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-CP14-2
DATE: 2020/06/10
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 W. born [….] 2020
BETWEEN:
The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa
Applicant
– and –
A.H. (Mother)
Respondent
Eric Smith, for the Applicant
Rebecca E. Rosenstock, for the Respondent (Mother)
– and –
J.P. (Father)
J.P., the Respondent (Father) for himself
Respondent
HEARD: May 6, 2020
REASONS FOR DECISION on a Care and custody motion
D. SUMMERS J.
Overview
[1] The child, W., was 3 months old on April 19, 2020 when he was removed from his mother’s care and taken to the home of his maternal aunt. He remains in her care and custody under my temporary without prejudice order dated April 24, 2020, made in the context of an amended protection application. The final order sought by the Society is a six-month supervision order to the maternal aunt. The grounds are s. 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii), (likely to suffer physical harm), and s. 74(2)(h), (likely to suffer emotional harm) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act (CYFSA)[^1]. The specific concerns alleged by the Society include inappropriate alcohol use and the child’s exposure to adult conflict and domestic violence.
[2] My order further provides access to the mother and father at the Society’s discretion. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the access terms reflect the Society’s current policy that there can be no in-person contact at this time. Access is limited to telephone, FaceTime and other video-conferencing technologies until the Society determines it is safe to allow direct access in accordance with public health guidelines.
[3] The mother, Ms. H., moves for an order returning W. to her temporary care and custody pending final disposition. She is open to Society supervision, terms, and conditions.
[4] The father, Mr. P., did not file any evidence. He attended the motion and made submissions on the evidence before the court. He opposes the mother’s motion and wants the child to remain with the maternal aunt, S.H.
[5] Due to the COVID-19 health crisis and the decision of the Office of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Ontario to suspend regular court operations, this motion was heard by tele-conference.
[6] As I will explain, there are reasonable grounds to believe that W. would be at likely risk of harm if returned to his mother’s care. However, I am satisfied that the risks can be mitigated, and the child can be adequately protected by a supervision order to the Society, on appropriate terms and conditions. One such condition will require the full-time presence of the mother’s friend, C.W., in the home, to supervise W.’s care and report any concerns to the Society. He has already been approved by the Society as a supervisor. A further condition will require that the mother and C.W. provide whatever reasonable assurance is required to satisfy the Society that each has completed a fourteen-day period of self-isolation proximate in time to W.’s return home.
[7] Accordingly, I order that W. be returned to his mother’s temporary care and custody subject to the Society’s supervision and the terms and conditions set out in more detail at the end of these reasons.
Background Facts
[8] Ms. H. and Mr. P. were a couple from 2017 until sometime in 2018. Thereafter, they continued an on again, off again relationship.
[9] Ms. H. has a 5-year old child, E., from a prior relationship. She is in the temporary without prejudice care and custody of her father, K.T. The mother’s access is currently limited to telephone and video-conferencing.
[10] Mr. P. also has an older child. She is 11 years of age and resides with her mother in Cornwall. Mr. P. resides in Cornwall and has contact with her.
[11] The Society’s involvement with E. began in 2018. The protection concerns included the mother’s alcohol use and the ongoing conflict between her and Mr. P. The protection application in relation to E. was started in March 2019. The various orders made since then all included a term directing that the mother not allow contact between E. and Mr. P., without prior approval by the Society or the court.
[12] The child, W., who is the subject of this motion, was born in early 2020, seven weeks premature. The primary protection concerns continue to be the mother’s alcohol use, adult conflict and domestic violence involving the child’s father, Mr. P.
[13] The protection application in relation to W. was commenced in February 2020. On February 19, 2020, Justice Audet made an interim without prejudice order placing W. in the care of the mother and the father subject to terms, conditions, and the Society’s supervision. The child’s primary residence was with the mother; the father had access at the Society’s discretion. The mother’s terms and conditions included refraining from alcohol use while in a caregiving role, counselling for addictions and domestic violence, ensuring that the child not be exposed to adult conflict or domestic violence, and reporting any domestic violence to the Society within 24 hours. The father’s terms and conditions were similar and included his participation in a parenting program and anger management counselling.
[14] Mr. P. did not file an Answer and Plan of Care for W. in the original application nor did he engage with the Society to address their protection concerns.
