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-05-693
DATE: 2020/08/19
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, Applicants
AND
S.M. Respondent Mother
J.S. Respondent Father for S.S
S.B.B Respondent Father for Y.M.
J.S. Respondent Father for I.S. and N.S. and N.S.
BEFORE: Shelston, J.
COUNSEL: Ms. Marrison-Shaw for the Applicant
Ms. Rosenstock for Respondent mother
Ms. Smith for the respondent father J.S.
HEARD: August 12, 2020 (at Ottawa)
ENDORSEMENT
OVERVIEW
[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“Society”) seeks an order placing the children, I.S., S.S. and the twins N.S. and N.S. in the temporary care and custody of the Society pending disposition of the application and an order for access to the respondent mother S.M. and father J.S. at the discretion of the Society, keeping with the best interests of the children.
[2] The respondent mother S.M. and father J.S. (“the parents”) seek the return of all four children to their joint care under the terms of a supervision order.
[3] The respondent mother is the natural mother of the following children:
a) Y.M. 15 years of age;
b) S.S. 6 years of age;
c) I.S. 3 years of age; and
d) N.S. and N.S. 8 months of age.
[4] The respondent father J. S. is the natural father of I.S. and the twins N.S and N.S
[5] The mother and S.B.B. are the natural parents of the child Y.M.
[6] The mother and J.S. are the parents of the child S.S.
[7] The natural fathers of Y.M. and S.S. are not involved in their children’s lives, have been noted in default in this proceeding and did not participate.
LITIGATION HISTORY
Y.M.-born [...], 2005
[8] Y.M. was removed from her mother’s care on November 10, 2018. She returned to her mother’s care in early February 2019, subject to a Society supervision order which included specific terms and conditions.
[9] In May 2019, she moved to live with her paternal uncle. On February 7, 2020, I granted a final order placing Y.M. in the care of the paternal uncle for three months subject to the supervision of the Society. Since that time, the child’s circumstances have changed and she no longer wishes to reside with the paternal uncle.
[10] On August 11, 2020, with the consent of the Society, the eldest child Y.M. was returned to the temporary care and custody of the mother subject to a supervision order.
S.S., born […], 2013, and I.S., born […], 2017
[11] On September 13, 2019, S.S. and I.S. were ordered to be placed with their mother subject to the supervision of the Society for a period of three months, on terms and conditions.
[12] On February 7, 2020, I granted an order placing the children in the care of their mother for a further three months, subject to the supervision of the Society.
[13] The Society commenced a Status Review Application as the children were removed from the mother’s care and placed with the Society where they remain.
N.S., born […], 2019, and N.S., born […], 2019, - Currently Eight Months of Age
[14] The twins were born on […], 2019. In the latter half of 2019, the father was incarcerated. He remained in a halfway house until late January 2020 at which time he resumed residing with the mother in the children. Prior to his return to the family home, the mother and Society entered into a Voluntary Services Agreement with respect to the twins.
[15] On February 7, 2020, a three-month supervision order was granted placing. S.S. and I.S. in the mother’s care on similar terms to those included in the Voluntary Services Agreement.
[16] The Society commenced a Protection Application and apprehended the children where they remain today.
LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK
[17] In this case, different sections of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act S.O.2017, Chapter 14 (“CYFSA”) are applicable based on the type of application before the court.
[18] In the case of the twins, as their case is a Protection Application, Sections 94(2) and 94(3) of the CYFSA provide the legal test to be applied for a temporary order for care and custody:
94(2) CUSTODY DURING ADJOURNMENT-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 placed in a place of temporary detention, of open or of secure custody.
94(4) CRITERIA - The court shall not make an order under clause (2)(c)(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 the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause 2(a) or (b)
[19] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. T., 2000 CanLII 21157 (ON SC), the court set out the test on a temporary care and custody being that the Society must establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if the child is returned to their parents, it is more probable than not that they will suffer harm. Further, the Society must establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms and conditions of an interim supervision order to the parents.
[20] In the case of S.S. and I.S., as their application is a Status Review Application. Subsection 113(8) of the CYFSA sets out the test for temporary care and custody hearing as follows:
(8) If an application is made under this section, the child shall remain in the care and custody of the person or society having charge of the child until the application is disposed of, unless the court is satisfied that the child’s best interests require a change in the child’s care and custody.
