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.: C551/17-02

DATE: 20191213

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex

Joseph F. Belecky, for the Applicant

Applicant

• and -

V.F., B.H., J.T.B., J.G.B., L.M.B., K.E.B. and P.W.B.

Holly Watson, for the Respondent, V.F., V.F. not attending J.G.B. and P.W.B. appearing in person No one appearing for B.H. or J.T.B.

Respondents

Christina Ninham, Children’s Lawyer for L.H.F., S.B.

HEARD: December 2, 2019

Tranquilli J.

[1] The Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (“the Society”) seeks an order that the children, L.H.F., S.B. and L.J.B. be placed with their paternal grandparents, subject to Society supervision for an additional period of six months with reasonable access to the parents, V.F. and J.T.B. and subject to terms and conditions. The paternal grandparents seek custody of the children. The Society supports the grandparents’ plans of care and a final order placing the children in their custody, pursuant to s. 102(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sch. 1.

[2] The three children who are the subject of this status review application are: L.H.F., age 10, S.B., age 5 and L.J.B., age 2. The Children’s Lawyer reported that L.H.F. and S.B. would like to be able to return to their mother’s care; however, they also enjoy living with their paternal grandparents. The child L.J.B. is too young for his views and wishes to be ascertained.

[3] The respondent V.F. (“the mother”) is the mother of all three children. The mother opposes the supervision order sought by the Society and the custody order sought by the grandparents. She seeks an order returning the children to her care. Although represented by counsel, the mother did not attend the trial. Her counsel ably advocated for the mother’s interests; however, was unable to otherwise call any evidence on the mother’s behalf.

[4] The respondent B.H. is the biological father of L.H.F. The undisputed evidence is that he never had any involvement as a parent. The service of the status review on B.H. was dispensed with by order dated March 20, 2019 and he did not attend the trial or otherwise participate in the proceeding.

[5] The respondent J.T.B. (“the father”) is the biological father of S.B. and L.J.B. and a parent to the eldest child, L.H.F. He did not file an answer to the status review, did not participate in the proceeding or attend trial. The evidence shows the mother registered the child’s surname as hers and failed to provide any information about the father. However, the uncontradicted evidence is that J.T.B. is his biological father and that L.J.B. has otherwise carried J.T.B.’s surname.

[6] The respondents K.E.B. and P.W.B. are the paternal grandparents of the children, as are the respondents J.G.B. and L.M.B. (The respondents J.G.B. and K.E.B. having previously been married and are the parents to the respondent father J.T.B.).

[7] The court received evidence by statement of agreed facts and testimony from the Society child protection worker and the grandfathers, P.W.B. and J.G.B. The grandmothers did not attend trial as they were caring for the children who are the subject of the review. Although none of the parents signed the statement of agreed facts, the evidence was undisputed and counsel for the mother confirmed she did not formally oppose the statement.

Undisputed Evidence

[8] The Society was involved with the family beginning in 2011 with concerns about domestic violence, adult conflict, drug use and the mother’s mental health. Protection concerns escalated in March 2017 with concerns about the eldest child’s school attendance, the parents’ drug use, their lack of cooperation and the mother’s deteriorating mental health. The Society was aware the mother was pregnant but was unable to confirm the stage of her pregnancy or the status of her prenatal care. L.J.B. was born in […] 2017 and exhibited significant drug withdrawal symptoms that required treatment.

[9] The Society obtained a warrant to bring the children to a place of safety. They were placed with the paternal grandparents on interim supervision orders. On July 13, 2017, the Society placed L.H.F. and S.B. in the care of their paternal grandparents, K.E.B. and P.W.B. The infant L.J.B. was discharged from hospital on August 4, 2017 into the care of the paternal grandparents J.G.B. and L.M.B., where they continued to manage his treatment for drug withdrawal.

[10] By amended final order of McArthur J. dated May 25, 2018, the children were found to be in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(b)(i) of the Act. The older children, L.H.F. and S.B. were placed into the care of their paternal grandparents K.E.B. and P.W.B. and the youngest child L.B. was placed into the care of his paternal grandparents J.G.B. and L.M.B. Both placements were for a period of four months, subject to Society supervision and on terms and conditions that included reasonable access by the parents at the Society’s discretion.

