Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-09-2106-6 DATE: 2020-06-12 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

RE: The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Applicant AND S.K., Respondent Mother E.H.A.B., Respondent Father

BEFORE: The Honourable Mr. Justice Marc Smith

COUNSEL: Mark Hecht, Counsel for the Applicant Kimberley A. Pegg, Counsel for the Respondent Mother Joan Rothwell, Counsel for the Respondent Father

HEARD: June 5, 2020 by telephone conference

Endorsement

WARNING

The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice be attached to the file:

This is a case under Part V of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, (being Schedule 1 to the Supporting Children, Youth and Families Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14), and is subject to subsections 87(7), 87(8) and 87(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Act, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87. (7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. Where the court is of the opinion that the presence of the media representative or representatives or the publication of the report, as the case may be, would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding, the court may make an order,

( c ) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing.

(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.

M. Smith J

[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (the “Society”) seeks that the Temporary Order of Justice J. Audet dated April 30, 2020 continue on a with prejudice basis and that the three-month old child, M.K. (the “Child”) be placed in the Temporary Care and Custody of the Society. Further, the Society seeks an Order that the parents shall have access with the Child at the Society’s discretion.

[2] At the outset of the Motion, counsel for the Respondent Father advised that a paternity test revealed that the Respondent Father is not the father of the Child. On consent of all parties, the Respondent Father is removed as a party to these proceedings. As such, the Child’s biological father is unknown at present.

[3] The Mother opposes the Society’s motion and requests that the Child be returned to the temporary care and custody of the Mother with conditions.

[4] For reasons that follow, I find that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the Child is likely to suffer harm while in the care of the Mother, and that the Child cannot be adequately protected by the terms and conditions of an interim supervision order.

Background

[5] The Society has been involved with the Mother since 2009. She has two other children, namely T.K. (10 years old) and A.K. (9 years old) (collectively referred to as the “Older Children”). The Older Children reside with their biological father (A.S.).

[6] Prior to the birth of the Child, the Society had fifteen (15) openings regarding the Mother, the Older Children and A.S. The first opening was on August 14, 2009 and the last on January 31, 2020. These openings took place for various reasons, ranging from concerns regarding drug and alcohol use, domestic violence, abuse of the Older Children, access issues, etc. Some of these openings involved police and Court intervention. Police reports were attached as exhibits to the Society’s affidavit material.

[7] On November 7, 2013, a s. 57.1 Order (pursuant to the previous Child and Family Services Act) was made, granting A.S. custody of A.K. The parties agreed that the terms and conditions of the Court Order equally applied to T.K. This Order also included that:

• the parties have joint legal custody and that important decisions regarding the Older Children be made jointly;
• the Mother shall have liberal and generous access;
• in the event of a dispute regarding the education of the Older Children, A.S. had the final decision-making authority;
• in the event of a dispute regarding the medical care of the Older Children, the Mother had the final decision-making authority;
• the police shall enforce the provisions of the Order.

[8] Following the issuance of the November 7, 2013 Order, the police were called to investigate complaints on three separate occasions (February 28, 2014; December 26, 2014 and June 7, 2018). The last one resulted in charges being laid against the Mother for assault and mischief to property. The Mother deposes that these charges were later dropped.

[9] In October 2019, the Mother advised the Society that she was expecting another child. The Society confirmed with her Obstetrician that the Mother was attending all pre-natal visits and managing well. The Child was born in mid-March 2020.

[10] A Temporary Care Agreement was negotiated with the Mother and the Respondent Father. The Child was in foster care between April 6 to April 20, 2020. The Mother presented a Kinship/Safety Plan with C.T., a woman that she met through her church. The Society quickly approved C.T. on the condition that she was to supervise the Mother and Child. The Child was returned to the Mother on April 20, 2020.

[11] On April 25, 2020, the Society brought the Child to a place of safety as a result of the Mother not following the Kinship/Safety Plan.

[12] On April 30, 2020, Justice J. Audet granted a without prejudice temporary care order placing the Child with the Society.