[15] On April 17, 2020, there was an altercation between Ms. H. and Mr. P. that occurred at her house. He left without delay. Two days later, on April 19, 2020, the mother contacted the Ottawa Police Service to report that Mr. P. had assaulted her.
[16] The police responded to the mother’s call and attended her home that evening. The officer contacted the Society with concerns that she was intoxicated and unable to care for the child. The after-hours worker arrived, removed W. from the mother and took him to the home of his maternal aunt, S.H.
[17] On April 21, 2020, the Society served their amended protection application.
[18] W. is reported to be a happy, healthy baby.
The Legal Framework
[19] Section 94 of the CYFSA governs temporary care and custody hearings. It provides where a final hearing is adjourned, there are four possible orders that the court can make. The child must either,
(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of him or her 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.
[20] 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 the child will suffer harm if returned to the person who had charge immediately before the intervention. 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).
[21] In determining whether the evidence meets the credible and trustworthy standard in order to be admissible under s. 94(10) of the Act,[^3] the court must assess the evidence in its entirety. That which does not reach the threshold when viewed in isolation might do so when considered alongside the other evidence.[^4]
[22] The paramount purpose of the CYFSA is to promote the best interests, protection, and well-being of children.[^5] The Act includes further objectives to be considered and applied to the extent they are consistent with the paramount purpose.[^6] The following are among the additional purposes that apply here:
While parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and, wherever possible, be provided on the basis of mutual consent.
The least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child, including the provision of prevention services, early intervention services and community support services, should be considered.
Services to children and young persons should be provided in a manner that,
i. respects a child’s or young person’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment,
ii. takes into account physical, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children and young persons,
iii. includes the participation of a child or young person, the child’s or young person’s parents and relatives and the members of the child’s or young person’s extended family and community, where appropriate.
- Services to children and young persons and their families should be provided in a manner that builds on the strengths of the families, wherever possible.
Step #1 - Is it more probable than not that the child will suffer harm if returned to the mother’s care?
[23] The Society’s protection concerns include the mother’s inappropriate use of alcohol while in a caregiving role, her ability to be truthful about her relationship with Mr. P., the impact of adult conflict on the child, and the mother’s compliance with COVID-19 public health guidelines. The Society acknowledged the safety plan proposed by the mother including supervision by family and friends, and how quickly she resumed addictions counselling, engaged with the Violence Against Women program, and began attending Alcoholics Anonymous meetings. Nevertheless, they submit that a period of stabilization and follow-through is necessary before considering W.’s return to her care.
[24] Ms. H. asserts that W. is safe in her care. She admits that she struggles with alcohol addiction and acknowledges it was a mistake to consume alcohol on April 19, 2020, but insists she was not intoxicated or unable to care for W. She says that incident was her only stumble and contends she has otherwise been sober since May 2019. Ms. H. denies any romantic involvement with Mr. P. but acknowledges that she wants the child to know his father. She also says that she is not responsible for Mr. P.’s presence at her home on April 17, 2020. She contends that he just appeared in her backyard, uninvited, and assaulted her when she stepped outside, accepted a call from a male friend, and said there was a douchebag sitting in her yard. Ms. H. also denies taking health risks, be it in relation to COVID-19 public health guidelines, or otherwise. She says with a premature baby in the house, she was vigilant about proper care and hygiene.
Analysis
(i) Alcohol
[25] There is no question that on April 19, 2020, Ms. H. was in breach of Justice Audet’s order and the condition that she abstain from alcohol use while in a caregiving role. First, she admitted to drinking two glasses of wine. Second, there is no dispute that W. was present in the home and under her charge that day. Moreover, I am persuaded that Ms. H. consumed enough alcohol to compromise her ability to safely care for the child. Whether she drank two glasses as she says, or more, I am satisfied that her caregiving abilities were impaired. I find that the child is at likely risk of harm if he is returned to the mother’s care without supervision. I will explain.
[26] According to the Society, the police officer who responded to the mother’s call on April 19, 2020 said he was concerned for her ability to care for the child, that she smelled of alcohol, appeared to be intoxicated, was unsteady on her feet and slurring her words. The officer is further said to have reported that the mother initially denied consuming alcohol but later admitted to having drunk two glasses of wine earlier in the day. When the worker arrived, Ms. H. again denied that she had taken a drink. When the worker reminded her of her earlier admission to the police, she corrected herself. According to the Society, the worker observed that the mother’s eyes were glassy and described her as unsteady on her feet and slow to answer questions.
