shall not expose the children to adult conflict or domestic conflict, including negative discussions relating to adult topics.
9 Shall register B.M. in counselling.
The mother, A.M:
10 Shall work cooperatively with the child protection worker by
i. meeting regularly;
ii. notifying the Society in advance of any change of address, telephone number or family constellation; and
iii. by following reasonable recommendations made.
11 Upon consultation with counsel if desired, the parent shall sign consent forms allowing the Society and various professionals and workers involved with the family to share information about their involvement and observations.
12 Shall work with the Society to develop a network and shall attend network meetings with family members and kin to identify and build a safety network of the parents’ extended family, friends, kin, community supports, etc. who will assist the parent with ensuring the children always have a sober and appropriate caregiver.
13 Shall access and attend all medical or psychological appointments that is required and shall follow any recommendations made by the professionals involved, including taking recommended medication. This includes engaging with the out-patient treatment of the Ottawa Hospital and shall follow the recommendations of professionals.
14 Shall meet with the child protection worker to identify an appropriate anger management or emotional regulation program. This could include first consulting with her family doctor, obtaining a referral for services with a mental health professional (such as meeting a psychiatrist) and shall follow professional recommendations.
15 Shall be able to demonstrate an ability to meet the children’s needs in a safe and secure environment, including avoiding conflict with neighbours, demonstrating an ability to remain calm in situations of conflict and demonstrate an ability to focus on the child’s needs before her own.
16 Shall complete counselling and/or a program for women who have been in an abusive relationship such as Violence Against Women counselling.
17 Shall meet with the child protection worker to identify programming to assist her in reducing her alcohol and marijuana use and ensuring she does not use marijuana or alcohol while in a caregiving role. This could include an initial meeting with an addictions’ consultant.
18 Shall engage in programming with a view to addressing alcohol, drug and marijuana use and shall be able to demonstrate sobriety while in a caregiving role.
19 Shall complete random supervised drug screens as requested by the Society.
20 Shall not have contact with the father while in the presence of the children.
21 Shall not expose the children to adult conflict or domestic conflict, including negative discussions relating to adult topics.
22 Shall attend access visits consistently and shall demonstrate an ability to meet the children’s needs.
- The mother shall have access with the children a minimum of once a week for a minimum of four hours subject to my comments above that an additional one and a half hour visit each week would be in the best interest of the children, if arrangements can be made. The level of supervision and the location of the access shall be at the Society’s discretion in keeping with the best interests and wishes of the children.
Madam Justice D. Summers
Released: November 27, 2019
COURT FILE NO.: FC-19-CP52
DATE: 2019/11/27
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1
AND IN THE MATTER OF B.M. born [….] 2013, C.M. born [….] 2015 and E.M. born [….] 2018
BETWEEN:
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
Applicant
– and –
A.M. (Mother)
Respondent
– and –
J.M. (Father)
Respondent
REASONS FOR decision
Justice D. Summers
Released: November 27, 2019
[^1]: 2017, S.O. 2017, C. 14, Sched. 1
[^2]: Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., 2000 CanLII 21157 (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 2273, para. 10
[^3]: Supra, at note 1
[^4]: Family and Children's Service v. R.O., [2006] O.J. No. 969 (OCJ)
[^5]: Supra, at note 1
[^6]: R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7
[^8]: Ibid, at note 8.
[^9]: Supra, at note 8
[^10]: Supra, note 1, s.94(5)
[^11]: Supra, note 1
[^12]: CAS of Niagara v. J.F., 2005 CanLII 7658 (ON SC), at para. 8
[^13]: Supra, note 1, s. 94(11) and s. 74(3)