Position of the Parties

The Society’s position

[13] The Society argues that when considering the evidence in its totality, there are emerging themes, five in total. The Society argues that the evidence originates not only from child protection workers of the Society but from other sources as well, thereby increasing the credibility of the assertions made by the various individuals.

Theme #1

[14] The first theme, the strongest it submits, pertains to the Mother’s mental health. Over the course of several years, there have been fifteen (15) openings, dealing with half a dozen child protection workers. During this time, the Older Children were placed in the care of the Society and then eventually being placed full-time with A.S. There were recurring concerns regarding the Mother’s mental health which led to her hospitalization and self-discharge against medical advice. The Mother was diagnosed with chronic delusional disorder.

[15] More recently, the Mother’s experience with C.T., the former kinship provider for the Child, ended with the Mother yelling at C.T., calling her names and slamming the door in the Child’s presence. C.T. reported being shocked at the Mother’s behaviour and described it as a “nightmare”.

Theme #2

[16] The second theme is the Mother’s inability to work with or trust professionals. The Society indicates that the Mother has been uncooperative with the police, has made false allegations against A.S., namely that he abused T.K, including sexually assaulting the Older Children. Most recently (approximately one month ago), the Mother attended a psychiatric assessment without the Society’s knowledge, which is another example of her lack of cooperation.

Theme #3

[17] The third theme involves the Mother’s inability to work with a support network. By her own admission, the Mother admits that she has some mental health challenges. Accordingly, the Society says that the Mother needs a strong support network, but none has been presented. Historically, A.S. was her support network vis-à-vis the Older Children, but that relationship broke down. Similarly, there was a breakdown in the relationship with C.T. With no evidence of an existing support network, this is of concern for the Society, especially given the Child’s young age and vulnerability.

Theme #4

[18] The fourth theme is the Mother’s transient lifestyle. The Society contends that the Mother has lived in multiple locations with different arrangements that do not last. Further, there are historic concerns relating to domestic violence, drug use, alcohol and multiple incidents of police involvement.

Theme #5

[19] The last theme are the failed attempts in working with the Mother. The Society states that in any situation, it has an obligation to deal with the family in the least intrusive manner, foster care being the last resort. The Society claims that it did just that with the Mother. Initially, the Society did not bring an Application and allowed the Mother to return home with the Child. The Society attempted to work with the Mother.

[20] The recent diagnosis of bipolar disorder came as a surprise to the Society. There is no evidence before the Court of a treatment plan, a prognosis or a medical opinion regarding the chronic delusional disorder. Moreover, there is no evidence that the chronic delusional disorder has been treated.

[21] The Society submits that the Mother has not provided any countering evidence to the Society’s. The Mother has simply made blanket statements of deniability. It therefore maintains that the Child must remain with the Society until such time as the Mother mitigates the themes described above.

Mother’s position

[22] The Mother first addressed the Society’s theme approach and submitted as follows:

a. Theme #1: The police reports, generated because someone makes a complaint, relate to a former partner, sparring over access issues. It must be taken for what it’s worth. In any event, the parties entered into a consent order, whereby the parties agreed to joint custody. b. Theme #2: The Mother has been cooperating with medical professionals: she has been taking the prescribed medication from her family physician; she was meeting and cooperating with her Obstetrician, prior to the Child’s birth; she received support and worked with the Public Health Nurse. c. Theme #3: In terms of a support network, the Mother has been receiving counselling at the Elizabeth Fry Society. The Mother deposes that after the pandemic was declared, she fell out of the regular routine but has re-engaged in one-on-one counselling. d. Theme #4: The Mother’s lifestyle is currently not as described by the Society. She currently has an apartment and the Child would be sharing a room with her. She is equipped with a crib, toys, diapers, etc.

[23] The Mother argues that these types of proceedings are very intrusive and go to the heart of the family life. She has been outspoken and transparent about her mental health issues, saying that she has not been trying to hide her condition. The Mother is well informed of her own difficulties.

