Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington v. S. F., B. F.-S., and A. B.-F.

Court File No.: 126/20 Date: 2020-03-31 Superior Court of Justice - Ontario

Re: Family and Children’s Services of Frontenac, Lennox and Addington, Applicant And S. F., B. F.-S., and A. B.-F., Respondents

Before: Mr. Justice Timothy Minnema

Counsel: L. David Toupin, for the Applicant None for the Respondents

Heard: In Writing

Endorsement

Issue

[1] This is a 14B motion brought by the applicant Society based on urgency following the COVID-19 procedures set out in the Notice to the Profession published on the SCJ website from the Chief Justice Morawetz dated March 15, 2020, and the Notice to the Profession for this county from our Local Administrative Justices dated March 25, 2020.

[2] My role at this point as the triage judge is to determine whether the matter is urgent and should be scheduled for a hearing. The respondents have all been served. However, the only materials before me are from the applicant Society.

Facts

[3] The mother Ms. F has two children EF, male age 6, and AF-F, female age 1.

[4] Her current partner Mr. F-S is the father of AF-F and has long stood in the place of parent to EF. Mr. B-F is the father of EF but has not been involved with that child or the mother for some time.

[5] In the previous weeks the mother discovered pictures on her partner Mr. F-S’s computer suggesting child abuse and that he may have been involved. There is also some evidence that when Mr. F-S was a child aged twelve he sexually assaulted a younger male child. In a somewhat convoluted way, this information eventually found its way to the police and the Society.

[6] The mother has been cooperating with the Society regarding Safety Plans for the children, as has Mr. F-S although somewhat begrudgingly. There is no suggestion that they have breached the plans which have been evolving.

[7] Eventually the Society worker indicated to the mother and Mr. F-S that it was only willing at this time, until the investigation (involving both the police and Society) concludes, to support one of three Safety Plans: either the mother and children reside outside the home; or Mr. F-S reside outside the home; or the children leave and stay with other family members.

[8] The parents chose the second option. Mr. F-S has been residing outside the home with his access being supervised on terms acceptable to the Society on consent.

Law/Argument/Analysis

[9] The Notice to the Profession dated March 15, 2020 sets out that only urgent family events will be heard during the COVID-19 emergency period until further notice. These include urgent relief relating to the safety of a child (para. 2(a)), urgent issues that must be determined relating to the well-being of a child (para. 2(b)), and any other matter that the court deems necessary and appropriate to hear on an urgent basis (para. 4).

[10] In bringing this motion the Society takes the position that “this Order is required because of the likelihood that Mr. F-S poses a risk of harm to the children if left unsupervised.” However, there is no evidence that he has ever been left unsupervised since this issue arose. It further takes the position that “the Order is also required because Ms. F and Mr. F-S could revoke their current voluntary consent to the Safety Plan at any time” noting that they are not acknowledging an actual risk of harm, have denied certain facts (for the most part related to the incident when Mr. F-S was a 12-year-old), and that Ms. F had asked to have her cell-phone, which the police have retained for evidence, returned to her. But the parents have not even intimated an intention to revoke their consent. Lastly the Society argues “[i]f Ms. F or Mr. F-S revoked their agreement to the Safety Plan, the Society would have to become more intrusive and seek an order placing the children elsewhere to ensure the children’s safety, which the Society seeks to avoid if possible.” It is not clear to me why the mere possibility that the Society may have to become more intrusive in the future makes it urgent that more intrusive measures be taken at this time.

Decision

[11] In my view the protection worker and his manager have done an exemplary job of managing the risk to the children in this family. I am not satisfied on the material before me that there is currently a need for an urgent motion. Certainly, the matter can be brought back should either parent withdraw their consent to, or fail to comply with, the Safety Plan.

Mr. Justice Timothy Minnema

Date: March 31, 2020