[27] Ms. H. contends that she was neither intoxicated nor unable to care for W. She explained that she was in pain from the assault, upset and stressed. She says if her eyes were glassy, it was because she had been crying. Ms. H. admits it was wrong to use alcohol as a means of coping and submits that recovery is not always the linear path that one might hope. She says she will not slip up a second time and that she has been sober since May 2019. She submits that she can care for W. and says she will keep him safe.
[28] The Society also reported that the after-hours worker observed four empty wine bottles in the mother’s kitchen that night - three red and one sparkling. Ms. H. challenges the worker’s account and denies the implication that she consumed the wine. She says she keeps empty bottles atop her kitchen cupboards as mementos of past celebrations, including the birth of her children. To support her position, she submitted undated photographs of wine bottles. Two were shown atop her cupboards. They appeared to be unopened. The other two were upright as if sitting on the counter. It was impossible to determine whether the bottles were empty or full. This evidence is not persuasive and strikes me as contrived.
[29] Although the Society’s evidence of the mother’s impairment is hearsay, I nevertheless find it to be credible and trustworthy in the circumstances. The police did not attend the mother’s home that evening looking for alcohol use, but they are trained to recognize signs of intoxication when they encounter it, as are Society workers. In addition, Ms. H. has a history of mis-using alcohol and previously admitted that Mr. P. can be a trigger for her mis-use. I find that she was intoxicated on April 19, 2020 and unable to safely care for W. To the mother’s credit, she quickly organized and embarked on a safety plan to address the Society’s concerns, however, I agree that a period of stabilization and follow through is required in relation to her alcohol use and her ability to detach herself from Mr. P.
[30] The after-hours worker reported two further safety risks. She alleged that the mother twice left the child unattended on the couch and had blankets in the playpen when she laid him down. Ms. H. denies both claims. She says she did not leave W. unattended, rather she reached for a diaper that was within an arm’s length of the couch. She further says that she knows better than to have blankets in the playpen and asserts they were just hanging over the side. To support her position, Ms. H. once again submitted photographs showing the blankets neatly placed, as described. For reasons already stated, I did not find the evidence persuasive. The photographs do not bear a date or time stamp. They could easily have been taken well after the events of April 19 and contrived to fit a particular narrative. However, based on the whole of the evidence before me and bearing in mind the absence of evidence of prior concerns regarding the mother’s day-to-day parenting abilities and practices, I am not persuaded that the worker’s observations indicate concerns that are independent of, or in addition to, the mother’s alcohol consumption and impaired judgment that night. Put another way, I regard the worker’s observations as indicative of the mother’s impairment rather than separate, stand-alone concerns.
(ii) Domestic Violence
[31] Both Ms. H. and Mr. P. admit to an altercation between them on April 17, 2020. Not surprisingly, each has a different version of events and each says the other is responsible. Moreover, the conflict occurred in the mother’s home with the child present. In my view, it is irrelevant whether the child was asleep or not to determine whether he was exposed to the conflict. He was – and the parties’ actions were contrary to Audet J.’s order of February 19, 2020. It is also clear that neither Ms. H. nor Mr. P. contacted the Society within 24 hours of the violence as they were required to do under the order.
[32] Much of the evidence and argument in the motion focused on whether Mr. P. was at the mother’s home by invitation, as the Society submits, or whether he just showed up in her backyard of his own accord, as the mother submits.
[33] According to the Society, Mr. P. was at the mother’s house by invitation between April 13 and April 17, 2020 and, therefore, the mother was in breach of the order prohibiting him from having contact with the child, E. Mr. P. provided the Society with multiple screen shots of the text messages that were exchanged with Ms. H. in prior weeks in support of his contention that he was in the house for four days because she asked him to be there.