[24] The Mother says that she took a very serious approach to the birth of her Child. It is the Mother that alerted the Society in October 2019 that she was expecting another child. Also, the Child remained in her care between March 17 and April 6, 2020, with no evidence of harm to the Child.

[25] The Mother refers to section 125 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14 (the “Act”) which is the section that deals with the medical professionals Duty to Report. She claims that in her dealings with her medical professionals, if any of them had any concerns regarding the Child’s health, it would have been reported.

[26] The Mother concedes that there are some concerns and issues that need to be addressed. That said, she states that the Society has failed to meet the burden that there is a risk that the Child is likely to suffer harm. Rather, the Mother maintains that the Child should be returned to her with reasonable conditions including the following: (1) announced and unannounced visits by the Society; (2) weekly visit with the Public Health Nurse; (3) continue taking the prescribed medication; (4) continue follow-up visits with her family physician; and (5) follow the directions of her psychiatrist.

Analysis

[27] The applicable two-part legal test on this motion is set out in subsections 94(2), (4) and (5) of the Act which reads as follows:

Custody during adjournment

(2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child,

(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part;

(b) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate;

(c) be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the society’s supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; or

(d) remain or be placed in the care and custody of the society, but not be placed in a place of temporary detention, of open or of secure custody.

Criteria

(4) The court shall not make an order under clause (2) (c) or (d) unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause (2) (a) or (b).

Placement with relative, etc.

(5) Before making a temporary order for care and custody under clause (2) (d), the court shall consider whether it is in the child’s best interests to make an order under clause (2) (c) to place the child in the care and custody of a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child’s extended family or community.

[28] The onus is on the Society to establish that: (1) on credible and trustworthy evidence, there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if the child is returned to his/her parents, it is more probable than not that the child will suffer harm; and (2) the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order to the parents (see Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., 2000 ONSC 21157, [2000] O.J. No. 2273).

[29] In accordance with the best interest, protection and well-being of Older Children provisions found in subsection 1(2) of the Act, the Court must choose the least disruptive placement order, consistent with the adequate protection of the child (see Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. D. (B.), 2012 ONSC 2448).

[30] The degree of intrusiveness of the Society’s intervention and the interim protection that is ordered by the Court should be proportional to the degree of risk (see CCAS of Toronto v. J., 2012 ONCJ 269).

[31] Subsection 94(10) of the Act reads: “For the purpose of this section, the Court may admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstances”. In determining the credibility and trustworthiness of the evidence, it must be viewed in its entirety. Evidence that may not be credible and trustworthy when viewed in isolation, may reach that threshold when examined in the context of the other evidence (see Family and Children’s Services v. O. (R.), [2006] O.J. No. 969).

The Test – Part 1: Is there credible and trustworthy evidence of reasonable grounds to be believe there is a risk that the Child, if returned to the care of the Mother, is likely to suffer harm?

[32] Considering the totality of the evidence, I find that there is credible and trustworthy evidence that the Child continues to be in need of protection. The Child is a vulnerable infant and at present, the risks are simply too high to place her in the care of the Mother.

[33] Let me first begin by saying that it is admirable that the Mother finally recognizes that she struggles with mental health issues and that she is working with service providers to address her mental health needs, especially in relation to her most recent diagnosis (May 2020) of bipolar disorder.

[34] However, I find that it is only very recently that the Mother has recognized that she has mental health issues requiring treatment. Despite having received a diagnosis from her doctor, she denies knowing that she was suffering from chronic delusional disorder, believing that she had been diagnosed with anxiety and depression. Until recently, the Mother says that it has not ever been clear to her what her actual diagnosis was and the appropriate treatment to be followed.

[35] I agree with the Society’s submissions that when reviewing the evidence in its totality, there are recurring and emerging themes. I find that the evidence consistently demonstrates a pattern of concerning behaviour by the Mother, which has persisted for years and has continued to as recently as April 2020.