[21] I agree with and adopt the analysis of Summers, J in CAS v. T.S and M.O.U and C.S, 2020 ONSC 879, where she addresses the term “charge” in a care and custody hearing under a supervision order as follows:
The cases that the mother and maternal grandmother rely on in support of their respective positions regarding who had charge of M., were discussed by Justice John Harper in Children’s Aid Society of London & Middlesex v. D. (S)[2]. The cases he reviewed dealt with the meaning of “charge” in the context of a care and custody motion in a protection application under s. 51 of the Child and Family Services Act[3] [now s. 94 under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act[4]]. The analysis under that section is equally applicable to the meaning of “charge” in a care and custody hearing within a status review application. At paragraphs 23 – 31, Harper J. said:
The term "charge" is not defined in the CFSA. It has been interpreted in at least three cases. In Children's Aid Society of Algoma v. G. (T.)(2002), 2002 CanLII 52569 (ON CJ), 125 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1020 (Ont. C.J.) [2002 CarswellOnt 5476 (Ont. C.J.)], Kukurin J. considered the definition of "charge." He made the following comment at para. 15: "... 'Charge' has connotation of authority and responsibility. 'Charge' of a child suggests some established relationship, not something transient or temporary...."
Kukurin J. did not think that simply having possession of a child was sufficient to bring that person within the meaning of the term "charge".
In Children's Aid Society of Ottawa v. C. (H.)(2003), 2003 CanLII 38754 (ON SC), 127 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1159 (Ont. S.C.J.) [2003 CarswellOnt 5286 (Ont. S.C.J.)], Blishen J. also considered the meaning of the term "charge" in s. 51. Blishen J. found that "charge" was linked to the term "care and custody" within s. 51:
In order to apply the appropriate test on this care and custody motion, it is necessary to determine who was "the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention". The word "charge" is not defined under the Child and Family Services Act. However, a close reading of the legislation makes it clear that the term "charge" is linked to the term "care and custody" as outlined in clauses 51(2)(a) and (b), which state that the child:
... remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention.
Blishen J. stated that questioning who had "charge" of the child is akin to questioning who had "care and custody." Like Kukurin J., Blishen J. was of the opinion that there had to be an active relationship of care and not mere possession of the child.
Most recently, in Children's Aid Society of Toronto v. A. (S.), 2008 ONCJ 348, [2008] O.J. No. 3110 (Ont. C.J.), Spence, J. considered the same issue. In that case Spence, J. splits the idea of "charge" and "custody." He adopts a definition of "charge" that is grounded in actively caring for the child and potentially distinct from the legal notion of "custody." Spence, J. ultimately determines "charge" to mean an active, caring relationship. He states:
[48] However, clause 51(2)(a) of the Child and Family Services Act does not talk about returning the child to the person who had "custody" but rather, returning the child to the person who had "charge" of the child. There clearly is a difference between the meaning of "custody" and "charge". There could be many instances where one person has custody of the child and another person has "charge" of that child.
Spence, J. gives an example of his reasoning to demonstrate the difference. He describes a situation whereby a single mother, who has custody and charge of a child, informally relinquishes that child to an aunt for care purposes. After several months in the aunt's care, for example, the child would no longer be in the mother's "charge" but rather the aunt’s. Spence, J. was of the view that for a person to have "charge" of a child there must be evidence of active care and responsibility.
I agree with the reasoning of Spence, J.. I am of the view that there must be evidence that a person has an active relationship with the child that includes care and responsibility. It is something more than physical possession or limited incidents of care.
I am of the view that s. 51 is structured in the manner that it is because the statute establishes a priority to the person who may have had the most active and responsible involvement with the child immediately before the apprehension.
If the court determines that the evidence discloses that there is a person who had the charge of the child immediately before intervention, then the court must return the child to that person unless 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 that provides for a return on terms (s. 51(3)).