[11] The children have remained in the care of their grandparents for the past two and one-half years. The Society regularly followed the families and there were no concerns about the placements. The children are healthy and thriving. The child L.H.F. has special needs but is well supported by his grandparents. The required 35.1 affidavits were properly completed for each grandparent and raised no issues. Police record and vulnerable sector record checks were negative for each. The child protection worker confirmed that none of the grandparents have a prior child protection history within or out of this jurisdiction. Kinship Comprehensive Assessment reports for both sets of grandparents were also entered into evidence and demonstrated that each couple provides a safe and stable home and lifestyle.

[12] I was satisfied by the evidence that each child enjoys a close and nurturing relationship with their grandparents and with one another. I find that the grandparents do substantially more than simply meet the children’s basic needs. Both sets of grandparents live close to one another. They have a cordial relationship and collaborate in planning for each child’s future. The children live in two separate households; however, the caregivers support ongoing and frequent contact among the children. Although the grandparents each retired from employment and initially had different plans for their futures, the uncontroverted evidence is that they have embraced their roles as full-time caregivers to this young family. Their plans of care for the children are detailed, articulate and show a clear appreciation of each child’s needs, talents and interests.

[13] The mother alleged safety concerns due to an injury L.H.F. sustained in a playground accident in August 2018 while in his grandparents’ care. I was satisfied from the evidence of the child protection worker and the grandfather that there was a reasonable and understandable explanation for the accident and that the grandparents acted responsibly and promptly in seeking medical care.

[14] Although the grandparents initially supported reunification of the children with their parents, they are unsure that either parent can make the needed changes to resume their roles as parents in the foreseeable future. They are prepared to make the children’s placements permanent. Indeed, I am satisfied the evidence demonstrates that both parents unfortunately continue to struggle with instability.

[15] The mother denied substance abuse to the Society; however, failed to produce evidence of participation in a rehabilitation program. Her current residence is unknown. There was no evidence that she successfully met the Society’s clear expectations for addiction rehabilitation, mental health treatment and acquiring parenting skills although she was regularly encouraged to do so. Her access visits require close supervision due to her inability to effectively manage the children and her inappropriate behaviour, including making disparaging and scandalous comments about the grandparents to the children. Her weekly visits were reduced to every second week. She had one overnight visit per month with the two older children at the maternal grandmother’s residence. The eldest child chose to stop attending due to conflict. S.B. was emotionally distraught following a subsequent visit. The Society found that the maternal grandmother failed to supervise the access and ended the overnight access. The mother appeared disconnected in her most recent visits with the children at the Society. At the time of trial, it had been approximately six weeks since she had seen the children.

[16] The father expressed an intention to attend rehabilitation but continues to appear to be under the influence of a substance when he attends access. Weekly Saturday access was shortened at his request and then reduced to every second week due his inability to remain alert during the visits. His current residence is unknown. The parents’ relationship fluctuates, and they can be hostile with one another.

[17] The grandparents support access for the children to each parent. I am satisfied they promote the children’s attachments to their mother and father and try to accommodate each parent’s challenges. The grandparents initially attempted to allow access for both parents in their homes but have since required professional supervision. They do facilitate community access for special occasions. I am satisfied from the evidence that the mother was uncooperative, escalated her behaviour and upset the older children during the home access visits. It was in the children’s best interests for access with their parents to be supervised at the Society. The grandparents drive the children to their supervised access visits. If the children were placed in their custody, the grandparents would plan to continue to support access. The plan of care would start initially with professional oversight at a Merrymount Children’s Services location near the grandparents’ homes, as this would minimize the travel time and disruption to the children’s routines, including school. The grandparents would allow ongoing regular access by telephone, although the evidence indicates this happens infrequently as there is a question as to whether either parent has a telephone.

[18] I conclude it is in the children’s best interests for an order placing them in the care of their paternal grandparents pursuant to s. 102(1) of the Act. There is no doubt that the mother and father each love their children; however, they have not demonstrated any meaningful or material improvement in addressing the personal challenges that led to the protection concerns, nor is there evidence that this is likely to change in the foreseeable future. Permanency and long-term stability are crucial for the children. The parents are fortunate to have the support and generosity of the grandparents, who can provide a safe and loving home for their children.

