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 Family 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-12-1361-2

DATE: 2020/01/10

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 B.S. born […], 2010, Z.C. born […], 2014, F.C. born […], 2015, and J.G. born […], 2019

BETWEEN:

The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Applicant

– and –

M.G. (Mother) Respondent

– and –

G.C. (Father) Respondent

– and –

Algonquins of Pikwakanagan Respondents

Eric Smith, Counsel for the Applicant

M.G., Self-Represented Stephen Pender, Counsel for G.C. Sheldon Cherner, Counsel for the Child B.S.

HEARD: October 24, 25, 28, 29, 30, December 5, 6, 9-12, 2019

REASONS FOR decision

Nature of the Proceedings

[1] This case involves M.G., G.C., and their four children: B.S. (born […], 2010), Z.C. (born […], 2014), F.C. (born […], 2015), and J.G. (born […], 2019). B.S.’s biological father, C.S., was noted in default early in these proceedings and did not participate at the trial. The three oldest children were removed from a shelter in Ottawa and brought to a place of safety on March 28, 2018. The youngest child was brought to a place of safety from an Ottawa hospital the day following his birth.[^1]

[2] On October 21, 2019, at the commencement of the first trial in this matter, I found that the four children were First Nations children for the purposes of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (“the Act”).[^2] This finding was made on the basis of information provided by M.G. on that date that her father identified as First Nations and that he had a connection with the Algonquins at the Golden Lake reserve, whose band name is the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan. A mistrial was declared, the band was made a party to the litigation, and service of the pleadings was effected on the band. Subsequently, the band advised that M.G.’s father was not a member of their band, it had no information concerning him, and the band would not participate in the litigation or become involved in the case. The trial was able to recommence on October 24, 2019. For all purposes under the Act, the children are First Nations children.

[3] On October 21, 2019, all parties agreed that the three younger children were also Métis children because G.C.’s mother is Métis. In that no Métis community has been designated under the regulations to the Act, there was no requirement for service on a Métis organization.

[4] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“the Society”) is seeking the following orders under the Act:

• That B.S. be placed in the custody of his paternal grandmother, Bo.S., with access to his parents at the discretion of Bo.S., keeping with the wishes and best interests of B.S.; and
• That Z.C., F.C., and J.G. be placed in extended society care with the intention that they be placed for adoption.

[5] When B.S., Z.C., and F.C. were taken into care on March 28, 2018 at a shelter where they had been living with M.G. since February 1, 2018, M.G. was rarely coming out of her room and B.S. was seen getting food for his young sisters. B.S. was not attending school. M.G. was not following up with medical appointments.

[6] On June 21, 2018, M.G. submitted a Plan of Care for the children to be returned to her care. Her intention was to live on her own with B.S., Z.C., and F.C. in her current home. She planned for B.S. to attend a Crossroads School in the fall, for Z.C. to attend the neighbourhood school, and for F.C. to attend a Head Start Program in Ottawa’s West End.

[7] On December 19, 2018, G.C. submitted a Plan of Care for the children to be returned to the joint custody of M.G. and G.C. or, in the alternative, that the children be returned to their care subject to a supervision order.

[8] J.G. was born on […], 2019 and was taken into care on […], 2019. J.G. tested positive for amphetamine, methamphetamine, ecstasy, and cannabis at the time of his birth. M.G. acknowledged to others that she had been using opiates during her pregnancy. Neither parent submitted an amended Plan of Care following the birth of J.G.

[9] Unfortunately, M.G. did not feel able to attend the trial on a regular basis. She did not attend on the morning of October 21, 2019, when the first trial was scheduled to commence. The trial was adjourned for several hours while efforts were taken to get her to the court house. She attended in the afternoon, at which time a mistrial was declared so that the First Nations band identified by M.G. could be served. M.G. attended on October 24, 2019 for a trial scheduling conference and then on October 25, 2019, when the second trial commenced. M.G. did not attend court on October 28, 29, and 30, 2019, and no explanation was ever offered for her absences, aside from G.C. saying that M.G. was running late or was having trouble getting out the door. M.G. did attend court on December 5, 2019 and appeared to be actively engaged in the proceedings. On the morning of December 6, 2019, G.C. advised that M.G. was ill and unable to attend. Court was adjourned because it was hoped that M.G. was now committed to attending court but could not do so that day for valid medical reasons. G.C. was advised to tell M.G. that, if she was unable to attend court on Monday, December 9, 2019, a physician’s note would be required. G.C.’s counsel undertook to advise M.G. of this directive via email. Court was cancelled December 9, 2019 due to the illness of the Society’s counsel. The trial resumed on December 10, 2019, but M.G. did not attend, apparently being tired. M.G. was scheduled to testify on December 11, 2019, but she did not attend court. No reason was provided for her absence. Court was adjourned until 11 a.m. in the hope that M.G. would appear. She did not. G.C. and others tried reaching M.G. and other individuals who might have known of her whereabouts, but M.G. could not be reached. Court was adjourned to the following day for submissions. M.G. did not attend on December 12, 2019 and made no closing submissions.

[10] M.G.’s spotty attendance record at trial was consistent with her frequent absences from court proceedings during the course of the litigation. I have no doubt that M.G. loves her children very much and wishes with all her heart to parent them; however, her personal challenges create significant roadblocks in the realization of that goal.

[11] G.C. attended the trial faithfully and made his best efforts to be on time.

History of Protection Concerns

[12] Leigh Adamson, a child protection worker with the Society, worked with the G.-C. family from April 2010 to February 2014 and then again from January 2016 to September 2018.

[13] During the earlier period, the protection concerns related to B.S., who was born on […], 2010, when M.G. was only 16 years old. At the time, M.G. was in an abusive relationship with C.S. and there was a no-contact order in effect due to a violent episode in July 2009. C.S. abused alcohol and became aggressive when he did so. He did not follow through with a probation order to attend and complete New Directions and to address concerns regarding his alcohol consumption. M.G. used marijuana on a regular basis – both during the early days of her pregnancy and then following B.S.’s birth.

[14] On May 4, 2012, C.S. reported that M.G. had left B.S. in his care for the weekend against the Society’s recommendations, and she could not be reached. A Temporary Care Agreement was signed. Subsequently, when neither C.S. nor M.G. were following through with access visits and programming to address protection concerns, B.S. was apprehended on June 5, 2012. Initially, he was in foster care; however, in February 2013, B.S. was placed in the care of his grandmother, Bo.S., and her then-partner, subject to society supervision. By August 2013, M.G. had addressed protection concerns to the extent where the Society was prepared to have B.S. return to her care. By this time, M.G. was in a relationship with G.C. M.G. undertook to abstain from the use of any opiates and/or cocaine, and strict provisions were put in place regarding C.S.’s access to B.S. to ensure that B.S. was not exposed to domestic violence.

[15] Throughout Leigh Adamson’s second period of involvement with the G.-C. family, she had the following protection concerns: unsuitable home conditions; domestic conflict; drug use by both parents; and parental inability to meet the children’s developmental, nutritional, medical, and dental needs. Underlying all of these were concerns about M.G.’s mental health and, more particularly, her social anxiety. Leigh Adamson observed that M.G. could not get herself going in the morning and simply was not “present” to care for the children until closer to noon. As well, she had inordinate difficulty following through with service plans, despite having been introduced to various programs and services by the Society.

[16] Barbara White, another child protection worker, has worked with the G.-C. family since October 2018. She identified the same protection concerns as those listed by Leigh Adamson and testified that those concerns have lasted until the present time.

Housing Instability and Unsuitable Home Conditions

[17] In January 2016, the G.-C. family was living at the YMCA family shelter. Due to an incident of parental conflict, the shelter expelled G.C. from the family’s room, resulting in his having to live elsewhere and visit M.G. and the children in the shelter’s lobby. Shortly after this forced separation of the parents, M.G. moved out of the shelter with the children and into accommodation in Vanier with G.C. From there, the family moved to a hotel in the east end of the city, and then to an apartment in the west end of the city. For a time, the family lived in a townhouse in a comfortable neighbourhood in the west end; however, this was short-lived. As a result of parental conflict, on February 1, 2018, M.G. moved out of the home to a shelter for abused women. From there, after the children were removed from her care, M.G. was placed in community living housing in the west end on the understanding that G.C. would not be residing with her. Subsequently, G.C. moved in with M.G. Although housing instability, frequent moves, and resulting inconsistency in the children’s routine and involvement in the community has plagued this family, it appears that, currently, housing stability may be possible. The couple has been residing in the three-bedroom community living townhouse since the summer of 2018.

[18] Going hand in hand with unstable housing was the parents’ inability to keep whatever housing they had up to a suitable level to keep their children safe. Child protection workers, police officers, and Family Court Clinic observers described the parents’ various accommodations as being cluttered, messy, dirty, disorganized and generally not suitable environments in which to raise children. That being said, Barbara White noted that, when she had her first meeting with M.G. upon taking over the file in October 2018, the state of the house was not a problem. Of course, at that time, M.G. did not have any of her children living with her.

Parental Conflict

[19] In regard to parental conflict, the concern was less about physical violence and more about verbal and emotional abuse and aggressively controlling behaviour on the part of G.C. and later, parental conflict emanating from both parents. M.G. reported to Leigh Adamson on many occasions that she struggled in her relationship with G.C. because he would yell at her, put her down, and make her feel “insane”. She claimed that G.C. was inordinately jealous and would frequently accuse her of cheating. During home visits, Leigh Adamson observed the dysfunctional communications between the parents that occurred in the presence of the children.

[20] In October 2018, and subsequently, M.G. spoke to Barbara White about G.C. and M.G. not always getting along and about her wondering if their access visits to the children could occur separately. She wondered if she would do better on her own. To date, M.G. has not made a formal request to Ms. White to see the children apart from G.C., but M.G. has continued to raise on a number of occasions that she and G.C. are struggling in their relationship.

[21] Fawn Nasrallah, a child and youth counsellor (“CYC”) at the Society supervised the parents’ access to the three older children from October 2018 to July 2019. She observed on numerous occasions the parents bickering in front of the children, despite being encouraged not to do so by Ms. Nasrallah, and despite B.S. often telling them to stop fighting. During the period from April to July 2019, Ms. Nasrallah chronicled numerous conversations with M.G. or text messages from M.G. in which M.G. complained that G.C. had yelled at her and called her names; he had spit at her; he had left her alone for periods of time without telling her where he was; he had taken all of the family’s money and bus tickets thereby preventing her from going out or getting to access visits; he had threatened to take the children away from her; he was having an affair; and he had physically assaulted her. Whether or not these allegations were true (and G.C. denied them while testifying), they reflect a high degree of conflict between the parents over this period. On some occasions, M.G. told Ms. Nasrallah that she thought it might be better if she and G.C saw the children separately; subsequently, however, she said that maybe she had acted too quickly in saying that. To Ms. Nasrallah, it appeared that M.G. was caught in a dysfunctional relationship that she seemed unable to leave. On numerous occasions, M.G. advised the Society that she would not be attending access visits as a result of an on-going conflict between herself and G.C. to which she did not want to expose the children.

[22] On numerous occasions, the police were called as a result of an altercation between M.G. and G.C., and five police records summarized below were tendered in evidence.

• On January 17, 2016, the police were called to the YMCA family shelter where G.C. alleged that he and M.G. had gotten into a verbal altercation over cigarettes and a Percocet prescription. G.C. told M.G. that he wanted a divorce and wanted custody of the children. He alleged that she smashed her own face against a wall and scratched his face and neck. He alleged that earlier in the day, she had threatened him with a knife. M.G. alleged that she and G.C. had gotten into an argument about G.C. letting the children walk around on a dirty floor. He became angry and slapped her in the face. She was tired of escalating assaults. The police arrested G.C. M.G. told them that all she wanted was a restraining order; she did not want G.C. charged with an offence. Ultimately, the police could not determine what actually happened and decided to withdraw the charges against G.C. One or more of the children were present at the time of this altercation.

  G.C. testified that he had an argument with M.G. on this occasion, but he had not assaulted her, and he did not recall her assaulting him.

• On June 17, 2016, the police were called to a hotel where the G.-C. family had been residing for two months. G.C. alleged that the previous day, the couple had argued about who would take the children to school and who would look after them over the day. G.C. had a hedge-trimming business and wanted to get on with his work; M.G. wanted to rest. In the end, G.C. had taken B.S. to school, and the girls had remained with M.G. When G.C. returned, M.G. was throwing his tools onto the pavement, breaking one of them. G.C. then moved his remaining tools into the safety of a neighbour’s room. G.C. alleged that that evening, M.G. forced him to sleep outside in his utility trailer. In the morning, he had knocked on the patio door, but M.G. would not let him in. As a result, he had yelled at her. M.G. alleged that G.C. had banged on the glass door of the parties’ unit and screamed at M.G. He picked up one of their strollers and banged it against the glass door, damaging the stroller. No charges were laid. In the end, Leigh Adamson came to the motel and assisted M.G. and the children to go to M.G.’s mother’s home for the weekend as a cooling-off period.

  G.C. recalled this event but did not believe that there was any violence or throwing of things.

• On December 23, 2018, G.C.’s probation officer heard a dispute underway when he made a regular check-in call to G.C. M.G. was yelling in the background that G.C. was assaulting her. When police arrived, G.C. claimed that the altercation had been verbal only. M.G. claimed that G.C. had pulled her hair, but later retracted that, saying that she had just wanted the police to remove G.C. from the home. The police got M.G. to agree that G.C. could stay until 11 p.m., at which time his sentence requiring him to be at their current address ended.

  G.C. testified that both he and M.G. were depressed at the time. Frequently, M.G. blocked him from the house and made false allegations against him.