[22] Further, Summers, J. continues in her analysis and sets out the best interests test to be considered in a care and custody hearing in a Status Review Application as follows:
- Having found that M. was in his mother’s charge when the Society intervened, he must be returned to her care and custody unless I am satisfied that there has been a material change in circumstances such that his best interests require a change. See Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. S. S. and M. C.,[7] where Kukurin J. said,
Subsection 64(8) [now s. 113 (8)] does not create a presumption in favour of whoever has care and custody of a child. It goes further than a presumption. The use of the words ‘shall remain’ implies that the status quo must remain in effect. The only exception is where the court is satisfied that the best interests of the child require a change in the status quo. In my view, the use of the word ‘require’ in this provision is not accidental. ‘Require’ is a fairly strong word. It denotes considerably more than being merely desirable. It carries the connotation of necessity or obligation.
In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. G. (S). [8], Justice Murray agreed with Kukurin, J. and at paragraphs 21 - 23, added,
It must be kept in mind that on a s. 64(8) motion [now s.113(8)], a court is being asked to vary an order that has previously been determined to be in a child’s best interests. That order has been based on either findings made after a trial, or on indisputable evidence presented at a summary judgement motion, or on facts upon which all parties have agreed. A 64(8) motion is usually—as is the case here—being argued on untested affidavit evidence.
Justice to the parties and the child requires that such a decision be made very carefully, only when it is clearly necessary to do so before trial. This prevents unnecessary changes in a child’s custody, and disruption of hard-won stability.
In my view, on such motions, the moving party must first establish that there has been a material change in circumstances related to the child’s best interests. If there has been such a change, then it must be demonstrated that it is necessary, in protecting the child’s best interests, to change the existing order before trial of the status review application. The Act sets out certain factors, in addition to continuity of care, which may be relevant in assessing a child’s best interests.
Position of the parties
[23] The Society’s position is that the four children must remain in care because of concerns regarding the mother and father including:
a) allowing unapproved individuals to be present in the home with the children posing a risk to the children;
b) the mother’s alcohol use while in a caregiving role;
c) the mother’s failure to follow the safety plan in place with respect to same;
d) lack of transparency with the Society;
e) health concerns and vulnerability of the twins; and
f) conflict between the parents.
[24] The parents’ position is that all four children should be returned to them under its supervision with specific terms and conditions.
Analysis
[25] The Society has provided evidence of 11 previous involvements/investigations with respect to this family. From November 2018 until April 14, 2020, the children have been before the court for various hearings involving the conduct, essentially, of their mother.
[26] The eldest child, Y.M., has returned to her mother’s care. I agree with the Society that Y.M. is a 15-year-old child who has the ability to leave her mother’s residence to protect herself if required to do so. However, the fact that the Society has agreed that the child return home is at least an indication that the Society does not feel that the child is at risk that cannot adequately be protected by supervision order. I also agree with the Society that the situation with the four other children is different because of their young ages.
The Twins
[27] After their birth, they remained in the care of the mother. On February 7, 2020, the female twin was admitted to CHEO with anemia, bacterial infections, an eye infection and other issues. She remained there for 11 days. She was brought there by her mother. Almost a week later on February 13, 2020, the child protection worker, Ms. Gilmour, received a call from a social worker at the hospital advising that the medical authorities were concerned the child was suffering from a severe failure to thrive. The child protection worker spoke to the mother who was very forthright and advised that she called an ambulance for the child because she was worried about her well-being and that the child was still at the hospital, was doing better and was gaining weight. The child was discharged on February 16, 2020.
[28] There is conflicting evidence as to whether or not the mother admitted watering down the child’s formula. She denies same as does the father. There is no medical evidence from the hospital to confirm such a diagnosis. I do not find that there is credible and reliable evidence to make such a finding.
[29] After the female twin was returned home, the Society conducted announced and unannounced visits to the mother’s home. No concerns were raised and no action was needed.
[30] The mother met with the dietitian at CHEO and agreed to have a Rapid Response Nurse attend at her home to check on the child. She did so on two occasions and found no concerns prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.
[31] Further, since the twins have been removed from the mother’s care, the female twin continues to have problems with weight gain and is currently being tested and assessed to determine what the underlying problem is.
[32] In my view, the Society was comfortable with the fact that the mother and father were caring for the twins and were addressing their physical and medical needs. However, all of that changed on April 15, 2020.
