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-21-118

DATE: December 20, 2021

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

BETWEEN: Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County v. L.R.1 and J.B.

BEFORE: Honourable Mr. Justice Martin James

COUNSEL: Deborah Souder, Counsel for the Applicant Terese Ferri, Counsel for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer Jeanette Songolo, Duty Counsel for L.R.1 L.R.1, Self-Represented J.B., Self-Represented and in Default Deirdre Newman, Friend of the Court on behalf of L.R.1

DATE HEARD: October 26, 2021

REASONS FOR DECISION

James J

Introduction

[1] These are the Reasons for Decision in relation to a temporary care and custody motion (“TCC”) brought by the Applicant, Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County (“FCS”).

[2] The Respondent, L.R.1, is the mother of E.R., also known as G.R., age 15. Ms. L.R.1 resides in Deep River, Ontario and was formerly a secondary school teacher/guidance counsellor in the Whitby area.

[3] The other Respondent, J.B., is the former spouse of Ms. L.R.1 and the father of G.R.. He lives in Toronto and teaches at a secondary school in Pickering, Ontario. G.R. has been residing with Mr. J.B. since the end of April, 2021. Mr. J.B. is in default of filing an Answer and Plan of Care. Apparently he served the other parties with this document but despite extensions, has not filed it with the court.

[4] G.R. was born on […], 2006. Last year he was enrolled in Grade 9 at M[…] Community School in Deep River. Ms. L.R.1 says that G.R. enjoyed academic success in elementary school and was active in extra-curricular activities. After what appears to have been a good start in Grade 9, G.R. did not successfully complete all his Grade 9 subjects in the 2020-2021 school year.

[5] It is convenient at this point to mention Ms. L.R.1’s father, W.R., who is not a party to this proceeding and did not participate in the TCC. Mr. W.R. resides in Toronto near Mr. J.B.. G.R. maintains contact with his grandfather. Ms. L.R.1 harbours a deep animosity towards her father. She has referred to him as a very abusive, dangerous person. She resents the fact that G.R. and Mr. J.B. have contact with her father and this contributes to her concerns for G.R.’s well-being. During the summer of 2021, Mr. W.R. accompanied G.R. to Deep River to visit family and friends.

[6] FCS has been intermittently and increasingly involved since June, 2020, almost a year before FCS obtained the first order in this proceeding, and as a result FCS’s evidentiary record is extensive.

[7] For the reasons that follow, I have determined that the motion brought by FCS ought to be granted.

Events Prior to May 6, 2021

[8] The following summary of the evidence is drawn primarily from the affidavit evidence of FCS protection worker, Kathy Thomas. Ms. L.R.1 disagrees with Ms. Thomas’s characterization of certain incidents and discussions.

[9] This chronology starts in June 2020 when Ms. L.R.1 and G.R. were living in Deep River and there was a referral to FCS via G.R.’s school.

[10] FCS arranged for a home visit with Ms. L.R.1 and concluded that G.R. was not at risk.

[11] On September 23, 2020 FCS received a report from G.R.’s school that he had been left in the care of friends in Deep River. When contacted by FCS, Mr. J.B. traveled to Deep River and returned to his home with G.R..

[12] Ms. L.R.1 disputes the suggestion that G.R. was inappropriately left in the care of others and the allegation does not seem consistent with other evidence of Ms. L.R.1’s committed parenting.

[13] When she learned that Mr. J.B. had picked up G.R. from his school, Ms. L.R.1 notified the Durham ReG.R.nal Police Service.

[14] On September 26, 2020 FCS received a call from a worker with the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto advising that the Toronto Police Service has been contacted by Ms. L.R.1 because she hadn’t heard from G.R. and Mr. J.B.. The police located them at a Bed and Breakfast owned by W.R.. Ms. L.R.1 arrived at the B&B at around the same time as the police. Ms. L.R.1 left G.R. in the care of his father.

[15] On September 28, 2020 a worker with FCS spoke with Mr. J.B.. He said he thought G.R. should be back in Deep River and he was trying to arrange for Ms. L.R.1 to provide the transportation. G.R. returned to Deep River but the date is unclear.

[16] In a discussion between Ms. Thomas and Ms. L.R.1 on October 26, 2020, Ms. L.R.1 reported that G.R. was defiant and not doing his schoolwork. Later that day Ms. Thomas met Ms. L.R.1 and G.R. at their home. G.R. was sitting at the kitchen table with a blanket over his head. Ms. L.R.1 said she was concerned about G.R. lying, swearing and stealing and said that his diet was unhealthy. She also reported physical pain from a car accident, financial stress and a lack of support from Mr. J.B..