• On July 18, 2019, a neighbour called the police because G.C. was banging on the door to the couple’s current residence, and M.G. did not want to let him in. M.G. was uncooperative with the police. No charges were laid.

  G.C. testified that this occurred on a date when G.C. had been allowed access with the children, but M.G.’s access had been cancelled because she had not met her check-in time.

• On July 28, 2019, police were called to the couple’s residence. M.G. alleged that she and G.C. had been in a verbal argument over trivial matters. At one point when she was going upstairs, G.C. pushed her from behind. She fell and flipped over on her back. G.C. jumped on top of her, punching her legs, spitting on her, and pulling her hair. M.G.’s mother alleged that G.C. had yelled and spat at her, accusing her of killing their marriage. G.C. was not there when the police arrived. Over the next two months, the police tried to reach M.G. and her mother to clarify some points before charging G.C., but neither M.G. nor her mother responded to the police telephone calls and written messages. No charges were laid.

  G.C. testified that M.G. had hit him in the stairwell on that occasion. She was very depressed at the time. He denied that any of the allegations against him recorded by the police were accurate.

[23] M.G. did not testify at trial. G.C. acknowledged that he and M.G. have struggled over the years in their relationship and have had difficulty communicating effectively. He did not deny that they had had many verbal altercations; however, he was adamant that he had never been physically abusive with M.G. or any of their children. He was also adamant that he and M.G. are devoted to each other and have no intention of separating.

Drug Dependency

[24] In regard to drug use, M.G. disclosed to Leigh Adamson in January 2016 that she was struggling with an opiate addiction. Leigh Adamson understood that, although there were periods of sobriety between then and September 2018, it was a constant battle. M.G. did not seem able to follow a rehabilitation program with any consistency. She wanted help but did not seem able to execute the steps necessary to make progress.

[25] Barbara White attempted to have drug screens done for M.G. from October to December 2018. M.G. attended two of the six scheduled drug screens. Those two were positive for a number of drugs – in extremely high levels – and at the time M.G. was pregnant with J.G. Barbara White scheduled further drug screens for M.G. and G.C. in 2019, but neither parent attended, even though they had been advised of the drug screen orally by the child and youth worker at access visits and through texts and emails.

[26] The evidence was that J.G. was born with methamphetamine, amphetamine, ecstasy, and cannabis in his system. He had to go through a period of withdrawal lasting for months.

Not Meeting the Children’s Developmental, Nutritional, Medical, and Dental Needs

[27] Dr. Michelle Ward is a pediatrician with a specialized certification in child maltreatment pediatrics. Since 2004, Dr. Ward has worked at the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (“CHEO”) in the field of suspected child abuse and neglect. She currently heads up the team delivering the Child Youth Protection Program (“CYPP”), one of the divisions of pediatrics at CHEO.

[28] At a November 18, 2016 assessment at the CYPP clinic at CHEO, which was attended by Leigh Adamson and M.G., Dr. Ward made the following findings regarding Z.C. (24.5 months at the time). Generally, Z.C. was in good health; however, the following concerns were identified. Her weight in regard to her height was in the 95^th^ percentile. She scored above the cut-off for gross motor skills, fine motor skills, problem-solving, and personal-social skills but below the threshold for communication skills. She had not yet been immunized. Z.C. was referred to audiology.

[29] At the same appointment, Dr. Ward made the following findings regarding F.C. (11 months). F.C. was healthy overall. However, F.C. scored below the cut-off for communication skills on both the 12-month and 10-month scales and below the cut-off for gross motor skills on the 12-month scale and at the threshold for the 10-month scale. She scored above the cut-off regarding fine motor skills, problem solving, and personal-social skills. She was in the 97^th^ percentile regarding weight to height ratio. F.C. had not yet been immunized. Dr. Ward offered M.G. counselling regarding parenting issues. She advised her to decrease the milk intake for F.C. to a maximum of 24 ounces per day and to gradually eliminate juice and chocolate milk. She referred F.C. to audiology, physiotherapy, and First Words.

[30] At the November 18, 2016 appointment, the Society was tasked with finding community supports for the family and assisting the family in obtaining a family physician and getting the girls immunized. A follow-up appointment was scheduled in three months; however, M.G. did not bring the girls back to CHEO for the follow-up appointment. Leigh Adamson’s evidence was that she kept encouraging M.G. to get a family physician, to get the children immunized, and to take the children back to CHEO for follow-up appointments, but M.G. did not follow through with any of these initiatives. Leigh Adamson recalled taking M.G. and F.C. to a physiotherapy appointment, but she did not take her to any other follow-up appointments. When asked why she had not done more to ensure that there was appropriate follow-up to the recommendations made by Dr. Ward, Leigh Adamson responded that she had difficulty getting M.G. to do anything. Often M.G. would not answer Leigh Adamson’s phone calls. Often when Leigh Adamson went to M.G.’s home unannounced, M.G. would not open the door. Although Ms. Adamson tried repeatedly to get M.G. to access various community services, Ms. Adamson simply could not get M.G. to do so. Consequently, no progress was made to obtain assistance for Z.C. and F.C. until after the children were brought into care in March 2018.

[31] Dr. Ward saw F.C. and Z.C. again on April 30, 2018 and was dismayed that no progress had been made with the girls since she had first seen them in November 2016. Dr. Ward noted that F.C. was exhibiting significant developmental delays with some characteristics suggestive of an autism spectrum disorder and/or lack of stimulation/neglect; she had significant dental issues likely secondary to her nutrition and hygiene; she lacked her immunizations; and she had received no hearing or vision screening or services, such as First Words. Z.C. also had significant dental decay requiring extensive dental work while under anaesthetic. Although the girls’ caregivers reported at the May 25, 2018 appointment that the girls had made some developmental gains since coming into care, Dr. Ward found that both – but particularly F.C. – continued to have very significant developmental delays at that time. Dr. Ward determined that F.C. needed follow-up in the form of audiology testing, a full assessment by the Ottawa Children’s Treatment Centre, dental intervention, immunizations, and an iron-rich diet. She also recommended that F.C. be offered a developmentally-rich environment with exposure to structured activities (such as play groups and library circle time), lots of face-to-face engagement with her caregivers to foster speech and social development, and a limitation on the amount of screen time. According to Alisha Parks, the children’s child protection worker since December 2018, F.C. has been receiving ongoing speech and language services.

[32] Dr. Ward reported that the autism hub in Ottawa, a multidisciplinary assessment unit, felt that F.C. likely was not on the autism disorder spectrum; however, Dr. Ward observed that F.C. continues to have many features consistent with such a disorder, such as abnormal social interactions. It is unclear whether F.C.’s inappropriate social skills relate to some underlying disorder or to something that prevented her from acquiring those skills in the normal course earlier in life.

[33] On May 2, 2018, Alisha Parks tried to discuss with G.C. the serious concerns that Dr. Ward had in regard to Z.C. and F.C. and the follow-up assistance they would require for their dental decay and their developmental delays. G.C. was unable to engage in a meaningful conversation about these issues and simply repeated that the girls’ dental problems were not his fault and that he had taken the children to physicians all the time. M.G. contradicted G.C. on these points in a conversation with Alisha Parks and Leigh Adamson on May 5, 2018.

[34] Dr. Ward saw Z.C. and F.C. on November 16, 2018. By this time, both girls had a pediatrician/family physician, Dr. Tessia Falsetto, and were in a catch-up immunization program. Z.C.’s foster parents reported no developmental concerns, aside from some minor speech issues. Z.C. had already been referred to First Words for an assessment in this regard.[^3] Z.C. was doing well in junior kindergarten, though she was displaying some aggressive and acting-out behaviours that Dr. Ward associated with a lower ability to self-regulate. She had undergone dental surgery and was now following appropriate dental hygiene.

[35] Dr. Ward last saw the girls on May 3, 2019. My understanding of her evidence is that both girls have made significant progress developmentally – in all respects – while in care. On a go-forward basis, they will require an environment that offers a good diet, dental hygiene, much one-on-one attention to develop speech and communication skills, appropriate stimulation, and regular follow-up with medical and dental professionals.

[36] During access visits from March 2018 to the present time, CYC workers at the Society repeatedly discussed with the parents the importance of their bringing nutritious food for the children, more specifically, food that was not sugar-laden or high in calories or fat. Initially, this advice was not followed. It was only after several months of this directive being repeatedly given that the parents very gradually shifted from “junk” food to healthier choices. However, there were several hiccups on the path to more nutritious meals – one being a very nasty interchange between G.C. and Stacey Sutherland, a CYC supervising a visit between G.C. and the three older children on November 1, 2018. During that visit, G.C. reacted angrily to Ms. Sutherland’s directive that he not give the children more “junk” food after he had already provided them with pizza and chicken nuggets. G.C. yelled at Ms. Sutherland three times during the visit in the presence of the children, telling her that he could feed the children what he wanted.

[37] It is important to note that, since the children have been in care, Alisha Parks has notified M.G. of the children’s numerous medical and dental appointments so that she could attend if she wished. M.G. has attended only a few appointments, and none recently.

Mental Health Concerns

[38] Although M.G.’s mental health was not something which the child protection workers focused on during their interactions with M.G. over the years, it was a concern underlying other issues they raised with M.G., such as the following: her inability to get out of bed in the mornings and care for the children; her inability to get herself out of the house and to various appointments; her dependency on G.C. despite her recognition that their relationship was dysfunctional; and her reliance on illicit drugs. Leigh Adamson focused on getting M.G. counselling as an abused woman and as a drug user. Barbara White did identify M.G. as requiring psychiatric help, and she tried to get M.G. to attend an outpatient clinic at the Royal Ottawa Hospital, but to no avail. Embedded in the conditions applying to M.G. in various interim court orders was a requirement that she obtain a psychiatric or psychological assessment and follow-up with whatever counselling or treatment plan was recommended by the mental health professionals. That never happened.

Inconsistent Attendance at Society Meetings and Access Visits

[39] As reported by Society workers, on numerous occasions, M.G. and G.C. have not attended the Society plan of care meetings, even though they have been invited to the meetings and encouraged to attend. On other occasions, they showed up well after the scheduled meeting was underway. As well, M.G. has not attended various school meetings and medical appointments, even though she has been advised of them and invited to attend. It is particularly troubling that during the period from April to July 2019 when M.G. was reporting to Fawn Nasrallah, a CYC supervising access visits, that she was miserable and needed help to extricate herself from her relationship with G.C., M.G. failed to attend any of the meetings Ms. Nasrallah and Barbara White set up for M.G. to discuss how matters could be moved forward.

[40] Since the children have been in care, concerns have arisen over M.G. not showing up for access visits and not being on time for the visits she attends. The late attendances and inconsistent attendances were catalogued in detail in the affidavits and oral testimony of the CYCs who supervised the access visits from March 2018 to the present time. Very early on, standard Society policies were implemented to ensure that M.G. made every effort to arrive on time or to advise the Society if she was running late or was unable to come. This did not immediately improve M.G.’s attendance record. Nevertheless, by the fall of 2018, M.G.’s attendance had improved somewhat, and this carried through to early 2019. However, from May 2019 to the time of trial, M.G.’s attendance at access visits was inconsistent, and this inconsistency has been very hard on the children – particularly B.S. From August to November, out of 70 potential access visits, M.G. missed 31, either because she cancelled or did not attend, or because the Society cancelled her visit due to her not physically checking in on time.

[41] Furthermore, for some reason, the parents missed a particularly high proportion of their one-on-one visits with J.G. Morgan Munro testified that from April to July, 2019, M.G. missed 11 scheduled visits with J.G. G.C. attended all of those visits, but left two visits early. From August to November, 2019, M.G. missed 11, and G.C. missed 6 individual visits with J.G. due to non-attendance or lateness.

[42] The CYCs made observations about the parents’ strengths and challenges during access visits. In terms of strengths, all CYCs noted how affectionate and loving both parents were with all of the children. The parents brought activities to engage in with the children and did their best to provide a positive experience for the children in the artificial and confined space at the access centre. M.G. was pleasant and cooperative with the CYCs and open to their suggestions. In regard to the parents’ one-on-one visits with J.G., the parents were able to attend to J.G.’s basic needs and knew how to handle a baby. They were very affectionate with him and spoke to him in soft voices. They were open to suggestions from the CYCs.

[43] In regard to challenges, the CYCs remarked how, particularly early on, M.G. struggled to remain calm in the face of B.S.’s outbursts; to set appropriate limits for the children, give them direction, and follow through with consequences; to bring nutritional snacks instead of sugar-laden foods and candy; and to ensure that the children were safe at all times. The CYCs also expressed concern about the conflict that surfaced during access visits between B.S. and G.C. as well as G.C.’s difficulty de-escalating that conflict. In fact, G.C.’s approach to B.S.’s swearing and disrespectful statements to his parents and others only escalated B.S.’s behaviour. As well, the parents were observed bickering in the presence of the children, which added to the stress level of the encounters. That being said, the CYCs noticed some improvements over time in regard to the type of food the parents brought for the children, M.G.’s ability to react appropriately to B.S.’s emotional outbursts, and G.C.’s ability to withdraw from conflictual situations with B.S.

Ability to Work with the Society

[44] On the whole, M.G. has been polite with Society workers and open to discussing their concerns and what they could do to assist M.G. That being said, on many occasions, M.G. would not answer phone calls from Society workers and would not open the door to them if they arrived unannounced. She would fail to attend or decline to attend meetings with Society workers to discuss her situation and how she could move forward. Most significantly, although she would listen to the advice and recommendations given by the Society workers from time to time and would agree that it would be a good idea for her to access a variety of services they suggested, she would not follow through to get counselling at the Royal Ottawa Hospital for mental health issues, at a community service for individual or couples counselling, or at Amethyst House for addiction counselling.