Apprehension of the Children April 15, 2020
[33] The central reason why these children were removed from their parent’s care was because of the events at the family residence on April 15, 2020.
[34] On April 14-15, 2020, the mother and father had an argument over the father’s alleged relationship with another woman. The mother was very upset and the parties mutually agreed that the father should leave the home and the mother was left with the four children. The parents were executing the safety plan created with the assistance of the Society. The mother reached out to her mother, who lived in Gatineau, Québec, for emotional support but as a result of the COVID-19 restrictions, she could not cross the provincial border from Gatineau, Québec to Ottawa. The mother then called a cousin of hers who arrived with a friend. Three weeks before this incident, the mother had expressed an interest in having these individuals approved but the worker had not met them before April 15, 2020.
[35] The mother says that she was unaware that she could have called an after hours worker to advise that she had her cousin and his friend over to her home to avoid being in breach of the supervision order.
[36] The mother admits that she spent time with her cousin and the friend as she was upset, that she drank two beers and decided to go to bed. Her cousin and his friend had a few drinks as well. The children were asleep in the upper part of the residence.
[37] Later that night, an individual who the mother had obtained a restraining order against entered the home while the mother and the four children were asleep upstairs and engaged in a physical fight with the mother’s cousin and his friend.
[38] The mother awoke when she heard the screaming and fighting between her cousin, his friend and his individual. The cousin was trying to protect the mother and the children. The mother went downstairs and saw the fight. The children did not observe the fight but woke up when the police arrived. The individual was arrested and removed from the mother’s home. While at the mother’s home, the police checked in on the children. Based on their observations, the police left leaving the children in the care of the mother. The mother assumed her cousin’s friend had left that night.
[39] This version of events is contested by Ms. Gilmour who stated, in her reply affidavit dated August 7, 2020, that the mother stated that it was the cousin who let the individual into the home. That individual went into her room and started attacking her while in bed.
[40] The next morning, the child protection worker following up on a contact from the police, attended at the home to speak to the mother about the incident. She conducted a viewing of the house and discovered the cousin’s friend asleep in the basement with a beer in his hand. The mother was unaware that her cousin’s friend was asleep in the basement. There was no evidence that the friend was intoxicated.
[41] The Society’s position is that the children were removed from the mother’s care because she breached specific terms of my order dated February 7, 2020, specifically conditions 13, 14 and 17 which provide as follows:
Ms. M. will demonstrate that can maintain a safe home environment for the children free of conflicts and individuals with addiction issues and/or criminal involvement. The conflict also includes conflicts between family members.
Ms. M. will not have any individuals that are not part of the Society approved safety network in her home, backyard or front yard. This condition includes when I.S. and S.S. are at school/daycare and/or when they are present at home. All individuals, including friends and family, need to be approved by the Society in advance. At this time, Ms. B., J.S. and J. L. are the only approved individuals.
Ms. M. will ensure no approved individuals in her home are using drugs or alcohol and will ensure that any adults visiting or living in her home (including herself) are sober from drugs and alcohol at all times.
[42] The Society submits that all three conditions were breached and that this has been an ongoing pattern since 2018. The Society submits that the mother cannot be trusted to comply with the terms of a supervision order. Further, the Society indicates the mother’s past parenting with respect to her older children is a relevant consideration considering the vulnerability of the four children all under the age of six.
[43] I reject the submission of the Society the mother failed to maintain a safe home environment free of conflicts and individuals with addiction issues and/or criminal involvement. On April 15, 2020, when the mother went to bed, the children were asleep and the mother’s cousin and his friend were in the residence. Whether this individual entered the home with or without the assistance of her cousin, it is clear that the mother was not aware he was in the home. All parties agree that a fight ensued between the cousin, his friend and this individual. The mother cannot be responsible for an individual breaching a restraining order and entering into her home without her knowledge or consent. Consequently, I do not find that the mother breached this condition of the order.
[44] I agree with the Society that the mother breached the conditions of the order in that she permitted her cousin and his friend to enter her home while the children were present. These individuals had not been approved as part of the safety network. The mother should not have invited her cousin to come to her house. Court orders are not suggestions and are intended to be followed. Raising children is very stressful and parents will be put in positions where they will be emotionally upset and are required to consider the best interests of their children. While I can understand that the mother was very upset, she breached the order.