Orders

1. The order of the Honourable Justice McArthur, dated May 25^th, 2018, placing the children L.H.F., born […, 2009] and S.B., born […, 2014], in the care of the paternal grandparents, K.E.B. and P.W.B., and placing the child, L.J.B. born […, 2017], in the care of the paternal grandparents, J.G.B and L.M.B. for a period of (4) months, subject to the supervision of the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex is hereby terminated.

With respect to L.H.F. and S.B.:

2. The children namely L.H.F., born […, 2009] and S.B., born […, 2014], shall be placed in the custody of K.E.B. and P.W.B. pursuant to section 102 of the Child and Youth Family Services Act, 2017.

3. The parents namely V.F. and J.T.B. shall have reasonable access to the children. K.E.B. and P.W.B. shall have the discretion with respect to whether such access is supervised, and if so, the level of supervision.

4. The parents namely V.F. and J.T.B. shall refrain from the use, and /or from being under the influence of alcohol or illegal substances while in a caretaking role or in the presence of the children and shall not expose the children to anyone who is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

5. The parents shall not make disparaging remarks about the children’s caregivers while the children are in his or her care, nor shall they allow others to make disparaging remarks about the caregivers in the presence of the children.

6. The Respondents K.E.B. and P.W.B. may obtain and renew from time to time, a passport for the children namely L.H.F., born […, 2009] and S.B., born […, 2014], without the consent or signature of the Respondents V.F., B.H. and J.T.B.

7. The Respondent K.E.B. and/or the Respondent P.W.B. may travel outside of Canada with the children namely L.H.F., born […, 2009] and S.B., born […, 2014] without the consent, authorization or signature of the Respondents V.F., B.H. and J.T.B.

8. This order shall be a deemed custody and access order pursuant to the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12.

9. A separate order shall be issued in the protection file, maintaining the same file number, but showing K.E.B. and P.W.B. as the Applicants and V.F., B.H. and J.T.B. as the Respondents.

10. The separate order shall state as follows:

a) The Applicants K.E.B. and P.W.B. shall have custody of the children namely L.H.F., born […, 2009] and S.B., born [… 2014].

b) The Respondents namely V.F. and J.T.B. shall have reasonable access to the children. K.E.B. and P.W.B. shall have the discretion with respect to whether such access is supervised, and if so, the level of supervision.

c) The Respondents namely V.F. and J.T.B. shall refrain from the use, and/or from being under the influence of alcohol or illegal substances while in a caretaking role or in the presence of the children and shall not expose the children to anyone who is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

d) The Respondents namely V.F. and J.T.B. shall not make disparaging remarks about the children’s caregivers while the children are in his or her care, nor shall they allow others to make disparaging remarks about the caregivers in the presence of the children.

e) The Applicants K.E.B. and P.W.B. may obtain and renew from time to time, a passport for the children namely L.H.F., born […, 2009] and S.B., born [… 2014], without the consent or signature of the Respondents V.F., B.H. and J.T.B.

f) The Applicant K.E.B. and/or the Applicant P.W.B. may travel outside of Canada with the children namely L.H.F., born […, 2009] and S.B., born […, 2014] without the consent, authorization or signature of the Respondents V.F., B.H. and J.T.B.

g) This order shall be a deemed custody and access order pursuant to the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. C. 12.

With respect to L.J.B.:

11. The child namely L.J.B., born […, 2017], also known as L.J.F., shall be placed in custody of J.G.B. and L.M.B. pursuant to section 102 of the Child and Youth Family Services Act, 2017.

12. The Respondent J.T.B. is declared to be the father of the child namely L.J.B., born [… 2017], also known as L.J.F., pursuant to section 7 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 12.

13. The parents namely V.F. and J.T.B. shall have reasonable access to the child. J.G.B. and L.M.B. shall have the discretion with respect to whether such access is supervised, and if so, the level of supervision.