[34] Ms. H. denies that she wanted Mr. P. at her house. Although she struggles with wanting the child to know his father, she insists that she has not seen Mr. P. intentionally. At first, she said the only time that she saw him was on Friday, April 17, 2020 when she looked out her window and there he was in her backyard. She later admitted that he had come by the house with deliveries on two other occasions and once came inside to use the washroom. She submitted two photographs of Mr. P. sitting in her yard. The photographs were not persuasive. Other than demonstrating that he was in her yard at some point in time, the pictures do not assist the court to determine the date or reason that he was there. Like the photographs of the wine bottles included in her evidence, the photographs of Mr. P. were enlarged and do not show the date they were taken. I note the contrast between these photos and others submitted by the mother that clearly show the date and time they were taken.
[35] I reviewed the text messages provided by Mr. P. carefully as well as those filed by Ms. H. and find, on the balance of probabilities, that the mother wanted and encouraged Mr. P. to come to Ottawa to see their child. I am also persuaded that he was her house guest between April 13 and 17, 2020 – coming and going during the day to hide from the child, E., and returning after she went to bed at night.
[36] The text exchanges between Ms. H. and Mr. P. include the following:
• Over the Easter weekend, Ms. H. writes to Mr. P., … “I asked you to be here and you went to your ex instead. So stop with the bs.”
• On Tuesday, April 13, 2020, Mr. P. writes to Ms. H., “K leaving now I can’t answer the phone on the way.” Ms. H. responds, “Are you coming?” Mr. P. answers, “So ill let you know when I’m in the back.” She responds, “K.”
• Tuesday 10:01 am, Mr. P. writes, “I am outside.” Ms. H. responds, “I’m going to take E. outside and I’ll open the door. K go upstairs now.” Mr. P. writes, “Ok I am in the front” and Ms. H. says, “Go upstairs now.” He says, “K i am in.”
• Thursday 10:15 am, Mr. P. texts to say, “Coffee is on its way. I got E. a lemonade. Ms. H. responds, “Ok thanks.” He writes, “I really need to use the washroom” and she answers, “Ok go.”
• On Friday, April 17, Ms. H. says, “Attacking people ??? I answered a fucking phone call and you flipped out.” Mr. P. responds, “You want to be an abusive drunk that is on you you fucking ruined another great fucking week for a drink you yet again get pissed off at me because you are in the qrong [sic]…. Because you are the one ordering alchohol [sic] and talking to you exs and fuck toys while I am sleeping next to you.”
[37] I also note that Mr. P. told the Society he was present in the home when the worker conducted a home visit by video on April 14, 2020. Although the worker said the child did not report any concerns, it was not explained how Mr. P. knew about the call if he was not present somewhere in the house, at the time.
[38] The text messages between the mother and father further underscore the dysfunctional and toxic nature of their relationship. Their communications are often crude, spiteful, and demonstrate considerable jealousy. Although the mother insists their relationship is not romantic, the messages indicate otherwise. Whatever the true nature of their relationship, it is apparent they do not know how to be together or how to be apart. Their behaviour is anything but respectful or safe for the child. I conclude the result is continued risk that W. will be exposed to conflict.
[39] According to the Society, Mr. P. contends that the conflict between them on April 17 arose when Ms. H. started to drink . He said he decided to leave, she blocked the front door and he ran out the back. He says the scrape on her arm must have happened when she blocked the door.
[40] Ms. H. describes it differently and says the assault occurred after Mr. P. showed up in her backyard and she stepped outside. She said words were exchanged, he grabbed her and dragged her down the steps. She said she suffered cuts, scrapes, bruises and hit her head, and when Mr. P. realized what he had done, he jumped the fence and fled. Although she feared she might have sustained a concussion, she said she was too worried about COVID-19 to go to the hospital, especially if she had to take the baby with her. It is not disputed that by Friday, April 17, E. had returned to her father’s house. That evening, the mother’s friend, C.W. came to stay with her and remained until the morning of Sunday, April 19, to monitor her. She said he encouraged her to contact the police and report the assault. C.W. confirms that he saw her wounds and that he stayed at the house to watch over her. He said she was distressed and teary on the weekend but did not consume alcohol while he was there.
[41] Regardless of which parent bears responsibility, the child, W., was in the home and there was conflict and domestic violence contrary to the terms and conditions of Audet J’s order dated February 19, 2020.