[45] Leigh Adamson, Barbara White, and Alisha Parks all had difficulty working with G.C. He had a strong antipathy towards all of them. He would excuse himself when Ms. Adamson attended the G.-C. home for meetings. He refused to meet with Barbara White. The message he gave to the Society throughout his involvement was that he and M.G. were perfectly good parents. They loved their children and had taken good care of them and there was no reason whatsoever for the children being removed from their home. He denied that any of the Society’s concerns held validity and he was not prepared to get any counselling or make any changes to his lifestyle to become a more effective parent. On numerous occasions, G.C. expressed his anger with the Society in loud and aggressive language.

[46] On November 6, 2018, a meeting was held with the parents, M.G.’s counsel, the Society’s counsel and all assigned child protection workers and CYCs. During this meeting, it was communicated to the parents that they had to remain calm towards Society staff, each other and the children, using a quiet voice, and no swearing or yelling. Additionally, the parents were advised not to discuss adult issues in the presence of the children. Following this meeting, G.C. acted in a very angry and confrontational fashion with Alisha Parks, accusing her of being a liar and a fake.

[47] Where G.C. did work hard to keep his anger in check was at access visits where he showed a greater ability to work cooperatively with the CYCs (aside from Ms. Parks) and to accept their suggestions for more successful access visits.

[48] Despite the anger exuded by G.C. in some of his dealings with Society workers, and despite frequent allegations of domestic conflict between M.G. and G.C., there was no valid reason for the Society to advise the Ottawa Hospital that G.C. should be prevented from holding or touching his newborn son, J.G., shortly after his birth. This was an overreaction on the part of the Society that caused a further, unnecessary, rift between G.C. and Society workers. By this time, G.C. had had numerous, positive visits with the three older children, in a variety of settings, and he posed no imminent threat to J.G., M.G., or any hospital or Society staff. It was disrespectful not only to G.C., but also to J.G., to be denied physical contact and the opportunity for some initial bonding.

Parental Strengths

[49] According to Leigh Adamson, G.C. is very resourceful. He works hard at ensuring that the children have milk and food, both when they were at home and during access visits. For the most part, he is able to get to appointments close to the scheduled time. He clearly loves his children, is affectionate with them, and is child focused.

[50] Barbara White identified G.C.’s strengths as being that he now generally brings healthy food to access visits, he is very affectionate with the children, he can divide his attention, he shows up for visits on time, and he is able to communicate with B.S.

[51] According to Leigh Adamson, M.G. is knowledgeable about parenting. She disciplines through positive reinforcement. She clearly loves her children, is affectionate with them, and has a strong bond with them – particularly B.S. Karen Carkner, a CYC who has supervised access visits since April 2018, observed that M.G. is affectionate with her children, tries to give equal attention to all of them, makes an effort to provide activities for the children, tries to provide structure to mealtimes after being cued by Ms. Carkner, and has been open to other suggestions offered by Ms. Carkner in terms of child management.

[52] Barbara White identified M.G.’s strengths as being that she has a strong bond with the children and does not allow a difficult situation to interfere with her attitude during access visits.

History of Legal Proceedings

[53] B.S. was the subject of a Temporary Care Agreement dated May 4, 2012 between the Society, M.G. and C.S. Due to concerns about drug abuse and domestic violence, B.S. was subsequently brought into care. The following orders were made in his regard:

• June 8, 2012: interim, without prejudice order, placing B.S. in the temporary care and custody of the Society with access to M.G., C.S., and the maternal great-grandmother;
• August 29, 2012: order placing B.S. in the temporary care and custody of the Society with access to the paternal grandmother, Bo.S., M.G., C.S., and the maternal great-grandmother, L.G.;
• November 14, 2012: order granting the maternal great-grandmother, L.G., access to B.S. and limiting access by M.G.;
• December 5, 2012: order varying M.G.’s access to be at the discretion of the Society due to lack of attendance. C.S. was noted in default;
• February 19, 2013: interim, without prejudice order, placing B.S. in the temporary care and custody of the paternal grandmother, Bo.S., and her partner, K.L.R, subject to Society supervision, with regular access to the maternal great-grandmother, L.G., and access to M.G. and C.S. at the discretion of the Society. Some of the conditions applying to M.G. at the time were:
  • M.G. was to complete a mental health assessment and follow all recommendations made by the assessor, or alternatively, a psychiatric assessment provided by her own psychologist;
  • M.G. was to secure counselling services, attend regularly, and follow any or all recommendations;
  • M.G. was to agree to random urine testing at the Society’s request; and
  • M.G. was to complete a parenting program approved by the Society.
• March 28, 2013: order that M.G.’s access be increased to every second weekend, unsupervised, at her home or as otherwise arranged between M.G. and Bo.S., and every Wednesday and Friday afternoons for two hours in the community. M.G. had to abstain from alcohol and drug use during access visits;
• August 29, 2013: six-month supervision order to M.G., with access of one visit per week for C.S. at the Society’s discretion, and access for Bo.S. and K.L.R at a minimum of one weekend a month or as agreed upon by the parties. At this time, there was a finding that B.S. was in need of protection, and there were findings regarding birth, parentage, and religion. There was a specific finding that B.S. did not have native status. Some of the conditions applying to M.G. were:
  • She was to provide a safe and nurturing home environment for B.S. and to ensure that his medical, physical, emotional, social, and cognitive needs were being met;
  • She was to abstain from the use of any opiates and/or cocaine and any other non-prescription drugs; and
  • She was to agree to random urine testing at the Society’s request;
• February 26, 2014: order granting custody of B.S. to M.G. under s. 57.1 of the Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. 11 (“CFSA”), with access to C.S. at M.G.’s discretion.

[54] M.G. and G.C. married in 2013. They had two children very quickly: Z.C. in […] 2014 and F.C. in […] 2015.

[55] In 2016, the Society once again became involved in the family’s life and the following orders were made regarding B.S., Z.C., and F.C.:

• November 14, 2017: interim, without prejudice order placing the children in the care of M.G., subject to Society supervision, with access to G.C. at the Society’s discretion.

  Some of the conditions applying to M.G. included:

  • She was to ensure that the children were not exposed or subject to incidents of adult conflict or domestic violence;
  • She was to meet the children’s physical, emotional, developmental, and educational needs;
  • She was not to allow G.C. to reside in the home unless approved by the Society and was only to allow him access as approved by the Society;
  • She was to ensure that the children attend all medical and dental appointments;
  • She was to work with a Violence Against Women counsellor through the Society; and
  • She was to ensure that she attend a Suboxone clinic approved by the Society;

  Some of the conditions applying to G.C. included:

  • He was not to reside in the same house as M.G. and the children;
  • He was to meet with the Society to identify an appropriate counsellor to address anger issues and develop skills to safely deal with his anger;
  • He was to ensure that the children were not exposed or subject to incidents of adult conflict or domestic violence;
  • He was to participate in a mental health assessment and follow recommendations made by the professionals involved; and
  • He was to meet with his mental health network (psychologist/ psychiatrist/family doctor) as frequently as recommended by the mental health professionals;

• March 29, 2018: interim, without prejudice order placing the children in the temporary care and custody of the Society with access to the parents at the discretion of the Society, with M.G. having a minimum of three visits a week and G.C. having a minimum of one visit per week, on the understanding that if visits were missed, access would revert to being at the Society’s discretion;

• April to December 2018: There were various court appearances. At different times, M.G., C.S., and G.C. were all noted in default. M.G. did not attend all court appearances. Eventually pleadings were reopened to allow both M.G. and G.C. to file an Answer and Plan of Care.

• January 17, 2019: order for a parental capacity assessment of M.G. and G.C. and the children for the following reasons:

  • To identify, confirm and update the children’s special needs;
  • To assess the parental capacity and ability of the parents to meet the children’s needs;
  • To assess the parents’ ability to parent the children together and to provide a permanent and stable environment for the children; and
  • To determine the service plan and/or resources to meet the needs of the family including the special needs of the children;

• March 14, 2019: order making findings regarding the birth, parentage, aboriginal status, and residence of the children. The court found that the children were not First Nation, Inuk or Métis. The order also required the production of third-party records regarding G.C. and M.G.

[56] On […], 2019, M.G. gave birth to J.G. The child was taken into care by the Society the following day and, by without prejudice order dated March 27, 2019, was placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society, with access to M.G. and G.C. at the Society’s discretion but a minimum of three times per week.

[57] By May 17, 2019, the Family Court Clinic had terminated its assessment of the family due to lack of attendance by the parents. By order made on that date, the court re-referred the family for an assessment, accepting the stated intention of the Family Court Clinic to enforce a strict attendance policy on the parents. Eventually, Dr. Floyd Wood prepared a report dated August 30, 2019.

[58] On June 27, 2019, there was a further temporary, without prejudice order placing B.S. in the temporary care and custody of his paternal grandmother, Bo.S., subject to supervision by the Society. Some of the conditions applying to M.G. included:

• She was to take the necessary steps to ensure that she has addressed her on-going addictions issues;
• She was to work with a Violence Against Women counsellor;
• She was to attend a Suboxone clinic approved by the Society;
• She was to meet with her mental health network (psychologist/psychiatrist/family doctor) as frequently as recommended by the mental health professionals; and
• She was to complete a parenting program approved by the Society.

[59] I have recounted the history of these proceedings to show: (1) the knowledge the parents have had over a number of years about the court’s concerns regarding their parenting of their children; and (2) the knowledge the parents have had over that period of the steps the court instructed them to take if they wanted their children returned to their care.

Services Provided by the Society

[60] Limited evidence was tendered by the Society as to the services the Society provided to the parents to deal with the protection concerns described above. It would have been preferable if the two child protection workers, Leigh Adamson and Barbara White, had submitted affidavits setting out in a clear and concise fashion the specific steps they took to encourage and facilitate M.G. to obtain counselling regarding drug addiction, depression, social anxiety, domestic conflict, and parenting. The court should have been advised of specific dates when the child protection workers made recommendations to or provided referrals for M.G.; when child protection workers offered to take or took M.G. and the children to medical or dental appointments; when M.G. refused to answer her cell phone or refused to answer her door; and when M.G. was not ready when the child protection worker went to her home to take her to an appointment.

[61] Leigh Adamson testified that, over the years, she had many conversations with M.G. about entering an addictions treatment program. Ms. Adamson connected M.G. with Amethyst House, but M.G. did not follow-up and attend counselling sessions there. Ms. Adamson suggested M.G. attend AA; however, M.G. did not do so. Ms. Adamson took M.G. to Ottawa Recovery a couple of times so that she could receive treatment for her opiate addiction; however, M.G. would not consistently go to the clinic. G.C. did consistently attend the Ottawa Recovery Clinic. Under pressure from M.G., and totally contrary to the rules at Ottawa Recovery, G.C. shared with M.G. some of the Suboxone doses he was permitted to take home. According to Ms. Adamson, although M.G. appeared to want help to deal with her addiction issues, she was not able to execute the steps necessary to get that help. Ms. Adamson could introduce M.G. to a variety of available programs and services, but this was to no avail when M.G. could not get herself out the door to attend meetings or appointments.

[62] Leigh Adamson struggled in the same fashion when trying to get M.G. on-going counselling for her mental health issues, though Ms. Adamson acknowledged that her main focus was for M.G. to get addiction counselling and one-on-one counselling. M.G. did attend counselling when she was in the shelter for abused women in Kanata. She was supposed to continue with that counselling after she left the shelter, but failed to do so. I accept the submission of Stephen Pender, counsel for G.C., that M.G. may have been better served if the Society, early on in its involvement with M.G., had focused on her mental health challenges in addition to addiction and domestic abuse issues. However, hindsight is always clearer, and Ms. Adamson was faced with parents with multi-dimensional issues. She did her best in trying to manage a very complicated situation. I am satisfied from the evidence that Ms. Adamson made herself available to M.G. as much as she possibly could and tried her best to help M.G. become a more effective parent.

[63] In July 2018, Barbara White suggested to M.G. that she attend the outpatient clinic for depression and anxiety at the Ottawa Hospital. M.G. still did not have a family physician at the time, but Ms. White was aware that the clinic did not require a physician referral. Although M.G. appeared interested in the suggestion, she never followed through. In October 2018, M.G. and Barbara White discussed M.G., G.C., and B.S. all attending counselling together; M.G. attending an addiction program; and M.G. getting some mental health supports. M.G. did not follow through with any of these ideas. Mr. Pender was highly critical of Ms. White not doing more to get M.G. into counselling.

[64] In response to this criticism, Barbara White testified that her goal is to meet with her clients every two weeks, even though the standard when children are in care is to meet with the parents monthly. She found it very difficult to meet M.G. and G.C. on a regular basis. They cancelled many meetings at the last minute or did not show up for them. Often they did not answer their cell phones or the door to their home. Ms. White was rarely given a reason why the parents did not attend meetings. Ms. White and some of the CYCs testified that they tried to get M.G. and G.C. to meet with Ms. White following access visits at the Society’s offices, but to no avail. The result was that there were very few meetings between Ms. White, M.G., and G.C. in the year leading up to the trial, and therefore very little opportunity for Ms. White to assist M.G. and G.C. in taking the steps they needed to in order to get their children returned.

[65] Leigh Adamson arranged for M.G. to attend a parenting program; however, M.G. did not want to attend the group sessions. At some point, M.G. worked her way through a parenting program on-line, but this was not a program recommended by the Society.