[36] The Society relies upon two affidavits dated April 28, 2020 and May 28, 2020, sworn by a Child Protection Worker (“CPW”), Ms. Heather Clark. Ms. Clark became involved with the Mother and Child on April 3, 2020. The affidavits and exhibits provide a detailed account of the Society’s historical involvement with the Mother and her Older Children as well as the recent events surrounding the Child.

[37] Conversely, the Mother relies upon her two affidavits dated April 28, 2020 and June 2, 2020. The Mother takes issue with many of the Society’s allegations. In her affidavit evidence, the Mother goes through certain of the Society’s claims, denying that they took place and deposes that they are untrue.

[38] As noted above, the Mother has recently been diagnosed with bipolar disorder by her psychiatrist. As explained by counsel for the Mother, despite the efforts, she has been unable to obtain a report from her treating psychiatrist. Moreover, the Mother’s medical records are not before the Court.

[39] The only medical evidence before me is a letter dated December 17, 2012 from a psychiatrist at the Queensway Carleton Hospital. It was addressed to the Mother’s previous counsel, who reported that she saw the Mother on a regular outpatient basis, however during that last year, she had missed one out of every four appointments. During her last appointment on December 11, 2012, the doctor had requested a urine sample to screen for non-prescription drugs, to which the Mother responded that it would probably turn positive. The Mother reported to her psychiatrist that she was taking her anti-psychotic medication (Olanzapine 10mg). The doctor offered the following opinion/diagnosis:

a. The Mother suffers from chronic delusional disorder; b. The Mother has a diagnosis of non-prescription drug use (marijuana); c. The Mother’s insight in her condition is poor. She does not believe that she is ill but does recognize the importance of treatment in order to have increased access to her Older Children; d. In stopping her medication and/or increasing the drug use, the probability of exacerbation of her paranoid ideation is extremely high.

[40] Since the psychiatrist’s diagnosis in December 2012 (and before), there have been many reported discussions with medical professionals and numerous examples of the Mother’s erratic behaviour, indicative that her mental health issues have not been resolved and remain. The evidence of the Mother’s concerning behaviour, as found in the Society’s affidavit materials, comes from different sources (CPWs, police officers, medical professionals, school principal). The evidence remains consistent throughout and it describes a pattern of behaviour by the Mother. While I appreciate that the Society relies upon hearsay evidence, when taken cumulatively along with the fact that the evidence presented by the various sources is consistent throughout, I am satisfied that the Society’s evidence is credible and trustworthy.

[41] I find that the evidence establishes that the Mother has been struggling with mental health difficulties for many years, she has exhibited paranoid behaviour as noted by the medical professionals, she has not followed treatment as directed, all of which required the Society to repeatedly intervene vis-à-vis the Older Children and now the Child.

[42] In the fifteen (15) openings, the Society’s evidence reveals that the Mother has frequently made allegations against A.S. that the Older Children were being mistreated and malnourished, all of which have gone unverified. The evidence also demonstrates that the Mother experienced psychiatric paranoid episodes, she appeared delusional at times, she was not following medical advice, including failing to take her prescribed medication.

[43] This history corroborates and reinforces the evidence of Ms. Clark. It substantiates her observations that are more contemporaneous to these proceedings. Ms. Clark deposes that during her recent exchanges with the Mother (April 2020), the Mother referenced the abuse of her Older Children, alleged that a previous CPW had a relationship with A.S., exhibited erratic behaviour with the Respondent Father, displayed sarcasm when addressing her mental health issues, making it difficult for Ms. Clark to communicate and engage with the Mother. This led to the Child being taken to a place of safety.