(iii) COVID-19
[42] I am not persuaded that Ms. H. followed the COVID-19 public health protocols as carefully as she says. In addition to the evidence above that C.W. was in her house from April 17 to 19, (he too said he had been very careful to follow public health guidelines), there is evidence that the mother’s friend, A.K., and his daughter, L., were also at her home in April, inside and outside. A.K. explains that he was there helping with yard work and stayed later one evening to socialize and both girls fell asleep. He offers this explanation in response to the Society’s evidence that E. said her friend, L., had been sleeping in her bed and E.’s belief that L.’s father was sleeping in her mother’s bed. Both the mother and A.K. deny E.’s account. They say their relationship is strictly platonic, that both households self-isolated for 17 days prior to spending time together, and that when A.K. was at Ms. H.’s house with L., they took appropriate safety measures. I do not agree. The public health guidelines in effect at the time said that it was considered high risk behaviour to have guests in your home. The advice was to physically distance and keep contacts limited to those within your own home, as much as possible.
[43] For these reasons, I find that Ms. H. exposed the child to risks of harm. In my view, her efforts to minimize the Society’s concerns regarding alcohol use, her relationship with Mr. P. and the risks presented by COVID-19 indicate that an unacceptable degree of risk remains.
Is a supervision order adequate to protect the child?
[44] However, I am satisfied that the risks can be mitigated by a supervision order and that the appropriate terms and conditions will adequately protect the child from risk of harm. Ms. H. proposed a comprehensive safety plan and has implemented it to the extent that she can. She began attending virtual A.A. meetings and has been paired with a sponsor. She resumed addictions counselling with her social worker, Ms. Maguire, and engaged with her Violence Against Women counsellor. She must continue with these programs.
[45] In addition to engaging with various community services, Ms. H. proposed two friends and her sister, S.H. who, to varying degrees, are prepared to supervise W.’s care. Her friend, C.W., will be the most involved. He is prepared to move into her home temporarily and provide broad and wide-ranging supervision. He is single, self-employed and semi-retired. To the extent that he has had the occasional employment contract, he controls his schedule, and is willing to turn down new work and be present in the home full-time. C.W. and Ms. H. say they have been friends for 5 to 6 years. He attended family get-togethers and says he was present for all of E.’s birthday celebrations. After W.’s birth and before the COVID-19 health crisis, he delivered supplies and helped the mother with the children. After the outbreak, he continued to deliver supplies to the mother and now helps to transport her breastmilk to S.H., the maternal aunt, for W.’s care. He says that he is aware of the mother’s struggles with alcohol and the Society’s concerns with Mr. P. He says he would never tolerate the mother consuming alcohol while caring for W. and would never allow Mr. P. to have contact with the children. The Society had assessed and approved C.W. before the motion was argued, but did not convey this information to the mother or the court until submissions. Although the mother’s counsel advised that both her client and C.W. had been self-quarantining since the child was removed to facilitate his return home, the Society added their expectation that they both complete a further 14-day period of self-isolation before the child’s return under a supervision order could be considered. That added requirement should now be complete.
[46] The mother’s safety plan also includes her long-time friend, A.K. He, along with C.W. and the mother’s sister, S.H., swore an affidavit in this motion. He is a single father and has sole custody of his 4-year old daughter. He says he checked in with the mother throughout her pregnancy, has been helping her in a variety of ways since W.’s birth and is prepared to continue doing so by checking in on her at the house from time to time. He too has been helping to transport breastmilk to the mother’s sister, S.H., for W.’s care and is aware of the mother’s troubled history with alcohol.
[47] S.H., the maternal aunt and W.s’ current caregiver, described the adjustment difficulties the child experienced after being removed from his mother’s care. She also shared her day-to-day challenges to care for an infant in her home along with her own two children, ages 8 and 2 years. S.H. confirmed her willingness to continue in a supportive role. She also confirmed her knowledge of her sister’s struggle with alcohol use. S.H. says their family is close and saw one regularly prior to COVID-19. Like her sister, S.H. says their parents have been very supportive in the past and is confident that they will resume that role as soon as possible. Their father suffered a serious illness earlier in the year and is still recovering. If W. is returned to the mother’s care, S.H. is prepared to supervise to the extent she can by checking in virtually and physically.
[48] With the assistance of C.W., and subject to the Society’s assessment and approval, the additional help of the mother’s sister, S.H., and the mother’s friend, A.K., to supervise W.’s care, the obligation to report any concerns to the Society, and the mother’s ongoing participation in the various counselling services noted above, I find that a supervision order to the Society along with the terms and conditions set out below, is the least disruptive order that will promote W.’s best interest and safeguard him from further risk of harm.