[66] Over the years, Leigh Adamson also tried to assist M.G. in a very practical way – getting her enrolled in the child benefit program, getting Z.C. and F.C. assessed at the Child and Youth Protection Division at CHEO, and taking M.G. and F.C. to at least one follow-up appointment at CHEO. The problem was that, unless Leigh Adamson actually took M.G. to some of the appointments (and it was extremely difficult to get M.G. out the door on time to make appointments), M.G. would not follow up or attend further appointments. As well, if she were depressed, M.G. would become non-communicative and would not take or return Ms. Adamson’s phone calls.

[67] Leigh Adamson arranged for access to the children to be in the west end, very close to the shelter where M.G. was residing. M.G. struggled to get to the visits, even though the access centre was only a ten-minute walk from the shelter. Mr. Pender was highly critical of the Society moving access to their central offices in the east end, when M.G. and G.C. were residing in the west end. I agree with Mr. Pender that this move made regular and timely attendance by the parents at access visits extremely challenging. I also agree with Mr. Pender that the Society did not show enough flexibility when dealing with M.G. if she missed her check-in time by only a few minutes. Giving her some leeway, in light of her having to cross town on public transit during rush hour, would have been the reasonable thing to do. It would also have been in the children’s best interests, as they valued their visits with their mother. M.G. and G.C. were living in poverty. They did not have access to a vehicle. They had to do their best on public transit, and I can take judicial notice of how challenging that has been in Ottawa in recent months.

[68] Nevertheless, there were several valid reasons for access to have been moved to the Society’s main offices. The access centre in the west end was small and not that suitable for access when three and then four children were present at the same time. The west end access centre did not have security late in the day when the children’s access was occurring. Security was required because of the conflict that could arise between M.G. and G.C. and because of G.C.’s hostile attitude toward some Society workers. Most importantly, the children were in care in the east end of the city. Driving right across the city for access at 4:30 p.m. and then back to the east end at 6:30 p.m. was a very difficult feat and required the children to be in a vehicle for hours after a day at school or in daycare. The converse of this, of course, was that M.G. and G.C. had to spend hours on public transit getting across town, often during rush hour. I am sympathetic with how difficult it was for the parents on four days a week to get themselves from the west end of the city to the east end of the city and to consistently arrive on time. However, the Society was obliged to put the needs of the children first.

[69] Leigh Adamson found G.C. difficult to work with. He exhibited a strong distrust of the Society and had difficulty controlling his anger and frustration in his dealings with Ms. Adamson. When the family was living in the townhouse, G.C. would leave if he knew that Ms. Adamson was coming. If Ms. Adamson attended unannounced, there were a number of occasions when the parents refused to open the door. When Ms. Adamson had the opportunity to discuss concerns with G.C., he would place the blame for any problems on M.G. and would tell Ms. Adamson that she needed to work with her, not him.

[70] Barbara White has found it particularly difficult working with G.C. He has no insight into the Society’s concerns and accuses Society workers of lying. He consistently voices his belief that there is nothing wrong with the parenting provided by himself and M.G. He denies that M.G. was using illicit drugs and he denied that J.G. tested positive at birth for a number of those drugs – despite scientific evidence from physicians. That being said, recently, G.C. showed up for a meeting with Barbara White and engaged in a positive exchange with her regarding the Society’s outstanding concerns. M.G. did not attend.

[71] All of the third parties who have interacted, particularly with M.G., have observed that it is difficult to get M.G. to engage and follow through. Both Leigh Adamson and Barbara White had great difficulty getting M.G. to attend appointments – even if she was offered a drive or was already at the locale of the appointment. Dr. Wood and his colleagues at the Family Court Clinic had difficulty getting M.G. to attend scheduled appointments. Police officers investigating complaints made by M.G. had difficulty reaching her by telephone or even in person if they attended her home. In an ideal world, the Society may have been able to assign enough staff time to schedule all of the necessary appointments that M.G. and the children required and to have drivers available to get M.G. and the children to and from those appointments, but that is an unrealistic and unreasonable standard to apply to the Society and, in the circumstances of this case, may not have advanced matters.

[72] First, it is unlikely that the Society has the financial resources to be able to provide this level of service to parents, like M.G., who for many potential reasons do not follow through with steps mandated in child protection court orders. The nature of the services that the Society can realistically be expected to provide includes: set out clear expectations tailored to the specific protection concerns relevant to the family; make connections and referrals so that parents know where they can access required services; ensure that the parents have viable means (such as a bus pass) to get to the services; help the parents access the services if there is some disability preventing them from doing so; and facilitate and trouble-shoot to smooth out any difficulties in the parents getting those services. The Society cannot assign unlimited resources to a particular family who over time is resistant to the Society’s recommendations and chooses not to take advantage of the Society’s directions and offers of assistance.

[73] Second, parents cannot be made to do what they are unwilling or, for some psychological reason, unable to do. The Society must try to assist and direct, but if parents refuse to engage by not returning phone calls, not answering their door, and not attending meetings, there is not much the Society can do.

[74] Third, the Society should not be seen as the parents’ guarantor in the sense of ensuring that the parents actually do what is expected of them under court order. The parents must be active participants in the process, assume responsibility for accessing available services, get the help they need, and embrace change. The reason that this is extremely important is that the parents cannot be subject to Society supervision on a permanent basis. Parents have to learn to function on their own, with whatever community supports are available, and not be reliant on the Society on a long-term basis to make things work.

[75] I am satisfied that the Society offered an adequate, if not ideal, level of services to M.G. and G.C. who, unfortunately, for a number of reasons, were unwilling or unable to take advantage of the services the Society was trying to provide.

Family Court Clinic Assessment

[76] Dr. F. Wood of the Family Court Clinic issued a team report dated August 30, 2019 (“the Report”) following a family court clinic assessment which started in January 2019, was discontinued in May 2019 due to lack of attendance or late attendance at scheduled appointments by one or both parents, was reinstituted in July 2019, and was completed in August 2019. Dr. Wood based his opinions and recommendations on the following:

• Affidavits, parents’ pleadings, and plans of care on the court file;
• Medical records pertaining to M.G. (from the Ottawa Hospital and Appletree Medical Group), G.C. (from Dr. Ujjainwalla at Recovery Ottawa), B.S. (from Dr. Falsetto), and Z.C. and F.C. (from CHEO);
• Police records from the Ottawa Police Services pertaining to G.C.;
• A letter from Western Ottawa Community Resource Centre detailing M.G.’s previous involvement;
• A certificate of completion from the Aggression Prevention Workshop on June 7, 2018 for G.C.;
• Joint and individual meetings with M.G. and G.C.;
• Psychological test results for M.G. and G.C.;
• A Family Court Clinic interaction visit and home visit;
• Telephone interviews with the children’s foster parents; and
• Telephone interviews with various Society workers.

[77] Although not all of the documentation reviewed by Dr. Wood was entered in evidence, I note that no issues were raised during the trial about the accuracy of any of the documentation relied on by Dr. Wood, and he was not cross-examined in regard to that documentation. Dr. Wood provided a lengthy summary of the context in which his assessment was occurring, as revealed to him from the sources referred to above, and I adopt his description of the context and find it unnecessary to repeat it here.

Impression of M.G.

[78] The Family Court Clinic is of the opinion that M.G. may have a Persistent Depressive Disorder (Dysthymia in DSM-5), which is defined by having a depressed mood for most of the day, for more days than not for at least two years along with two or more of the following symptoms: (1) poor appetite or overeating; (2) insomnia or hypersomnia; (3) low energy or fatigue; (4) low self-esteem; (5) poor concentration or difficulty making decisions; and (6) feelings of hopelessness. This diagnosis is consistent with G.C.’s observations of M.G. having difficulty getting up in the mornings and getting things done and with his claim that he is the primary parent when the children are in their care because M.G. simply does not have the energy to play this role. It is also consistent with the observations of Leigh Adamson and Barbara White that despite the Society worker connecting or referring M.G. to various programs and services, M.G. failed to follow through and take advantage of the help she could access.

[79] The Family Court Clinic is also of the opinion that M.G. struggles with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder stemming from a chaotic childhood, exposure to significant violence in her childhood home, sexual assaults at a young age, getting involved in a life of drugs and crime at a very early age, and numerous placements in foster homes, group homes, and Detention Centres. According to Dr. Wood, adults who have experienced significant traumas as children:

… often struggle with negative alterations in cognitions and mood as well as marked alterations in arousal and reactivity, such as having a diminished interest or participation in significant activities; feelings of detachment from others; a persistent inability to experience positive emotions for long periods of time; reckless or self-destructive behaviours; problems with concentration; and sleep disturbance.

[80] Dr. Wood opined that M.G.’s childhood traumas and subsequent mental health challenges could explain her difficulties attending access visits and other appointments in a regular and timely fashion and participating fully in the court process. Her difficulties have also had a negative impact on her overall functioning, including academics, employment, relationships, and parenting.

[81] Dr. Wood identified dependency traits in M.G. that could be indicative of a Dependent Personality Disorder or simply traits consistent with a Persistent Depressive Disorder and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. M.G. demonstrated a tendency to get into relationships that she would at times describe as abusive but then be incapable of extricating herself from those relationships. M.G. gave messages to Society workers from time to time that she was thinking of leaving G.C. or that she wanted her access visits to be separate from those of G.C. M.G. contacted the police on numerous occasions to complain about G.C.’s abusive behaviour. Despite this, M.G. has remained in a relationship with G.C. since 2012 and downplayed any abusive aspects of that relationship during the Family Court Clinic assessment.

[82] Dr. Wood noted that M.G. has struggled with substance abuse on-and-off ever since she was a teenager. Recently, she was using speed during her pregnancy with J.G. Previously, she and G.C. had an Opioid Use Disorder, for which she was offered, but did not regularly take, Suboxone. Dr. Wood was of the view that there was a risk of M.G. again becoming drug dependent as a means of coping with stress.

[83] Despite all of the challenges faced by M.G., as identified by the Family Court Clinic, Dr. Wood noted that M.G. is articulate, she has insight into some of the issues she needs to address, she was polite and cooperative during the assessment process and engaged with the team of professionals, she showed affection for her children during visits, her children are attached to her, and she is able to calm and soothe her children.

Impression of G.C.

[84] Dr. Wood observed that, as with M.G., G.C. had a fairly chaotic childhood that consisted of frequent moves, interpersonal violence, emotional and physical abuse, and emotional neglect and physical abandonment by his mother. G.C. struggled with emotional development and resorted to unhealthy coping mechanisms, such as drug use, alcohol, and anti-social behaviour. In addition, his step-father introduced and indoctrinated him and his brother into a criminal lifestyle at a young age – a lifestyle G.C. has had difficulty putting fully behind him. Dr. Wood is of the opinion that G.C. has a number of Dependent and Antisocial personality traits, as evidenced by his complicated relationship with M.G. and his lengthy criminal history. On the one hand, G.C. is emotionally dependent on M.G. but also feels let down when his needs are not met. Dr. Wood is of the view, based on various sources in the assessment process, that G.C. exposed the children to emotional outbursts, repeated police involvements, and potentially domestic violence. The evidence at trial supports a finding that the children have been exposed to parental conflict between M.G. and G.C. and between G.C. and Society workers that has been emotionally-charged, and to repeated interventions on the part of the Ottawa Police Services.

[85] Dr. Wood also commented on G.C.’s significant history of drug addiction, particularly with opiates. On a positive note, for a number of years, G.C. has been in a drug rehabilitation program at Recovery Ottawa where he is being treated with Suboxone.

[86] G.C.’s current medical status is complicated through injuries he suffered in a random knife attack that resulted in injuries to his head and neck. He continues to suffer pain from these injuries which can intensify during periods of stress.

Impression of B.S.

[87] The Family Court Clinic is of the view that B.S. is a child with special needs, particularly in the areas of behaviour, emotional development, and academics. In a psycho-educational assessment by the Ottawa-Carleton District School Board dated March 29, 2018, which was not tendered in evidence but was available to B.S.’s pediatrician, Dr. Falsetto, and to the Family Court Clinic, B.S. was identified as likely having ADHD, with both hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention presentations. He was also identified as likely having a learning disorder that was impairing all areas of his academic learning at a severe level. Nevertheless, both of these were working diagnoses at the time because it remained to be determined how the chaos and instability in B.S.’s homelife contributed to his symptoms. As substantiated by the evidence at trial, B.S. moved residences many times during his young life, at times staying in shelters or hotel rooms. He was exposed to parental conflict and possibly domestic violence. He suffered the trauma of having police intervene frequently in his family life. At times when M.G. was unable to actively care for her children, B.S. was physically and emotionally neglected and assumed the role of caregiver for his younger siblings. As explained by Dr. Wood, these childhood experiences, as well as M.G.’s inconsistency in attending access visits, have likely contributed to B.S.’s experience of emotional neglect which, in turn, has fueled his behavioural outbursts.

Impression of Z.C.

[88] The Family Court Clinic is of the view that Z.C. does not present any developmental or medical challenges at the present time and is not displaying any apparent behavioural issues. The developmental delays apparent when she went into care in March 2018 have improved to a great extent, though she remains in the lower normative range for same-aged peers. As reported to Dr. Wood, and as is clear from the evidence, Z.C. has a positive attachment to her foster parents. She has a lesser attachment to her parents and responds minimally to her father’s attention. Dr. Wood opined that this could be the result of inconsistent attendance at access visits by M.G., Z.C.’s memory of her chaotic home environment, and Z.C. having been exposed during her infancy to her father’s temper.

Impression of F.C.

[89] The Family Court Clinic is of the view that F.C. is a child with significant special needs due to her significant developmental delays identified by CHEO. According to Dr. Wood, these delays are likely the outcome of her previous home environment where she was neglected not only in terms of her developmental needs, but also in terms of her emotional and health needs.