[17] G.R. indicated he had difficulty coping with his mother’s anxiety which prompted him to withdraw.

G.R. Relocates to Toronto to Live with his Father

[18] On November 2, 2020 Ms. L.R.1 called Ms. Thomas and left a message that she “needed help now”, that G.R.’s behaviour was out of control and he was refusing to go to school. She requested that G.R. be placed in a respite home immediately. Later it was determined that no accommodation was available in Deep River for children over the age of 12.

[19] After speaking with Mr. J.B. and confirming that Mr. J.B. was prepared to pick up G.R. the next day, Ms. Thomas spoke with Ms. L.R.1. Ms. Thomas says that Ms. L.R.1 was “highly escalated,” became tearful and terminated the call.

[20] When Ms. Thomas called back, Ms. L.R.1 began shouting at her and said that she would rather see G.R. go into foster care than reside with Mr. J.B.. After a discussion about the benefits of children being with family compared to foster care, Ms. L.R.1 agreed to allow Mr. J.B. to pick G.R. up the next day at an exchange location arranged by Ms. Thomas. G.R. expressed reluctance to leave Deep River and live with his father but he agreed to accompany Ms. Thomas to the exchange location and the transfer into Mr. J.B.’s care was uneventful. Ms. Thomas recommended to both Mr. J.B. and G.R. that they stay in continuous contact with Ms. L.R.1.

[21] Mr. J.B. sent Ms. Thomas a text on November 24, 2020 indicating that he accompanied G.R. to Deep River for a dental appointment on November 20. Ms. L.R.1 requested some assistance with yard work and Mr. J.B. reported that he and G.R. stayed over until the next day to help Ms. L.R.1 around her home.

[22] On November 25, 2020 Ms. Thomas arranged for inter-agency assistance from the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (“CCAS”) to interview Mr. J.B. and G.R. and to coordinate obtaining mental health supports for them.

[23] On November 28, 2020 Ms. L.R.1 contacted the FCS after hours phone number several times and left messages indicating that she had a problem with Mr. J.B. taking G.R. without her permission and that she hadn’t heard from either of them.

[24] The next day Mr. J.B. texted Ms. Thomas indicating that Ms. L.R.1 had been verbally abusive and threatened to call CCAS and the police if he did not become more responsive to her requests. He said he tried to work with Ms. L.R.1 for 1 to 2 hours per day to demonstrate that he was prepared to collaborate with her but she told him that it wasn’t enough.

[25] In a text message on December 1, 2020 Ms. Thomas indicated to Ms. L.R.1 that Mr. J.B. told her that he and G.R. had recently visited Deep River and had spent time with Ms. L.R.1. Ms. L.R.1 said that this was untrue. A few days later Ms. L.R.1 told Ms. Thomas that G.R. was dirty and smelly when he came to see her.

[26] In a telephone discussion the same day, Ms. Thomas attempted to set up a telephone schedule for Mr. J.B. to call with daily updates, perhaps three times per day. Ms. L.R.1 said that this was not sufficient and Mr. J.B. needed to answer anytime she called.

[27] On December 4, 2020 Ms. Thomas sent Ms. L.R.1 an email summarizing the results of the visit with G.R. by a worker with CCAS. The worker reported that she did not have any safety concerns regarding G.R.’s wellbeing, that things were going well with Mr. J.B. and that they were re-establishing their relationship. She observed that G.R. was clean and reported brushing his teeth and showering daily. He was doing school work remotely.

[28] On December 7, 2020 Ms. L.R.1 responded by saying the information from the worker in Toronto was false, incomplete and biased. She complained about how the interview had been documented.

[29] During the week ending on December 13, 2020 Ms. L.R.1 texted and emailed Ms. Thomas several times reporting that Mr. J.B. had not called her, that G.R. was being left alone, was missing appointments and was not responding to her texts and emails. Also, her calls to the CCAS worker in Toronto were not being returned quickly enough.

[30] On December 15, 2020 Ms. Thomas sent Ms. L.R.1 a proposed draft parenting plan that included a provision that missed calls would be returned within two hours. Ms. L.R.1 said that they should be returned within 15 minutes. They were unable to finalize an acceptable parenting plan.

[31] When Ms. Thomas encouraged Mr. J.B. to call Ms. L.R.1 regularly, he said that they had two calls with her on December 14 for 38 and 26 minutes each and on December 15, two more calls for 10 and 27 minutes each.

[32] G.R. spent Christmas Eve with Ms. L.R.1 and stayed overnight. Ms. L.R.1 later reported to Ms. Thomas that G.R. was in crisis over Christmas and didn’t want to stay with his father any longer. Mr. J.B.’s account to Ms. Thomas regarding Christmas was that he tried to set some boundaries with Ms. L.R.1. When he told her that he was not prepared to stay past 4:00 p.m., she became upset.