[44] The Mother denies many of the Society’s allegations, including:

a. She never reported to the Society that her Older Children had been sexually abused but admits claiming that the Older Children were malnourished; b. She never reported to the Society that A.S. was involving the Older Children in bondage. She was however concerned that there were marks around the Older Children’s wrists; c. She says that the allegations made by C.T. are untrue. She says that C.T. was the instigator of the argument. She left the home with the Child because the argument was escalating. Also, she denies knowing that C.T. was always required to supervise her and the Child; d. She denies calling the Society with unfounded allegations regarding her Older Children. She only called the Society with valid concerns regarding the health of her Older Children; e. In respect to the recent events with her Child and her exchanges with Ms. Clark, she says that the Society is focused on discussing prior concerns that she had regarding the Older Children as opposed to her Child. She becomes frustrated but denies having a paranoid episode. She was concerned for her Child during the pandemic. She does not agree that she is detached from reality, as alleged by the Society; f. She denies that the exchange with the Respondent Father occurred as alleged by the Society.

[45] Despite the Mother’s denials, I find that the totality of the evidence presented by the Society does confirm a longstanding history of mental health difficulties, which remains ongoing. Much of the evidence regarding the risk of harm to the Child needs to be viewed in the context of this long history and lengthy involvement of the Society. There are numerous references and examples, from various independent sources, citing concerns regarding the Mother’s behaviour. Throughout the years, the Mother has been making allegations regarding A.S.’s treatment of her Older Children, and upon investigation by the Society, the OPS and the school, at various times, all have returned as unfounded.

[46] In regards to the Mother’s argument that, pursuant to section 125 of the Act, the medical professionals involved with the Mother and the Child had a duty to report to the Society any suspicion and/or information that the Child had suffered harm or there is a risk that the Child is likely to suffer harm, the Society concedes that they would have been contacted but only when the Child was in the care of the Mother. I agree. The wording in section 125 of the Act refers to harm by a “person having charge of the child”.

[47] While I accept that there is no evidence before me of concerns from the medical practitioners, I am not persuaded that this is sufficient to arrive at the conclusion that there is no risk that the Child is likely to suffer harm.

[48] I find that the evidence has been consistent throughout the fifteen (15) case openings as well as the most recent events concerning the Child. There have been numerous case openings due to the Mother’s mental health. I accept Ms. Clark’s evidence regarding her recent interactions with, and observations of, the Mother’s behaviour. They are very similar in nature to those that were reported by different CPWs from 2009 until 2019. C.T.’s recount of events surrounding the kinship and the breakdown in the relationship is another example of the Mother’s continued struggle with her mental health.

[49] I acknowledge that the Mother has made efforts in trying to obtain a copy of her psychiatric assessment. However, the Court is still left with many questions regarding the recent diagnosis of bipolar disorder, the course and duration of treatment, the Mother’s ability to manage this disorder, the effectiveness of the medication, and the physician’s opinion regarding the previous diagnosis of chronic delusional disorder.

[50] The absence of the Mother’s medical records and/or the recent psychiatric assessment does not alter my finding that the Society has met its burden of proof, even if one is to take the Mother’s claims to be mentally stable at their highest. The recent events confirm that the Mother continues to have mental health challenges with similar behavioural patterns that she exhibited for over a decade.

[51] Notwithstanding the Mother’s struggles with her mental health, I acknowledge that she has recently taken some positive steps in her life, such as obtaining an apartment, taking medication, consulting a psychiatrist and working part-time (to be resumed once the Child attends daycare). Also, the Mother may be making some gains in stabilizing her mental health, but I do not find that it is enough for the Mother to safely parent the vulnerable infant Child.

[52] In addition to the Mother’s unresolved mental health issues that puts the Child at risk, I agree with the Society’s submissions that the Mother has shown an inability to work with the Society. The Mother has recently demonstrated that she has been unable to follow the conditions of the Kinship/Safety Plan. Moreover, her failure to advise the Society of her recent psychiatric diagnosis and her concerning interactions with Ms. Clark, suggests that the Mother is unwilling to work cooperatively with the Society. This poses a risk to the Child.

[53] I agree with the Society that a three-month old Child is vulnerable. If the Mother has trouble with the Child and does not have an appropriate support in place, this puts the vulnerable Child at risk. Based on the record before me, the Mother has a difficulty in maintaining relationships, the most recent being with C.T. which broke down within four days. Although the Mother says that she has support from the Public Health Nurse and a counsellor at the Elizabeth Fry Society, it is not a strong support network and the evidence leads me to find that the Mother has been unable to sustain a durable support network, which puts the Child at risk.