Impression of J.G.

[90] The Family Court Clinic is of the view that J.G. is a child with special needs. He was born five weeks early and experienced significant withdrawal symptoms from “speed” for a period of about four months. Initially he experienced low weight gain. His skin was mottled, he had a possible heart murmur, and his head was growing very fast – all conditions requiring careful monitoring. He has developmental and gross motor skill delays which his foster parents are working hard to overcome. Dr. Wood anticipates that J.G. will have to be monitored for an extended period of time to determine whether he is catching up to his peers. As well, Dr. Wood understands that J.G. will require ongoing appointments with a variety of medical professionals. He warned that it will be important that J.G. attends those appointments regularly and has caregivers who can follow through with recommendations from medical experts to bring J.G. along as quickly and effectively as possible.

Additional Evidence Regarding the Children’s Individual Needs

B.S.

[91] Since September 2018, B.S. has been attending a program offered by Crossroads Children’s Mental Health Centre. In March 2018, Alisha Parks completed the forms to apply for this placement as B.S.’s parents had not yet done so. Prior to going into care, B.S. had missed an inordinate amount of school. Now that he is in care, he regularly attends school.

[92] D.G., B.S.’s CYC at Crossroads for the 2018-2019 academic year, described B.S. as being outspoken, articulate, energetic, very coordinated, and very good at sports. Due to B.S.’s challenges relating to emotional regulation, attention span, and academics, he benefits enormously from being in the small classes at Crossroads where 12 students are tended to by a teacher, CYC, and an educational assistant, who provide individualized strategies and programming to assist each child in attaining specific goals. Usually children stay at Crossroads for up to two years before efforts are made to reintegrate the child into a mainstream school setting. By June 2020, B.S. will have had two academic years at Crossroads. His current CYC at Crossroads, K.M., considers it likely that B.S. would benefit from continued attendance in the program if permission can be obtained for a third year. Despite the clear progress that B.S. has made at Crossroads, G.C. has frequently criticized the school in B.S.’s presence and has suggested that some of his swearing and disrespectful conduct comes from his association with other students at that school.

[93] D.G. described B.S. as having anxiety issues – triggered if he feels something is academically unattainable or if he is confronted with uncertainty, such as changes in the staff in his classroom or uncertainty about upcoming access visits. His competitive spirit also means that he can have difficulty accepting sporting defeats. Finally, he is a very sensitive and empathetic child who cares about his fellow students and does not easily handle personal insults or bullying. According to D.G., what B.S. needs to function well is structure and certainty. K.M. agrees with this assessment.

[94] K.M. described B.S. as being a superactive, really kind, and gentle child – always willing to help. He is someone well-liked by staff and peers. B.S. struggles with self-regulation, but he is doing much better this year than last year. He is learning to seek help from staff if other children are bothering him rather than reacting with an outburst. Although at the beginning of the school year he was having daily outbursts, the frequency, intensity, and duration of those incidents have decreased.

Z.C.

[95] Z.C. is five years of age. Alisha Parks described Z.C. as being very bright for her age, quite articulate, lovely, sweet, fun, and energetic. She is in senior kindergarten and is doing well. N.P.D., Z.C.’s foster mother, described Z.C. now as being very social, intelligent, helpful, cooperative, and happy. She has made friends in the community and at school. She is very protective of her sister. N.P.D. described the only challenge relating to Z.C. is how clingy Z.C. is after access visits and how she seeks nothing but “junk” food.

[96] G.C. described Z.C. as having a bit of an attitude: she is determined in getting what she wants. This is consistent with the observations of some of the CYCs to the effect that G.C. has difficulty saying “no” to Z.C. in the face of her persistence.

[97] Dr. Ward’s most recent assessment is that Z.C. does not have any special needs, though it is very important for her to be in an environment which offers a good diet, dental hygiene, much one-on-one attention to develop speech and communication skills, appropriate stimulation, and regular follow-up with medical and dental professionals for at least a year to ensure that she is meeting developmental milestones.

F.C.

[98] F.C. just turned four years of age and is in junior kindergarten. Alisha Parks described F.C. as being sweet, very empathetic and caring, active, and fun-loving. N.P.D. described F.C. as being extremely social, affectionate, and playful. F.C. is now using whole speech and is making eye contact with others – a big advance from when she first came into care. F.C. continues to have a variety of special developmental needs. She has received services from speech, occupational, and development consultants and has just started physiotherapy because she continues to walk on her toes. F.C. has also had regular appointments at CHEO. After access visits, F.C. can be very clingy to her foster parents.

[99] Dr. Ward recommended that F.C. be offered a developmentally-rich environment with exposure to structured activities such as play groups and library circle time, lots of face-to-face engagement with her caregivers to foster speech and social development, and a limitation on the amount of screen time. Dr. Ward’s most recent assessment is that F.C. remains a special needs child requiring an environment offering a good diet, dental hygiene, much one-on-one attention to develop speech and communication skills, appropriate stimulation, and regular follow-up with medical and dental professionals.

[100] G.C. described F.C. as being very independent with a sense of humour. She is easy going and loves books and movies. G.C. does not believe that F.C. has any special needs requiring particular attention, aside from a minor speech delay.

J.G.

[101] Alisha Parks described J.G. as being a very happy baby, who is always smiling and rarely cries. According to Dr. Wood, however, it remains unclear what the long-term impact will be of J.G. having been exposed to a number of illicit drugs in utero. Dr. Wood anticipates that J.G. will have to be monitored very closely by professionals so that the earliest possible interventions can occur if J.G. shows developmental delays or other special needs arising from his rocky introduction to life.

[102] G.C. agrees that J.G. is a very happy baby. He believes that J.G. has no special needs – he just needs to be fed and changed.

Issue One: Are the Children in Need of Protection?

[103] Section 74(2) of the Act lists the circumstances in which a child is in need of protection. I will consider the children individually.

[104] There is a risk under s. 74(2)(h) of the Act that B.S. is likely to suffer emotional harm, demonstrated by serious anxiety, depression, self-destructive, or aggressive behaviour, or delayed development resulting from his parents’ actions (eg. fighting), their failure to act (egs. get appropriate professional and community support for B.S.’s special needs, foster friendships in the community, enable B.S. to participate in sporting activities, and ensure that B.S. attends school regularly), or pattern of neglect (eg. ignoring B.S.’s nutritional, emotional, educational, and social needs). This risk exists because M.G. seems incapable of getting the help she needs to be a more effective and protective parent. For his part, G.C. denies that there is any problem that requires attention.

[105] Z.C. and F.C. suffered physical harm, namely severe teeth decay, from a pattern of neglect on the part of M.G. and G.C. and their failure to adequately care for the children when they had charge of the children (s. 74(2)(a)(i) and (ii)). There is a risk of this inadequate care and pattern of neglect reoccurring if Z.C. and F.C. are placed in their parents’ care (s. 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii)). Additionally, when they came into care, both Z.C. and F.C., but particularly F.C., had significant developmental delays demonstrating the emotional harm they had suffered while in their parents’ care. As described in detail above, there are reasonable grounds to conclude that the emotional harm resulted from the parents’ pattern of neglect, their failure to actively parent the children, their failure to seek professional help for the children when they were identified by Dr. Ward as requiring it, and their exposing the children to parental conflict, instability, and insecurity (s. 74(2)(f)(v)). There is a risk that the children are likely to continue to suffer emotional harm if returned to their parents’ care in that G.C. denies that there are serious problems in the relationship between himself and M.G. and takes the position that he and M.G. always took adequate care of the children. For her part, even if M.G. acknowledges that she needs help so as to be able to extricate herself from a dysfunctional relationship and better parent the children, she seems incapable of pursuing the help available to her. If the girls were returned to their parents’ care, there is a risk that they would exhibit anxiety, depression, withdrawal, aggressive behaviour, and/or delayed development resulting from the actions, failure to act, or pattern of neglect on the part of their parents (s. 74(2)(h)).

[106] J.G. is a child in need of protection due to risk that he would suffer physical harm resulting from the failure of M.G. and G.C. to adequately care for him and address his needs (s. 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii)), as M.G. and G.C. have failed in the past with the three other children. As well, there is a risk that J.G. is likely to suffer emotional harm that would be evidenced by delayed development resulting from actions (parental conflict), failure to act (not seek required professional help to monitor J.G.’s development), and a pattern of neglect (inadequate stimulation and nurturing) (s. 74(2)(i)).

Issue Two: Is a Court Order Required?

[107] M.G. and G.C. have proposed caring for the children together. Neither has proposed that he or she, alone, have the care of the four children. Neither has proposed that fewer than all four children be returned to their care.

[108] Unfortunately, M.G. did not attend court to provide her evidence or to make submissions. Thus, the only evidence as to how M.G. and G.C. together could meet all of the children’s needs comes from G.C. His evidence has to be carefully scrutinized because it is clear from his interactions with Society workers and from the evidence he gave at trial that he does not accept that the concerns raised by the Society regarding M.G. and G.C.’s parenting of the children carried much validity. In his view, the children were well cared for by him and M.G. prior to their going into care and would be well cared for by them again if the Society would just let him and M.G. get on with parenting their children. I do not believe that, in his heart of hearts, he believes that anything has to change.

[109] I accept G.C.’s evidence that M.G. is a very loving mother, that she does not yell at her children, and that she is calm and soothing with them. I also accept his evidence that she is intelligent and creative and has the best interests of her children at heart. I accept G.C.’s evidence that he loves his children very much and wants nothing other than to parent them along side M.G.

Housing

[110] It is possible that the parents could offer housing stability in that they have managed to pay their bills for a year and a half in the townhouse they currently occupy and, physically, it is adequate accommodation for their family. This is presuming that the parents would have the financial resources to pay for all of the expenses associated with caring for four children in addition to paying the expenses associated with the townhouse – something they have not yet done. No evidence was tendered as to whether this plan is financially feasible. As well, the parents would have to maintain the interior of the home in a fashion safe and appropriate for children – something that has been hit and miss in the past.

Parental Conflict

[111] Although G.C. claims that he and M.G. are committed to each other and will not be separating, other evidence suggests that their relationship is dysfunctional and ripe with conflict that boils over into incidents requiring the intervention of third parties. I only need to refer to the observations of conflict chronicled by the Society workers together with the various police reports put in evidence. The communications between M.G. and Society workers over the last number of months about her desire to distance herself from G.C. are not reassuring.

[112] Additionally, aside from M.G. attending counselling at a shelter for abused women when she was residing there for a month or so, and aside from G.C. completing an eight-week anger management course through the John Howard Society, neither M.G. nor G.C. has made any effort to obtain individual or couples counselling to deal with the many issues that plague them from their own childhoods and to deal with the conflict that regularly flares within their relationship. It is too little too late for G.C. to now say that he has put aside some money to obtain individual counselling of whatever nature the court might consider helpful to make him a better spouse or parent.

Drug Dependency

[113] On […], 2019, J.G. was born with illicit drugs in his system. In November 2018, M.G. tested positive on two drug screening tests for a number of drugs, at an extremely high level. She did not attend the other four drug screens scheduled by the Society in the fall of 2018, and she refused to have any drug screens done in 2019. G.C. acknowledged that M.G. was using methamphetamine and amphetamine leading up to J.G.’s birth, though he claimed not to have realized that at the time. It is unclear from the evidence whether M.G. continues to use opiates, as she has done in the past. There is no evidence that M.G. has accessed any addiction services, even though she has been referred to them by the Society on numerous occasions. Considering M.G.’s history of drug abuse and the fact that she has not received any treatment for her addictions, it would be risky to return the children to her care.[^4]

Children’s Nutritional and Developmental Needs

[114] G.C. testified that he now realizes the importance of not giving the children as many sugar-laden foods or high caloric or fatty foods. M.G. has not testified as to her understanding in this regard. In the past, G.C. has criticized M.G. for being the parent who has provided sugar-laden foods. There is evidence that both parties have struggled to change their dietary habits with the children with inconsistent results. I have no confidence that a low-sugar and low-fat routine would be something both parents could maintain without Society intervention.

Mental Health

[115] According to G.C., after the trial was adjourned in October 2019, M.G. met with a physician and obtained medication for her depression. G.C. offered no details as to which physician was consulted and what medication was prescribed. According to G.C., M.G. has been a new woman since then. She is more punctual, she is cleaning and organizing the house, she is cooking meals, and she is more understanding and loving with G.C. Although M.G. may now be receiving some pharmacological treatment for her depression or social anxiety, there is inadequate evidence as to what this could mean on a go forward basis to address the mental health challenges facing M.G., as outlined in Dr. Wood’s Report. That M.G. missed much of the trial after its resumption on December 5, 2019, with no explanation forthcoming, suggests that she continues to have significant challenges preventing her from functioning in the normal course.

Ability to Attend Appointments

[116] A key concern preventing the children’s return to their parents is M.G.’s inability to follow through with required medical and dental appointments for the children, and medical and counselling appointments for herself. Three out of the four children are special needs children requiring regular intervention and follow-up with numerous professionals. Without regular support from professionals in the community, the children are at real risk of losing the developmental advances they have gained while in care and not continuing to develop in the normal course. That would be devastating for these children.

Family Court Clinic Assessment Overall Conclusions and Recommendations

[117] Regarding B.S., Dr. Wood recommended that he continue to receive specialized services through the Crossroads program with consideration being given to initiate a trial of ADHD medications, if warranted. It was also suggested that counselling with an individual trained in issues associated with children in care and from chaotic upbringings might be helpful. Finally, Dr. Wood stated: “B.S. would also benefit from remaining in a home that provides consistency, predictability, nurturance, and support while also being free of adult conflict and violence.”