[33] On December 29, 2020 a new worker with CCAS, Shernett Blackwood, was assigned to the file.

[34] On February 5, 2021 Mr. J.B. told Ms. Thomas that G.R. had spent a week with Ms. L.R.1.

[35] The parties agreed to pursue mediation in order to work out a parenting plan. Ms. Thomas made contact with a mediator.

[36] On February 17th 2021, Ms. L.R.1 contacted Ms. Thomas by phone and was extremely “escalated”. She said that she was concerned about G.R.. She said Mr. J.B. was not returning her phone calls. She said she was waiting for the mediator to respond. Throughout the conversation Ms. L.R.1 was upset and eventually hung up.

[37] On March 9, 2021 the mediator, Jennifer Williams, advised Ms. Thomas that she had reached out to Ms. L.R.1 the previous weekend. They had booked an appointment for Saturday March 6 but Ms. L.R.1 had cancelled and Jennifer attempted to reschedule for the Sunday morning (March 7th) but she did not hear back from Ms. L.R.1. Ms. L.R.1 texted her asking if they were meeting at 11:00 a.m. and Jennifer said that since Ms. L.R.1 had not confirmed the meeting, it would not be going ahead. Ms. L.R.1 was angry and agitated. Jennifer believed that Family Group Conferencing would not be a good fit for Ms. L.R.1. She said that Ms. L.R.1 continued to be escalated and Jennifer had to remind her that Family Group Conferencing was not a crisis service. Jennifer said that Ms. L.R.1 had said that she hoped there would be ongoing support. Jennifer also said that she had difficulty reaching Mr. J.B..

[38] On March 10, 2021, Ms. Thomas advised Ms. L.R.1 by text that her supervisor had recommended a Voluntary Service Agreement signed by both parents and explained that this document would highlight everyone’s worries and make recommendations such as mental health counselling for G.R., regular meetings with a worker, regular contact with G.R. etc. Ms. Thomas did not receive a response from Ms. L.R.1.

[39] On March 17, 2021 Ms. Thomas contacted Ms. L.R.1 by phone and said that she had sent her a text message regarding a Voluntary Service Agreement. Ms. L.R.1 said that “things have got worse.” She said that “J.B. did not pick up the phone and it gets to the stage when she calls him 500 times and becomes anxious and angry”.

[40] Ms. L.R.1 asked for a family meeting which was scheduled for March 24th 2021 via Microsoft Teams. Ms. L.R.1 cancelled the meeting, stating she had medical appointments. It was rescheduled for March 25th 2021 and again Ms. L.R.1 cancelled because she was not feeling well. It was rescheduled for March 30th 2021 but Ms. L.R.1 chose not to participate and it was cancelled.

G.R. Returns to Live with his Mother in the Whitby Area

[41] On March 30th, 2021, Ms. Thomas contacted Ms. L.R.1 by phone. Ms. L.R.1 said that she picked G.R. up from Mr. J.B.’s residence the previous week and said she would not be returning him because there was a multitude of worries. It appears that Ms. L.R.1 and G.R. were living at a residence in the Whitby area. She said that the worries included completing his schoolwork, internet addiction, G.R. lying and stealing, G.R. making marks on his floor with food, G.R. being aggressive towards Ms. L.R.1 and G.R. being defiant and oppositional. Ms. L.R.1 said she found that G.R. was left alone day and night at Mr. J.B.’s. She said “I know what J.B. is up to” but did not elaborate.

[42] This was followed by a telephone discussion between Ms. Thomas and G.R.. Ms. L.R.1 brought the phone in the room and put the call on speakerphone. Ms. Thomas said that she understood that G.R. was not doing his schoolwork and he said that he was doing his schoolwork. Ms. L.R.1 said that he was not trying and G.R. said he didn’t have a computer. Ms. L.R.1 responded that G.R. was accessing inappropriate internet sites. Ms. Thomas asked G.R. if he preferred online classes or in person at M[…] Community School. Ms. L.R.1 said that she could not live in Deep River because of financial issues. G.R. said he wanted to go back to Toronto. Ms. L.R.1 began to become agitated and said that she had asked for help for months. Ms. Thomas said that she could give her the Phoenix Centre phone number (a Pembroke counselling service) as they had a walk-in clinic which could be accessed via Zoom. She said that she had called them before and they were not helpful. Ms. L.R.1 began to cry and said that no one was listening to her. When Ms. Thomas expressed concern that G.R. was being exposed to her being upset, Ms. L.R.1 terminated the call.