14. The parents namely V.F. and J.T.B. shall refrain from the use, and/or from being under the influence of alcohol or illegal substances while in a caretaking role or in the presence of the child and shall not expose the child to anyone who is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

15. The parents shall not make disparaging remarks about the child’s caregivers while the child is in his or her care, nor shall they allow others to make disparaging remarks about the caregivers in the presence of the child.

16. The Respondents J.G.B. or L.M.B. may obtain and renew from time to time, a passport for the child namely L.J.B., born […, 2017], also known as L.J.F. without the consent or signature of the Respondents V.F. and J.T.B.

17. The Respondent J.G.B. and/or L.M.B. may travel outside of Canada with the child namely L.J.B., born […, 2017], also known as L.J.F. without the consent, authorization or signature of the Respondents V.F. and J.T.B.

18. This order shall be deemed a custody and access order pursuant to the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 12.

19. A separate order shall be issued in the protection file, maintaining the same file number, but showing J.G.B. and L.M.B. as the Applicants and V.F. and J.T.B. as the Respondents.

20. The separate order shall state as follows:

a) The Applicants J.G.B. and L.M.B. shall have custody of L.J.B., born […, 2017], also known as L.J.F.

b) The Respondent J.T.B. is declared to be the father of the child namely L.J.B., born […, 2017], also known as L.J.F., pursuant to section 7 of the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 12.

c) The Respondents namely V.F. and J.T.B. shall have reasonable access to the child. J.G.B. and L.M.B. shall have the discretion with respect to whether such access is supervised, and if so, the level of supervision.

d) The Respondents namely V.F. and J.T.B. shall refrain from the use, and/or from being under the influence of alcohol or illegal substances while in a caretaking role or in the presence of the child and shall not expose the child to anyone who is under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol.

e) The Respondents namely V.F. and J.T.B. shall not make disparaging remarks about the child’s caregivers while the child is in his or her care, nor shall they allow others to make disparaging remarks about the caregivers in the presence of the child.

f) The Applicants J.G.B. and L.M.B. may obtain and renew from time to time, a passport for the child namely L.J.B., born […, 2017], also known as L.J.F. without the consent or signature of the Respondents V.F. or J.T.B.

g) The Applicants J.G.B. and/or L.M.B. may travel outside of Canada with the child namely L.J.B., born […, 2017], also known as L.J.F. without the consent, authorization or signature of the Respondents V.F. and J.T.B.

h) This order shall be deemed a custody and access order pursuant to the Children’s Law Reform Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C. 12.

“Justice K. Tranquilli”

Justice K. Tranquilli

Released: December 13, 2019

COURT FILE NO.: C551/17-02

DATE: 20191213

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY COURT

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex

Applicant

• and -

V.F., B.H., J.T.B., J.G.B., L.M.B., K.E.B. and P.W.B.

Respondents

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Tranquilli J.

Released: December 13, 2019

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

FAMILY COURT

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 87(8), 87(9) and, 142(3) OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT

RE: Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex, Applicant

AND:

V.F., B.H., J.T.B., J.G.B., L.M.B., K.E.B. and P.W.B., Respondents

BEFORE: Tranquilli J.

COUNSEL: Joseph F. Belecky, for the Society

Holly Watson, for the Respondent, V.F., V.F. not attending

J.G.B. and P.W.B. appearing in person No one appearing for B.H. or J.T.B.

Christina Ninham, Children’s Lawyer for, L.H.F., S.B.

HEARD: December 2, 2019

Corrigendum

[1] Paragraph [18 (7) and (10)(f)] of my reasons for judgment released in this matter on December 13, 2019 are amended as follows:

17. The Respondent J.G.B. and/or L.M.B. may travel outside of Canada with the child namely L.J.B., born […, 2017], also known as L.J.F. without the consent, authorization or signature of the Respondents V.F. and J.T.B.

20 (g) The Applicants J.G.B. and/or L.M.B. may travel outside of Canada with the child namely L.J.B., born […, 2017], also known as L.J.F. without the consent, authorization or signature of the Respondents V.F. and J.T.B.

“Justice K. Tranquilli”

Justice K. Tranquilli

Date: December 17, 2019