[118] Regarding Z.C., Dr. Wood noted that although currently she does not present with any special needs, that was not the case when she came into care. At that time, she had developmental delays and exhibited signs of physical neglect, particularly with oral hygiene. The Family Court Clinic recommends that Z.C. remain in a home that is full of stimulation, nurturance, consistency, and predictability, as it seems that she has made good strides since coming into foster care. The Family Court Clinic also recommends that Z.C. be followed closely by a family physician or pediatrician every four months for a year to ensure that she continues to develop in accordance with a normal trajectory.

[119] Regarding F.C., Dr. Wood noted that F.C.’s developmental delays, dental decay, and lack of medical care, although identified in November 2016, did not result in any action being taken until April 2018, after F.C. came into foster care. He attributes F.C.’s special needs to neglect in the family home. The Family Court Clinic recommends that F.C. remain in a home that is full of stimulation, nurturance, consistency, and predictability with caregivers who are able to attend important appointments and to follow through on recommendations to fully address identified special needs.

[120] Regarding J.G., Dr. Wood advised that J.G.’s special needs arising from his being exposed to speed in utero will require ongoing monitoring for several years. In addition, medical concerns earlier identified will mean that he must be taken to several medical appointments that will require follow-through. Like all the other children, J.G. requires a home that is full of stimulation, nurturance, and support while being free of conflict and neglect. If the children are not provided with this type of environment, there is a risk that they will not realize their full potential in adult roles, including academics, employment, relationships, and parenting.

[121] The Family Court Clinic is pessimistic that M.G. and G.C. will be able to meet the long-term best interests of their children. Instead, the Clinic recommends that the children be placed in the extended care of the Society. The Clinic points to the following factors as supporting this recommendation:

• the inability of M.G. and G.C. to tend to their children’s developmental, emotional, medical, and dental needs prior to the birth of J.G. and the reality that J.G.’s presence in the home would put increased pressure on the parents regarding time management and planning;
• the dysfunctionality and instability of the parents’ relationship with frequent allegations of domestic violence; frequent intervention by the police; and poor, emotionally-charged communications;
• the inability or refusal of M.G. to seek support from counsellors or community programs to deal with her depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress, history of domestic abuse, drug dependency, and dysfunctional relationship with G.C.;
• the inability or refusal of G.C. to seek support from counsellors or community programs to deal with his anger management issues, post-traumatic stress, childhood neglect and abandonment issues, and dysfunctional relationship with M.G.;
• the parents’ drug addictions;
• M.G.’s inability to consistently attend access visits; and
• The parents’ likely inability to commit to long-term engagement in the services required by their children so that their children’s individualized needs can be met.

[122] The Family Court Clinic recommends that the possibility of B.S. remaining with Bo.S. be explored due to his bond with her, his contentment being in her home, his desire to be with family, and Bo.S.’s ability and willingness to work with the Society. The Clinic also recommends that Z.C. and F.C. remain with their current foster parents who had expressed an interest in offering a permanent placement for the girls if they were available for adoption. It was noted that the girls have settled well in this foster home, have a close bond with the foster parents, have a close bond with each other, and are having their special needs met. In regard to J.G., the Clinic recommends that he stay with his current foster parents if they were to propose a permanent placement or, as an alternative, he also be placed with the girls’ foster parents if they were willing to take all three children.

Conclusion Regarding Parents

[123] There is no doubt that a court order is required in order to protect the children and foster their best interests. There is a total absence of evidence that the children’s needs can be adequately met by their parents. On most days, M.G. could not manage to get herself to court to participate in the trial – despite being told how important it was for her to be there and provide evidence to the court about how she alone, or jointly with G.C., could take care of the children if the children were returned home. M.G. provided no evidence as to what steps, if any, she has taken to deal with mental health issues, relationship issues, or addiction issues. M.G. provided no evidence as to how her ability to care for the children has improved significantly since the children were taken into care. Thus, returning the children to the care of M.G. and G.C., without any conditions imposed, is simply not an option.

Issue Three: What is in the Children’s Best Interests?

Legislative Principles

[124] The paramount purpose of the Act is to promote the best interests, protection, and well-being of children (s. 1(1) of the Act). Additional purposes, as long as they are consistent with the best interests, protection, and well-being of children, include: (1) help given to parents in caring for their children should support the autonomy and integrity of the family unit; and (2) the least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child should be considered (s. 1(2) of the Act). Furthermore, services to children should be provided in a manner that:

• Respects a child’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment;
• Takes into account physical, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children;
• Takes into account a child’s disability, among other specific attributes;
• Takes into account a child’s cultural and linguistic needs;
• Provides early assessment, planning and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children in accordance with their best interests; and
• Includes the participation of a child, the child’s parents and relatives and the members of the child’s extended family and community, where appropriate. (See s. 1(2) of the Act.)

[125] Under s. 74(3)(a) of the Act, the court is obliged to consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained.

[126] As well, under s. 74(3)(b) of the Act, in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, the court must consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and tradition, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the other considerations informing what is in the child’s best interests.

Children’s Views and Wishes

B.S.

[127] Alisha Parks was B.S.’s child protection worker from March 28, 2018 until the end of June, 2019, though she has spoken to him subsequently, at his request. On a number of occasions during this period, B.S. spoke of his desire to return home to his mother and father; however, he also expressed the concern that, if their relationship had not improved and if they were continuing to fight, he would have to come back into care and might be placed in a foster home that was not as good as the one where he was. He also said that when he went back to his parents, he would need a home, good food, and help with his homework. He spoke of how he would try to intervene when his parents were fighting to calm everyone down. He also spoke of how he needed space when things became stressful. If he got overwhelmed with the noise or conflict in his environment, he acted out.

[128] Everyone testified as to B.S.’s strong connection with his mother. This is not in dispute. He also has a strong connection to his two younger sisters, and he was very excited about the birth of his young brother, J.G. The totality of the evidence suggests that, although B.S. considers G.C. his father and loves him, their relationship historically has been more challenging and complicated than B.S.’s relationship with his mother. G.C.’s tendency to engage in power struggles with B.S., to hound him about his language or disrespectful behaviour, and to demand respect, triggers outbursts from B.S. Also, G.C. is less sensitive to B.S.’s need for attention and emotional support than is M.G.

[129] According to D.G., B.S. did not speak that much about his family but gave him the impression that he liked them. B.S. displayed increased anxiety whenever he was anticipating an access visit. On the following day, he was calmer if the person expected at the visit had come than if they had skipped the visit.

[130] According to K.M., B.S. speaks a lot, and very positively, about his grandmother, Bo.S., and her partner, A.J. He talks about Bo.S. taking him to skating and A.J. taking him to basketball. He does not speak as much about his family.

[131] On July 15, 2019, B.S. told Dr. Wood of the Family Court Clinic that his preference was to go back to his mother and father’s home along with his siblings; however, he also stated that he was happy in his grandmother’s home. If he owned a mansion and could choose who would live there, he would choose his mother, father, siblings, Bo.S., and A.J.

[132] On July 25, 2019, in an exercise with Alisha Parks, B.S. identified Bo.S.’s house as the “house of good things” and identified as positive things: having friends there, going for bike rides, and going to the pool. Included in his worries were when he was not with his mother and father and wondering if they were safe. Included in his wishes were to go back with his parents or sleep over at his parents’ house.

[133] Debra Webber, B.S.’s kindship worker in 2013 and then again since July 2018, has met with B.S. on two occasions recently. At a meeting on November 18, 2019 attended by Bo.S., A.J., B.S., and Debra Webber at the home of Bo.S., B.S. said that he would be happy remaining with his grandmother, if the judge made that decision. This interaction occurred near the end of a meeting of an hour or longer during which Debra Webber discussed with B.S. his understanding of why he had been taken into care and what his life had been like when he had been living with his parents. Eliciting B.S.’s views and preferences in the presence of B.S.’s grandmother and her partner was not an ideal way to go about things. Normally, a meeting during which such information would be sought would be done in private with B.S. or perhaps B.S. and his lawyer. Nevertheless, what B.S. said is not surprising. It is consistent with what B.S. had told D.G., namely that he loved Bo.S., enjoyed her company, and wanted to be with her. It is also consistent with Debra Webber’s observations that B.S. has a very close relationship with Bo.S. and A.J. and that both are well able to manage B.S.’s behaviour. Bo.S. takes a calm, logical approach with B.S. and gives him space when he needs it before talking through what is bothering him.

[134] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer was appointed to represent B.S. Sheldon Cherner acted as his counsel. At the commencement of the trial, Mr. Cherner advised that B.S.’s instructions were that he wanted to return home to his parents. During the course of the trial, those instructions to counsel changed. Before the end of the trial, Mr. Cherner advised that B.S. wanted to stay with his grandmother. In light of this change, I gave M.G., G.C., and the Society the opportunity to recall witnesses or to call new witnesses out of order if they wished to elicit further evidence regarding B.S.’s views and preferences and what would be in B.S.’s best interests. M.G., G.C., and the Society all declined this offer and called no additional evidence.

[135] At the conclusion of the evidence at trial, I was advised by Mr. Cherner that B.S. had requested to meet with me, and Mr. Cherner urged me to comply with this request because B.S. felt very strongly about it. Somewhat reluctantly, I agreed to do so. I did not feel that I needed to meet with B.S. to understand his views and preferences at this time and how they fit in with his best interests. However, Mr. Cherner expressed the view that it was very important to B.S. to have the opportunity of speaking directly with me. Furthermore, s. 3 of the Act reinforces the importance of allowing children to express their own views freely about matters affecting them and to be engaged in the decision-making process and have their views taken into account in accordance with their age and maturity. Trusting Mr. Cherner’s judgment that a meeting between B.S. and myself would be in B.S.’s best interests, I agreed to see him. On the agreement of all counsel and M.G., it was understood prior to the meeting that I would not take into consideration when determining B.S.’s views and preferences what he told me during our meeting but, instead, would rely solely on the evidence presented during the trial. Present at the meeting were B.S., Mr. Cherner, a court reporter and me. The morning after the meeting, a transcript of the meeting was provided to all parties. There was nothing that B.S. said to me during our brief meeting that challenged the evidence presented at trial regarding his current views and preferences and that led me to conclude that I required further evidence or submissions from counsel on this subject.

[136] Stephen Pender, G.C.’s counsel, urged me to ignore B.S.’s current expression of his wishes and instead to accept his earlier expression about wanting to return home to his parents as being his true preference. Mr. Pender reminded me that when considering a child’s wishes, the consistency of those wishes, the strength of the wishes, and the independence of the wishes should all be taken into account. My assessment of B.S.’s wishes is that, although in the ideal world where his mother and G.C. were not in a conflictual relationship, where they were able to provide him and his siblings with a proper home, where there was calm and organization within the household, and where his educational needs and the needs of his siblings were being met, B.S. would like to return home, but that is not how he currently perceives the environment in his parents’ home. He worries about the ongoing conflict between his parents and his mother’s apparent inability to take care of herself, let alone four children.

[137] B.S. has consistently told third parties that he loves his grandmother and is happy in her care. When stating the individuals he wanted in his home, he included his grandmother and A.J. along with his parents and siblings. Although his recent meeting with Ms. Webber could not be considered a meeting in an independent setting, B.S. gave the same expression of wishes to his own lawyer in an independent setting. Thus, I am satisfied that what I am now hearing from Mr. Cherner about B.S.’s wishes is genuine.

Z.C. and F.C.

[138] Z.C. and F.C. are too young to be able to express their views and wishes in a way that would be relevant to a consideration as to what would be in their long-term best interests. However, certain things are clear from the evidence. They are happy and settled in their new home. They have structure and routine, they receive nutritious food, their medical and dental needs are being tended to, they regularly attend school, they are overcoming the developmental delays observed when they entered care, and they have foster parents and an extended family who provide them with much love and security. The children’s positive response to the environment in which they currently reside is some evidence as to how they are feeling now compared to how they were feeling when in the care of their parents.

First Nations and Métis Community

[139] As mentioned earlier, at the commencement of the first trial on October 21, 2019, M.G. advised that her father and her paternal grandmother identified as Algonquin and were connected to the Golden Lake Reserve whose band name is the Algonquins of Pikwakanagan. M.G. lived with her paternal grandmother between the ages of six and twelve. During this period, she regularly attended pow-wows on the reserve. According to M.G., her paternal grandmother still goes to the reserve and has taken B.S. if he is staying with her. M.G. testified that, as an adult, she has not followed any of the traditional practices of the Algonquin First Nation, and she did not want any services from that First Nation. She has not involved her children in any Algonquin practices or traditions. M.G. does not have a healthy relationship with her father and does not want to revisit that relationship.

[140] M.G. could have testified at this trial as to her father’s heritage, the extent to which that heritage has become part of the children’s cultural identity, and what connection, if any, the children have to her father or any First Nations community. She chose not to testify and, therefore, all the court has is M.G.’s brief testimony on October 21, 2019, at the commencement of the earlier trial. The only evidence tendered at this trial regarding the children’s status as First Nations children is that of G.C. that M.G.’s father is Algonquin from Gaspé. He could add nothing more.