[49] For the reasons given, I make the following order:
- The child, W., born [….] 2020 shall be placed in the temporary care and custody of his mother, subject to the supervision of the Society, on the following terms and conditions:
The mother, A.H.:
Shall work cooperatively with the child protection worker by meeting regularly; notifying the Society in advance of any change of address, telephone number or family constellation; by following reasonable recommendations made; and by 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.
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.
Shall meet the needs of the child, including physical, emotional, developmental, and educational needs.
Shall engage through to completion in counselling and/or a program for women who have experienced domestic violence or who have been in an abusive relationship. She shall be able to identify red flags or patterns in people that suggest they could be violent to her or her child and demonstrate that they can act protectively.
Shall refrain from alcohol use while in a caregiving role and engage to completion in addiction counselling and treatment with a view to addressing her alcohol use.
Shall not expose the child to any inappropriate adult conversation such as the use of profane language, speaking negatively about the other parent, yelling, and screaming.
Shall attend, participate, and complete a parenting program (such a program at the Parenting Resource Centre or Family Service Centre) and gain more skills around appropriate parenting methods, parenting stressors and supports, child development and behaviour guidance, and positive parenting communication with the child.
Shall attend an anger management program and demonstrate that she has gained skills in this program.
Shall immediately inform the Worker about any change in family circumstances including change in residence, phone number and new partner(s).
Shall ensure that the child is not exposed or subject to incidents of adult conflict or domestic violence.
Shall report to the Society any incidents of domestic conflict with partners, or any police involvement in that regard, within twenty-four (24) hours.
Shall allow C.W. to temporarily reside in her home, supervise W.’s care and immediately report any concerns to the Society.
Shall not allow, Mr. P. to have any contact with the child, W., while in her care unless pre-approved by the Society or court order.
The father, J.P.:
Shall work cooperatively with the child protection worker by meeting regularly; notifying the Society in advance of any change of address, telephone number or family constellation; and by following reasonable recommendations made.
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.
Shall work with the child protection worker to identify and build a safety network of the parent’s extended family, friends, kin, community supports etc. who will assist the parent with developing a safety plan, ensuring the child is not exposed to adult conflict/domestic violence and ensuring the child’s needs are met.
Shall meet the needs of the child, including physical, emotional, developmental, and educational needs.
Shall engage in an anger management program that will assist him in learning better ways to manage conflicts and follow the program through to completion.
Shall engage in a parenting program that will assist in developing parenting skills specific to applying appropriate discipline techniques and follow the program through to completion.
Shall refrain from alcohol use while in a caregiving role.
Shall not expose the child to any inappropriate adult conversation with the child such as talking negatively about the other parent, using profanities, yelling, and screaming.
Shall report to the Society any incidents of domestic conflict with partners, or any police involvement within twenty-four (24) hours. He shall ensure that the child, W., is not exposed or subject to incidents of adult conflict or domestic violence.
Shall not have any contact with the mother or W., while the child is in her care, unless pre-approved by the Society or court order.
The Supervisor, C.W.:
Shall cooperate with the Society by following their directions regarding the mother and W.
Shall fully and at all times supervise W.’s care by the mother.
Shall ensure that W. is not exposed to verbal and/or physical conflict and, if an incident occurs, he shall immediately report it to the Society.
Shall immediately report to the Society any incident of the mother not following her current conditions.
Shall immediately advise the Society if any conflict arises between him, the mother or any of her family members.
Shall, at all times, ensure that the Society is aware of his current contact information (address, landline, cell phone etc.).
Shall not be under the influence of substances while residing in the mother’s home and supervising W.’s care.
Access:
- Access to the father shall be at the discretion of the Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, in keeping with the child’s best interests, subject to the following:
(i) Until such time as the Society at its discretion, reinstates face-to-face access or further court order, the father may have daily virtual access by telephone and social media means, including, but not limited to FaceTime, Skype, or other video conferencing methods, as the available technology permits.
(ii) Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, face-to-face access shall be permitted when it is possible to do so in compliance with directions from public health authorities.
Justice D. Summers
Released: June 10, 2020
[^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, s. 1(1) [^6]: Ibid, s. 1(2).