[54] As a result, for all of the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the Child continues to be in need of protection.

The Test – Part 2: Can the Child be adequately protected by a supervision order?

[55] The Mother has outlined her plan for the return of the Child to her care, which includes:

a. The Child will share a room with her in the apartment; b. She will continue to take her medication, as prescribed by her family physician; c. She will see her psychiatrist for a follow-up, if necessary. However, she deposes that at the present time, she does not believe that it is required; d. She is eating healthy meals and working out every day; e. She will seek out the support of the Public Health Nurse; f. She is seeking counselling at the Elizabeth Fry Society. She was scheduled to have a one-on-one counselling session on May 27, 2020; g. She is currently receiving ODSP and will be able to support herself and the Child; h. She is agreeable to follow any conditions imposed upon the Court.

[56] The Child’s return to the Mother’s care is dependent upon her ability to engage and cooperate with the Society. As previously noted, the Society submits that it was unaware that the Mother had recently consulted with a psychiatrist. Ms. Clark’s evidence is that on May 21, 2020, she asked the Mother if she had been referred to a psychiatrist to which she initially answered yes, followed by, she was awaiting a referral. The Mother’s affidavit evidence reveals that on May 7, 2020, her counsel sent a request to obtain a copy of the psychiatric assessment.

[57] Ms. Clark also inquired if the Mother was undertaking counselling. She responded “yes, all my life” but was unable to provide the name of the counsellor or the last time that she had attended.

[58] The Mother claims that she was unaware that C.T. was required to supervise her and the Child. The Society’s evidence is that it was made clear to the Mother that these were the conditions of the Kinship/Safety Plan.

[59] The Mother’s support network is limited to the Public Health Nurse and her counsellor. Historically, the Mother has been unable maintain relationships, the most recent example being C.T.

[60] Having considered all the circumstances in this matter, I conclude that the Child cannot be adequately protected by a supervision order. The Court is concerned with the following:

a. The Mother continues to present challenging behaviours. The most recent event with the Society (April 2020), consistent with past events, demonstrates the Mother’s continuing volatility and is indicative of her ongoing mental health difficulties, requiring continued psychiatric treatment; b. The Mother acknowledges that she struggles with mental health issues, but she does not believe that a follow-up with her psychiatrist is required at this time. The Mother has a history of not following treatment or medical recommendations. This is consistent with a lack of insight into her mental health difficulties; c. Knowing that her mental health has been at the forefront of the Society’s concerns and in light of this new major development of being diagnosed with bipolar disorder, her failure to keep the Society apprised of her medical condition demonstrates an inability to being able to cooperate with the Society. This leads to a finding that if the Child is placed in her care and certain problems arise, she would not be inclined to contact the Society; d. The Mother has been unable to follow the terms and conditions of the Kinship/Safety Plan; and e. Considering the Mother’s mental health issues, her proposed support network is insufficient to deal with parenting challenges that may arise, while seeking her own medical assistance and treatment for her chronic delusional disorder and bipolar disorder.

[61] I am not persuaded that the Mother can be relied upon to meet the needs of the Child, regardless of the Society’s supervision. The evidence leads me to conclude that the Child would not be adequately protected by a Supervision Order.

[62] Therefore, in the Child’s best interest, protection and well-being, the Child is to remain in the care and custody of the Society with access to the Mother, at the Society’s discretion, pending the completion of these proceedings.

[63] The proceedings are adjourned to be spoken to on July 9, 2020 at 10:00 am.

Electronically signed by M. Smith J

COURT FILE NO.: FC-09-2106-6 DATE: 2020-06-12 SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO RE: The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa, Applicant AND S.K., Respondent Mother E.H.A.B., Respondent Father ENDORSEMENT Smith M.

Released: June 12, 2020