[141] During the child protection litigation in 2012-2014 concerning B.S., and during the current litigation commencing in 2016 concerning all of the children, at no time did M.G. indicate that the children had native status, were First Nations children, identified as First Nations children, were a member of any First Nations band or community, or had been exposed to any First Nations culture or heritage. On the contrary, at every instance when the issue was raised, she advised that the children did not have native status and she never asserted that having a First Nations grandfather and earlier First Nations ancestors was a meaningful part of the children’s identity. I am not saying this to be critical of M.G. for not raising this issue earlier. I believe that she completed the Affidavits of Birth, Parentage, and Religion under the CFSA honestly and accurately when she was presented with them. Once the Act came into force, the onus was on the Society to explore fully with M.G. and G.C. the possibility that the children were First Nations, Inuk, or Métis, as those terms are defined in the Act. The Society failed to do that. Thus, at trial, Society witnesses were unable to provide any evidence regarding the importance of First Nations culture to the children. What I glean from the earlier affidavits completed by M.G. is evidence that the children’s connection to the First Nations community is tenuous at best and has not, as of yet, been an important aspect of their cultural identity.

[142] G.C. testified that his mother is Métis. My understanding of G.C.’s evidence is that this heritage is important to his mother, but it is not a heritage to which he exposed any of the children while they were in his care. He testified that, if the children were returned to his care, he would expose the children to First Nations or Métis cultural practices and traditions in a variety of ways. The impression left from his evidence was that G.C. was promising to do this in the hope of improving his chances of having the children returned to their parents’ care rather than through any true connection he felt or wanted his children to feel to First Nations or Métis culture. The only connection to First Nations culture in his youth that he referred to was that he had many aboriginal friends growing up in Vanier, and he used to attend pow-wows and engage in smudging with those friends. He did not refer to this being a part of his family life when growing up or part of his mother’s traditions. G.C. provided no evidence that, to date, he has exposed his children to any First Nations or Métis traditions or cultural practices. As well, he provided no evidence as to what, if any, continuing relationship he or his children have to his mother. G.C. described how his mother had not provided him with a secure and stable home when he was young and how his mother had abandoned him on the streets of Vancouver when he was only 15. The court cannot assume that G.C.’s mother or extended family plays any role, whatsoever, in G.C.’s life or the life of his children.

[143] No members of any First Nations or Métis community have stepped forward with a plan of care for the children. There is no evidence before the court that any member of the children’s extended family on either M.G. or G.C.’s side has been identified as a potential caregiver for any of the children.

Disposition

[144] Under s. 101(3) of the Act, the court shall not make an order removing a child from the care of the person who had charge of the child immediately before child protection proceedings were instituted unless the court is satisfied that alternatives that are less disruptive to the child would be inadequate to protect the child.

Supervision Order

[145] There is nothing in the evidence that would allow me to conclude that returning any of the children to M.G. and G.C. at this time, subject to a supervision order of between three and 12 months, would be adequate to meet their best interests. Voluntary agreements and supervision orders were tried in the past and did not work. M.G. did not pursue any of the avenues available to her to get help for her mental health, relationship, and addiction issues, aside from very briefly receiving some counselling while she was in the shelter. Although M.G. would act cooperatively with Society workers when in face-to-face encounters, that cooperation was shallow. She listened to their advice and suggestions and took their referrals – but she did not follow through to enable real change to happen. Often she refused to take their calls or refused to answer the door when they made unannounced visits. She did not attend medical appointments scheduled for her or the children. She did not attend many Society meetings scheduled to discuss plans for her and the children. She missed numerous access visits. There is nothing to suggest that the future would be any different than the past. Of particular concern was that, even after the girls were diagnosed in November 2016 as having significant developmental delays and other medical concerns, M.G. took no steps whatsoever to deal with those concerns.

[146] In the past, G.C. struggled to work cooperatively with child protection workers and, in fact, showed a high level of anger and aggressivity toward them. He does not believe that the Society had any valid reason to remove the children from him and M.G. when they did. He sincerely believes that he and M.G. were providing a good home for the children and were adequately meeting the children’s needs, despite much evidence to the contrary. He ignores the fact that Z.C. and F.C. had significant developmental delay and serious tooth decay when they were taken into care and that J.G. was born with various drugs in his system due to M.G.’s use of illicit drugs during her pregnancy. He downplays the mental health challenges faced by himself and M.G. To his credit, he took an anger management course through the John Howard Society, possibly as part of his response to recent convictions for criminal offences, but he has not pursued any individual counselling to deal with the aftereffects of a very difficult childhood that impact on his ability to parent. As well, he has not pursued any couples counselling with M.G. to reduce the conflict in their relationship that has had such a negative impact on their children. Saying that he is now thinking of pursuing counselling is too little too late. G.C. provided heartfelt testimony about how much he and M.G. love their children – something I do not doubt. Unfortunately, loving one’s children – as important as that is – is not enough to make an effective parent. Just like M.G., G.C. took no steps to respond to the significant developmental delays and medical concerns raised by Dr. Ward in 2016 in regard to the girls.

[147] Placing B.S. is the care of M.G. and G.C. subject to a supervision order would be inadequate to meet his needs. In the past, M.G. and G.C. were unable to get B.S. to school on a regular basis. There is no evidence that M.G. and G.C. would be able to maintain B.S.’s regular attendance at school or would be able to coordinate with the school to assist with his progress. In fact, the evidence is that M.G. has chosen not to attend various school interviews. There is no convincing evidence that the level of conflict between M.G. and G.C. has reduced – their conflict being something that leads to B.S.’s emotional dysregulation. There is no evidence that M.G. and G.C. would be able to keep B.S. engaged in the extra-curricular activities that are so important to his self-esteem. They were unable to do this in the past. B.S.’s ADHD, behavioural, and educational challenges call for a caregiver who is calm, sensitive, consistent, and predictable in a home that offers stability, security, peace, and one-on-one interactions.

[148] A supervision order is unlikely to meet the needs of the three younger children. All require very competent parents who have the wherewithal to get the children to numerous medical and dental appointments, to engage the children in a variety of community experiences such as playgroups and libraries, to be proactive in the face of the children’s special needs, and to offer the children constant and consistent supervision, support, and stimulation. All require a home that is peaceful and organized with healthy interpersonal and social interactions and consistent emotional support. These are not things that can be accomplished through supervision orders if the parents are unwilling or unable to follow conditions.

Community Placement

[149] Before making an interim society care or extended society care order, the court must consider under s. 101(4) of the Act whether it is possible to place the child with a relative, neighbour or other member of the child’s community or extended family subject to a supervision order under s. 101(1)1 of the Act. The desire to place the children with a member of their extended family led to B.S. being placed in the interim care of his grandmother, Bo.S., and more will be said of that option shortly. However, the Society was unable to identify any other relative, neighbour, or community member who was willing or able to assume care of any of the other three children. The parents did not identify any such person, and no such person submitted a plan of care.

Interim Society Care

[150] B.S. was in interim society care from June 8, 2012 to February 19, 2013 and then again from March 29, 2018 to June 27, 2019, for a total of 23.5 months. No current plan of care for B.S. contemplates his being in interim society care, and there is nothing in the evidence suggesting that interim society care would be in B.S.’s best interests. The only plans being proposed for B.S. are for him to remain in the custody of his grandmother, Bo.S., or for him to be returned to his parents’ care, possibly subject to a supervision order. Under s. 122(1)(b) of the Act, as a child nine years of age, B.S. should not be in the care and custody of the Society for a period exceeding 24 months, plus any six-month extensions contemplated under s. 122(5) of the Act. These time limits are of no relevance where interim society care is not being sought.

[151] Z.C. and F.C. have been in the interim care of the Society since March 29, 2018, a period exceeding 21 months. This is already well over the time limit of 12 months stipulated in s. 122(1)(a) of the Act for children younger than six on the date the court makes the order that they be kept in interim society care. There is conflicting case law as to how s. 122(5) of the Act dealing with an extension to the time limit should be interpreted.

[152] Some courts have applied a liberal and flexible interpretation to the provisions and have interpreted s. 122(5) of the Act (or its predecessor under the CFSA) to mean that one or more six-month extensions could be granted to keep children in interim society care beyond the time they have been in care as of the making of the order, even if that time is well over the time limit stipulated in the Act (see Children’s Aid Society of Manitoulin and Sudbury v. M.(P.), 2002 46663 (Ont.C.J.), at para. 103; Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. D.(B.), 2002 61172 (S.C.J.), at para.51; Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. W.L., 2012 ONCJ 408, at paras. 181 and 188; and Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. R.E.M., 2017 ONCJ 659, 8 R.F.L. (8^th^) 244, at paras. 6-32).

[153] Other courts have interpreted s. 122 of the Act in a more restrictive fashion, finding that the legislature intended for children not to be in interim society care on a potentially open-ended basis with one or more six-month extensions being allowed beyond the date of the order. Those courts have found that the intention of the legislature was to set maximum periods of time for children to be in interim society care prior to more permanent arrangements being made for them (18 months if the child is under six and 30 months if the child is six or older) (see Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. O.(M.), 2014 ONSC 2435, at paras. 25-26; and Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.C., 2019 ONSC 4229, at paras. 157-159).

[154] I see no need to wade into the murky waters as to which interpretation of s. 122 of the Act is correct. Regardless of which interpretation is used, the same caveat applies that no extension to the time limits in s. 122(1) of the Act may be granted unless it is in the children’s best interest to do so. Z.C. and F.C. both need a stable, secure, and conflict-free home where they are provided with good nutrition, ample verbal and social stimulation, consistent care, and access to all of the medical, dental, and therapeutic services they require to achieve good health and normal development. On the basis of the evidence at trial, I cannot foresee M.G. and G.C. being in a position to provide such a home to Z.C. and F.C. in the foreseeable future – regardless of whatever further services are offered to them by the Society. Thus, I conclude that it is not open to me to extend the period of interim society care for Z.C. and F.C. in the hope that their parents will take whatever steps are necessary to become adequate parents for these girls. Sherr J. approached similar circumstances in the same fashion in Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. Y.M., 2019 ONCJ 489, at para. 219. In that case, he stated at para. 227:

A child’s need for permanency planning within a timeframe sensitive to that child’s needs demands that the legal process not be used as a strategy to “buy” a parent time to develop an ability to parent. In child protection proceedings, the genuineness of an issue must arise from something more than a heartfelt expression of a parent’s desire to resume care of the child. There must be an arguable notion discernible from a parent’s evidence that they face some better prospects than what existed at the time of the society’s removal of the child from their care and has developed some new ability as a parent. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. R.H., 2000 3158 (ON CJ), [2000] O.J. No. 5853 (Ont. C.J.).

[155] J.G. has been in care for over nine months. Although it would be open to the court to make an order for J.G. to continue in interim society care for an additional nine-month period (three months plus an extension of six months), for the reasons already given in regard to Z.C. and F.C., such an order would not be in J.G.’s best interests. What I needed to hear during this trial before I could seriously consider returning any of the children to their parents’ care was evidence of real change or evidence that the parents were on the road to real change. That evidence was not forthcoming.

Custody Order for B.S.

[156] It is in B.S.’s best interests, and in keeping with his current views and wishes, for him to remain in the care of his grandmother, Bo.S. This could either be done pursuant to a supervision order to Bo.S. or pursuant to an order under s. 102(1) of the Act placing B.S. in the custody of Bo.S. I accept the submission of Sheldon Cherner, B.S.’s counsel, that in order to give finality to B.S.’s situation and more stability and permanence to his placement in Bo.S.’s care, it is appropriate that there be a custody order and not a supervision order. The latter is unnecessary in that the Society has no protection concerns regarding Bo.S.’s care of B.S. A supervision order would prolong uncertainty in B.S.’s life by keeping his case before the court for status reviews.

[157] I am confident that Bo.S. is committed to B.S.’s well-being, she will make his needs a priority in her life, and she has the physical, emotional, cognitive, and practical skills and energy to make a success of things. B.S. is happy in her care. He loves her and feels loved by her and her partner, A.J. He is attending school regularly – a school that addresses his special needs. His behaviour at school has improved significantly over that of last year. Bo.S. remains in close contact with and acts cooperatively with B.S.’s school. B.S. has friends near Bo.S.’s home. Bo.S. and A.J. are keeping B.S. active in the sports that he loves and at which he excels. Bo.S. seems to know how to de-escalate situations that frustrate B.S. and trigger his outbursts. B.S. seems able to talk freely with A.J.

[158] Keeping B.S. in Bo.S.’s home will foster continuity in B.S.’s care and build upon the sense of security, stability, and well-being that he experiences in his grandmother’s home. Considering all of the moves B.S. experienced when he was living with his parents, as well as the number of settings that were unsuitable to meet his needs, and considering how long B.S. has spent during his short life in the care of people other than his parents, it is very important that B.S. not be exposed further to such instability and uncertainty. He needs to be able to bond fully with his caregiver in a secure and stable setting where anxiety is kept at bay to whatever extent possible.

[159] Bo.S. is open to fostering B.S.’s on-going contact with his siblings and, if required, with his parents. That is an important consideration because Bo.S. is attached to his mother and to his siblings – particularly his sisters. Bo.S. is to be commended for stepping up and assuming responsibility for B.S. so that he can remain “with family” – something that is very important to B.S.

Extended Society Care Order for Z.C., F.C., and J.G.

[160] It is in the best interests of Z.C., F.C., and J.G. to be placed in extended society care so that permanency planning can begin. These children need to have a stable, secure, and permanent home with parents they can rely on. The sooner this can be accomplished, the better it will be for these young children to meet their developmental milestones and achieve physical and emotional health. The girls are already very attached to their foster parents and are blossoming in their care. The foster parents are prepared to adopt the girls if the girls become available for adoption. The girls’ foster parents are also prepared to adopt J.G., if his current foster parents do not apply to adopt him. This willingness on the part of the girls’ foster parents to make room in their lives for J.G. shows their commitment to the best interests of all of these children. The girls’ foster parents are also prepared to have continuing contact between the girls and B.S. and the girls and their parents, consistent with what would be in the girls’ best interests. Having the girls continue to live with their foster parents, with access to their brothers, provides continuity of care and allows the girls to build upon the physical, developmental, and social advances and the emotional attachments that they have made while in the care of these foster parents.