[45] I agree with the Society’s submission that the mother breached the court order by allowing her cousin and friend to enter the home and consume alcohol. I do not find any evidence that the cousin or his friend were intoxicated. The mother’s breach is allowing the individuals to enter her home and consume alcohol.
May 6, 2020 Report of Conflict Between the Parents and Substance Abuse by the Father
[46] The Society alleges that the parents are in conflict causing a risk for the children. Ms. Gilmour, the child protection worker, stated in an affidavit dated July 23, 2020 at paragraph 26 the following:
- On May 6, 2020, I received a message from a credible community member wishing to remain anonymous. The caller reported that Ms. M. and Mr. S. had been observed to be aggressive and violent towards each other in the community and the caller was worried because they have young children in their care. The caller wanted to confirm that the family was connected with the CAS and receiving parenting support.
[47] However, the intake form completed by Ms. Gilmour for that call states the following:
He says that he has not directly observed any concerns however, in speaking with the medical team and staff who have observed concerns in the community, he thought it was necessary to reach out to CAS to see how the family could be supported.
[48] I find that the evidence relied on by the Society as double hearsay and I do not find that it is credible and reliable evidence. Consequently, I will not consider this evidence.
[49] The only evidence I have of any incidents of conflict between the parties that can meets the test of credible and reliable are the parents own statements that on April 15, 2020, they had an argument. However, the parents acted responsibly and decided that the father would leave. Further, since April 15, 2020, there have been no incidents of any conflict between the parents or substance abuse by the father. I note that the mother and father are registered for couples counseling and the mother for individual counseling but there is a waiting list for both types of counseling.
[50] I do not find there is any credible or reliable evidence to conclude that the parents are in conflict.
[51] The father admits that he uses marijuana for pain and he may drink between 1-2 beers and a glass of wine from time to time. He indicates that he does not use any other drugs.
[52] The mother admits that she used drugs over 12 years ago but not since. There is no credible and reliable evidence that either parent abuses drugs or alcohol.
Disposition with Respect to the Twins
[53] The jurisprudence mandates that I must act on evidence that I consider to be credible and trustworthy and that I must view the evidence in its totality. Up until April 15, 2020, the twins were in their parents’ care which was being monitored by the Society pursuant to the terms of a Voluntary Services Agreement.
[54] The issue of the female twin failing to thrive arose in February 2020 and since that time the Society was not concerned enough to change the terms of the Voluntary Services Agreement or to bring the matter back to court. I find that during this period of time the mother and father were acting appropriately to address the issue of the child’s weight and overall health.
[55] I find that the parents are committed to caring for all their children. They have considered and proposed a plan of care to address the concerns raised. For example, the parents have installed Bell home monitoring cameras at the front and back door and are willing to allow the Society worker access to the recordings on demand to verify or disprove reports of unapproved visitors. I find that the parents have made significant progress in providing a safety plan and network to support the children’s safety and well-being.
[56] I note that Ms. Gilmour’s affidavit dated August 7, 2020 does not challenge the statements in the father’s affidavit dated August 5, 2020 regarding the home being safe and appropriate, the parents following the COVID-19 protocols, the plan with respect to the sharing of the four bedrooms in the home and observations by the Society workers that the home was safe and appropriate during unannounced and announced visit.
[57] The parents must not allow unapproved individuals into their home. They risk the children being removed from them again and not being returned to them.
[58] I am to consider the least disruptive placement consistent with adequately protecting these children. The parents have acted responsibly, access has gone well and there have been no concerns raised since that time with respect to the parent’s lifestyle or conduct.
[59] I have to consider that it was the mother who breached the terms of the order. What she did was wrong. The mother realizes the mistake she made on that night by inviting her cousin to her home has caused significant disruption in the children’s lives.
[60] I find that there is little evidence concerning the father’s conduct or lifestyle or previous parenting alleged by the Society.
Disposition with respect to S.S. and I.S.
[61] I am to return the children to the parent who had charge of them when the Society apprehended, unless I find there had been a material change in the circumstances such that the children’s best interests require a change.
[62] The children were apprehended on April 15, 2020, and the parties attended a place of safety hearing on April 20, 2020. At that time, Justice Summers ordered, on a without prejudice and temporary basis, that the children be placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society with access to the parents.
[63] I find that at the date of apprehension, the children were in the care and custody of both the mother and the respondent father J. S., who had charge of the children.
[64] The same allegations made with respect to the twins have been made with respect to the two older children. I find it is in the best interests of these children that they should returned to the parents with whom they were living with at the time of the apprehension, that being the mother and the respondent father J. S.
ORDER
[65] I order that S.S., born […], 2013, I.S., born […], 2017 and the twins, N.S. and N.S., born […], 2019 be placed in the temporary care and custody of the respondent mother and respondent father J. S. subject to the supervision of the Society and the conditions set out herein:
a) the parties will work cooperatively with the Society worker by:
i. meeting with the worker a minimum of once every 30 days;
ii. allowing the Society worker to access the entirety of the home during announced and unannounced visits;
iii. ensuring that the children are present to scheduled home visits;
iv. allowing the worker access to the children during announced and unannounced visits;
v. keeping the Society apprised of their contact information at all times; and
vi. returning the worker’s phone calls or messages within 48 hours.
b) the parties will ensure that the children are visible in the community by ensuring that I.S. and S.S. attend school as soon as spaces are available, that N.S. and N.S. attend full-time daycare as soon as spaces are available to them (anticipated for fall 2020). If daycare is closed due to COVID-19, the parents will work with the worker to promptly develop an agreeable alternative.
c) the parents shall, following consultation with counsel if desired, execute any consents reasonably requested by the Society to allow the Society to obtain information from and share information with the community resources with which the parents are involved.
d) the parents will ensure that the children are seen on a regular and as needed basis by their pediatrician, and any other health practitioners (including specialists) as required. If necessary and in accordance with the doctor’s recommendations, the parents will document the children’s day-to-day (particularly the twins, including what and how much they eat and drink) to provide to the doctors and will make such records available to the Society, on request. The parents will sign a consent form permitting the Society to obtain information from the children’s healthcare providers.
e) the parents will maintain a safe home environment for the children free of conflicts and individuals with addictions issues and/or criminal involvement, including:
i. not permitting any individuals into their home unless they are first approved by the Society.
ii. ensuring that no approved individuals in their home are using drugs or alcohol and ensuring any adults visiting or living in their home are sober from drugs and alcohol at all times.
f) the parents will ensure that the children are not exposed to any adult conflict. In the event of conflict between the parents, the parents shall physically separate from each other until the conflict is resolved and, during such separation, the children will remain in the care of the Respondent J.S..
g) the parents will report any significant conflict between them (i.e., a conflict which results in either of them leaving the home for an extended period of time) or police involvement to the Society promptly.
h) the parents will attend couples counselling, when appointments are available. They will sign a consent form permitting the Society to confirm their attendance at counselling appointments.
i) the parents will not consume alcohol, marijuana or any other non-prescribed substance while in a caregiving role to the children.
j) the parents will ensure that the children always have a sober caregiver.
k) the parents will complete random urine drug screens as requested by the Society. The Society will only request this if a credible referral is received with respect to substance use.
l) the parents will continue to rely on their Society-approved support persons for assistance in caring for the children as necessary, for example, by having the assistance of the maternal grandmother to care for the children when necessary. The parents will sign a consent permitting the Society to obtain information from and share information with their approved support persons.
m) the parents shall provide the Society worker with the necessary front/back camera footage of their home in case the Society receives a report involving people attending the home.
Date: August 19, 2020
COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-1560
DATE: 2020/08/19
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
RE: Children's Aid Society of Ottawa, Applicants
AND
S.M. Respondent Mother
J.S. Respondent Father for S.S
S.B.B Respondent Father for Y.M.
J.S. Respondent Father for I.S. and N.S. and N.S.
BEFORE: Shelston, J.
COUNSEL: Ms. Marrison-Shaw for the Applicant
Ms. Rosenstock for Respondent mother
Ms. Smith for the respondent father J.S.
ENDORSEMENT
Shelston J.
Released: August 19, 2020