[161] Having J.G. placed in an adoptive home – be it that of his current foster parents, that of the girls’ foster parents, or another adoptive home – at the earliest opportunity, will ensure that he has the greatest opportunity to form a strong attachment to parents and to experience a sense of safety, security, and stability in a permanent home. He will also be ensured access to all of the professional services he may require to enhance his development in all spheres.

[162] I am confident that the interests of facilitating a connection between the children and their First Nations and Métis heritage can be adequately protected and fostered by the Society following the provisions in ss. 186-187 of the Act when it is engaged in adoption planning. One aspect of such planning will be a consideration of whether, in the circumstances of this case, an openness order regarding M.G. and G.C. would be appropriate.

Access

[163] Under s. 104(1) of the Act, the court may, in the child’s best interests, when making an order under the child protection provisions in the Act, make, vary, or terminate an order respecting a person’s access to the child or the child’s access to a person.

B.S.

[164] Under s. 105(2) of the Act, if a custody order is made under s. 102, the court shall make an order for access by the person who had care of the child prior to intervention under the Act unless the court is satisfied that continued contact will not be in the child’s best interests.

[165] As has already been stated, B.S. has a strong attachment to his mother. He wants to see her and enjoys his visits with her. The most significant issue undermining B.S.’s relationship with his mother is her spotty attendance record at access visits and her coming to access visits late. Clearly, M.G. has found it challenging to have access visits three times a week with all her children in addition to one extra visit with J.G. Friday mornings. Her inconsistency causes B.S. emotional harm. It adds an unnecessary layer of anxiety with which he has to cope on two school days a week and on Saturday mornings. B.S. does not need this additional anxiety in his life. Thus, although I am not satisfied that the continued contact with M.G. – if consistent – will not be in B.S.’s best interests, I am satisfied that, if M.G. shows inconsistency in her attendance at visits or in her timeliness in arriving at visits, that would mean that continued contact would not be in B.S.’s best interests.

[166] The Family Court Clinic recommended that, assuming M.G. could show consistency regarding access, B.S. and M.G. be allowed to have intermittent phone contact that could occur perhaps once every two weeks as well as a regular access visit that could occur initially perhaps once every month and then, if M.G. showed consistency, once every two weeks. Dr. Wood assumed that any phone contact or access visits between M.G. and B.S. would be supervised by the Society until such time as M.G. could show consistency with her access and progress in regard to the other protection concerns leading to B.S. being in care. In that a custody order has been made in favour of Bo.S., there is no further involvement of the Society, and the Society would have no role to play in regard to M.G.’s access to B.S.

[167] Bo.S. indicated that she would be prepared to afford access to M.G. and G.C. twice a week and she would be prepared to supervise that access in a public place. Bo.S. had a relationship with M.G. in the past, and it is likely that she could work with M.G. in the future. Bo.S.’s relationship with G.C. has been more problematic in the past, and it likely would be more challenging for Bo.S. to coordinate access visits with him going forward; nevertheless, Bo.S. would try to make access for G.C. work if it were ordered by the court.

[168] I find that B.S. does not have a strong bond with G.C. and, in fact, G.C.’s involvement in B.S.’s life has, at times, created increased anxiety on B.S.’s part and increased concern about G.C.’s interactions with other members of the family, most notably M.G. There does not appear to be any advantage of having G.C. participate in visits between M.G. and B.S.; in fact, having M.G. and G.C. in the same room increases B.S.’s vigilance and anxiety – particularly if there is any display of conflict. In regard to B.S. seeing G.C. separately from M.G., it is hard to identify what benefit that would bring to B.S. at this time. In the past, when he has been told that his mother will not be attending access visits, B.S. has chosen to forego the visit rather than attending so that he can see G.C. As well, G.C.’s approach to B.S. has, on numerous occasions, led to emotional outbursts on the part of B.S. I am satisfied that, at this time, continued contact between G.C. and B.S. will not be in B.S.’s best interests. I make no access order regarding contact between B.S. and G.C.

[169] An order is made under s. 102(1) of the Act granting custody of B.S. to Bo.S. with access to M.G., in the discretion of Bo.S., in keeping with the views, wishes, and best interests of B.S. The recommendation is to start with those visits being once every two weeks for a couple of hours Saturday or Sunday afternoon, in a public place, with the exact day and time being at Bo.S.’s convenience, taking into account other activities and commitments in B.S.’s life. If consistent with B.S.’s views and wishes, and in his best interests as determined by Bo.S., telephone access could also occur between B.S. and M.G. at other times. Should M.G. not be consistent in attending access visits in a timely manner, they should be discontinued so as to minimize any anxiety or stress imposed on B.S.

Z.C., F.C., and J.G.

[170] Under s. 105(4) of the Act, where the court makes an order that a child be in extended society care, any earlier order for access made in child protection proceedings with respect to the child is terminated. Under s. 105(5) of the Act, the court shall not make an order granting access to a child in extended society care unless the court is satisfied that the order would be in the child’s best interests. All of the factors set out in s. 74(3) of the Act regarding the child’s best interests come into play. As well, in determining whether an order would be in the child’s best interests, the court shall consider under s. 105(6) of the Act whether the relationship between the person and the child is beneficial and meaningful to the child, and, if the court considers it relevant, whether the ordered access will impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption. (See Kawartha-Haliburton Children’s Aid Society v. M.W., 2019 ONCA 316, at paras. 47-49.)

[171] Both M.G. and G.C. show affection to the three younger children and the children are affectionate with their parents, particularly M.G. The interactions between the parents and these children during access visits have been, on the most part, positive, aside from the issue of the type and quantity of food that was provided to them during those visits and the children being exposed to some parental conflict. The three younger children appear to be attached to M.G. Z.C. does not show much of an attachment to G.C. F.C.’s attachment to both parents appears to be somewhat more balanced. Of some significance is that both Z.C. and F.C. are overly clingy with their foster parents following their visits with M.G. and G.C., which may signal that the sense of stability and security that the girls are developing in the care of their foster parents is shaken somewhat through exposure to their parents. F.C. has also shown significant separation anxiety when dropped off at daycare. The evidence was too scant to allow me to draw any conclusions as to J.G.’s level of attachment to his parents. All I can say in his regard is that both parents appeared able to tend to his basic needs during access visits and both were affectionate and loving with him.

[172] What these children appear to require at this time is stability and a sense of permanency in their living arrangements and the opportunity to form a healthy attachment with their adoptive parents, whether those are their current foster parents or other adoptive parents. To this end, the Family Court Clinic recommended that contact between M.G. and G.C. and the three younger children be limited to several times a year on special occasions, such as Christmas and birthdays. Further contact through an exchange of letters and photographs would also be possible. I accept this recommendation.

[173] One reason why it is important for the children to continue to have their parents involved in their lives is that their parents are potential conduits to the children’s First Nations and Métis heritage. Although neither M.G. nor G.C. has actively pursued contact with their First Nations and Métis roots, that may not always be the case. My understanding is that M.G. does not wish to have contact with her father, who is First Nations, due to his treatment of her when she was a child. That is understandable. But in the future, if her children show an interest in exploring their First Nations’ heritage, M.G. might be able to open some doors for them or at least tell them what she knows about her family’s story. It is the same situation with G.C., whose Métis mother abandoned him when he was a teenager. There was no evidence that G.C. maintains contact with her or with the Métis culture. That may be different in the future, particularly if the children show an interest.

[174] The girls have a loving and affectionate relationship with their mother and enjoy seeing her. Although their relationship with their father is more complicated, they have to a greater or lesser extent enjoyed his affection and attention during access visits. I find that the relationship between M.G. and the girls is beneficial and meaningful to them and that the relationship between G.C. and the girls is beneficial and meaningful to them, though to a lesser extent than the relationship with their mother. I consider it in the children’s long-term best interests if their parents do not fade away from their lives as if they no longer love their children and no longer want to be part of their lives, because that would be a total mischaracterization of the situation.

[175] On the other hand, I find that frequent contact between the children and their parents would be detrimental to the children’s best interests. It would perpetuate instability and insecurity in their lives, put additional stress on them in terms of time-management and transitions, and take time away from them developing a solid attachment with their foster or adoptive parents. It is time for the children to have a more normal routine within the foster family. Instead of spending two evenings a week and Saturday mornings at the Society’s access centre (with J.G. having a fourth visit on Fridays), the children could be engaged in one-on-one time with their foster parents, receiving added stimulation through other community supports or activities, making friends in their neighbourhood, getting to know the foster family’s extended family, and generally being less regulated in terms of mandated outings. In my view, this would assist in the developmental goals established for the children. It would reduce the logistical stress on the foster parents, who have to juggle their own work schedule with the numerous access visits the children have during the week and the other appointments the children require to manage their special needs. It would also reduce the emotional reaction of the children to access visits in the form of separation anxiety on the part of the girls.

[176] In my view, the limited access recommended by the Family Court Clinic would not significantly impair the children’s future opportunities for adoption. The girls’ foster parents have indicated their interest in adopting the girls and J.G. (if J.G.’s foster parents do not apply to adopt him). The girls’ foster parents are open to their being continuing contact between the children and their parents. In placing the children for adoption, the obligation will be on the Society to respect the children’s First Nations and Métis roots and to ensure that the adoptive family or families are alive to the importance of enabling the children to explore and embrace those roots.

[177] If I were considering J.G. on his own, I would have questioned whether an access order was in his best interests. The evidence was sparse as to whether the current relationship between J.G. and his parents is particularly beneficial and meaningful to J.G. M.G. and G.C. are loving and affectionate with J.G., but their poor attendance for Friday visits suggests that they do not, at this time, have a particularly strong attachment to him. J.G. has been in care since immediately following his birth, and his primary attachment is to his foster parents, not his biological parents. However, J.G. is one of a number of siblings. I consider it in his best interests to maintain a relationship with his siblings. It would be harmful for J.G. if he was the only sibling who had no further contact with his parents while one or both of his parents had continuing contact with B.S., Z.C., and F.C. As J.G. gets older and understands what is happening, his being singled out as not having any contact with his parents would give him a negative message. It is in this context that I find that the on-going relationship of J.G. to his parents is beneficial and meaningful to J.G.

[178] In conclusion, M.G. and G.C. each have a right of access to Z.C., F.C., and J.G., such access to be limited to special occasions, such as Christmas and the children’s birthdays, with the details of such access in regard to level of supervision, timing, and locale to be at the discretion of the Society following consultation with the children’s foster parents, and all in keeping with the children’s best interests. As with M.G.’s access to B.S., the parents’ access to the three younger children should be discontinued if the parents are not consistent in exercising access or if they expose the children to conflict or other inappropriate parenting behaviour.

Sibling Access

[179] The siblings are close to one another and really care about one another. It is very important that their sibling bond not be broken and that they all have continuing access to one another. For a considerable period of time, the children have seen one another three times a week during the supervised access visits at the Society offices. Going forward, the children will miss those visits.

[180] B.S. is granted access to Z.C., F.C., and J.G. under the Act, such access to be at the discretion of the Society in keeping with the wishes and best interests of all of the children. I would recommend that such access be on alternate weekends when B.S. does not have access visits with M.G., and, in any event, at a frequency of at least once a month. As well, all efforts should be made for the siblings to see one another for special and important events, such as Christmas and their birthdays. The evidence is strong that B.S. has always looked out for his younger siblings and part of their sense of security likely comes from knowing they have a big brother who cares deeply for them. As well, part of B.S.’s feeling of being a member of a family comes from his connection with his younger siblings.

Conclusion

[181] As always, it was with a sad heart that I made an order that the four children in this family would not be returning to their parents – parents who clearly love them and want to care for them. What makes me particularly sad in this case is that M.G. and G.C. had such difficult childhoods themselves. Through no fault of their own, they were subjected to various forms of abuse and neglect when they were children and youth. They did not have their own needs met – whether physical, emotional, social, or educational. They had no stability or security in their own home lives. The adults who should have taken care of them abused, neglected, or abandoned them while exposing them to a life of poverty, violence, drug addiction, and criminality. M.G. and G.C. struggled to survive their early years and they have tried to rise above the self-destructive patterns to which they were introduced. However, the reality is that the harm done to them when they were children and youth continues to impact their ability to take care of themselves, each other, and their children. They have made some progress on their own individual journeys to better physical and mental health, healthier relationships, greater stability, and greater self-sufficiency, but they still have a way to go. Their children cannot wait for them to reach their goal of being well-functioning parents because the children have needs that have to be provided for right away. It is my hope that M.G. and G.C. will understand this, despite their profound disappointment with my decision, and will assist their children during this period of transition.

Aitken J.

Released: January 10, 2020

COURT FILE NO.: FC-12-1361-2

DATE: 2020/01/10

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: Z.C. (DOB: […], 2014), F.C. (DOB: […], 2015), J.G. (DOB: […], 2019), B.S. (DOB: […], 2010)

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Applicant

• and -

M.G. G.C. Algonquins of Pikwakanagan Respondents

reasons for decision

Aitken J.

Released: January 10, 2020

[^1]: In this decision, Z.-L.C. is referred to as Z.C. and J.-A.G. is referred to as J.G. [^2]: Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. M.G., 2019 ONSC 6142. [^3]: According to Alisha Parks, unfortunately, Z.C. “aged out” before she made it through the wait list for this service. [^4]: The evidence is that G.C. has had regular clean drug screens through his attendance at Recovery Ottawa and that for many years he has been a faithful participant in the Suboxone treatment program offered by Dr. Ujjanwalla to deal with his opiate addiction.