[43] The next day Ms. L.R.1 called Ms. Thomas late in the afternoon and reported that she was feeling afraid for her safety and requested information about who she could call.

[44] Ms. Thomas sent an interagency request for assistance to Durham Children’s Aid Society asking someone to interview Ms. L.R.1 and G.R. to help them connect with local resources such as mental health counselling, behaviour management etc.

[45] On April 8, 2021, Ms. L.R.1 contacted Ms. Thomas by telephone. She seemed calm. She said that G.R. had an addiction to technology and that she had to remove his iPad and phone as he was constantly on it. Ms. L.R.1 was concerned that G.R. was not doing his schoolwork and that Mr. J.B. was doing G.R.’s tests. Ms. L.R.1 said that she wanted counselling for both G.R. and herself. She dismissed Ms. Thomas’s suggestion that G.R. speak with a school counsellor, saying that they were not qualified. When Ms. Thomas recommended that G.R. be able to speak with someone by himself so he could express his feelings, Ms. L.R.1 said that she needed to be part of the process. Ms. L.R.1 reported that G.R. swore at her and became violent at times. She said that she has marks on her legs and he tried to push her down the stairs. She said that there were times when she was fearful of G.R..

[46] Ms. Thomas asked Ms. L.R.1 why she did not accept the call from Durham CAS who was trying to help her with community resources. She said G.R. would tell them he wanted to live with his dad and she didn’t want that. When Ms. Thomas suggested coming up with a written agreement so that G.R. could spend time with both parents, Ms. L.R.1 said that an agreement wouldn’t work.

[47] On the same day Ms. Thomas contacted Mr. J.B. who said he was concerned because he had not had any communication with G.R. and that Ms. L.R.1 had stopped communicating with him. He reported that Ms. L.R.1 had turned up two weeks ago to collect G.R. and G.R. went with her. He was worried that G.R. was not completing his schoolwork. He said that he was not sure how to proceed forward. Ms. Thomas recommended they make an agreement regarding custody and access.

[48] On April 8, 2021, Ms. L.R.1 contacted Ms. Thomas by text and phone and discussed her worries about calling Mr. J.B. numerous times and him not returning her phone calls. She said that Mr. J.B. had shown up at her home and was claiming that she had kidnapped G.R. and he was going to cut off her benefits.

[49] Ms. Thomas advised Ms. L.R.1 that G.R. had a relationship with both parents and suggested they make an agreement to share custody. She advised Ms. L.R.1 to either finalize the parenting plan or agree to a Voluntary Service Agreement. Ms. L.R.1 became agitated and said that there were concerns about Mr. J.B. not responding to her calls and G.R. failing at school. Ms. Thomas said that she wanted to see the parents focusing on G.R.. Ms. L.R.1 said that Ms. Thomas was not listening to her and hung up.

G.R. and his Mother Return to Deep River

[50] By April 20, 2021 it appears that Ms. L.R.1 had re-located to Deep River with G.R.. In a telephone call with Ms. Thomas on that date, Ms. L.R.1 reported that G.R. had physically assaulted her the previous night and that she needed somewhere for G.R. to go. Ms. Thomas had meetings all day and arranged for a colleague, Micheline Godin, to visit her that afternoon.

[51] Later that day Micheline Godin met initially with Ms. L.R.1 and subsequently with G.R. who was in his bedroom upstairs. Ms. L.R.1 said she was worried that G.R. was being untruthful and had an addiction to technology. She said that G.R. was not doing his schoolwork and was on screens all day accessing inappropriate "dark" websites. When she took away his devices he would verbally abuse her and “beat on her”. It wasn’t clear to Ms. Godin what Ms. L.R.1 meant when she said that G.R. would beat on her.

[52] Co-parenting (or lack of it) was an issue according to Ms. L.R.1. Ms. L.R.1 said she needed immediate support because she feared that G.R. would start beating her up again. Ms. Godin discussed a safety plan with Ms. L.R.1. She suggested that G.R. and Ms. L.R.1 separate from each other by going to separate rooms if tensions are high. Ms. Godin also mentioned that she could call the Bernadette McCann House crisis line for support if things got bad and that the police could be called as a last resort. Ms. Godin mentioned that Kathy Thomas had provided a list of supports for Ms. L.R.1 and G.R.. Ms. L.R.1 said she had already tried to find support for G.R. but “no one is helping” and G.R. wouldn’t consent to therapy. She asked if Ms. L.R.1 felt she should also consider getting support for her own mental health considering how frantic she appeared to be with dealing with G.R.’s issues and coping with the separation with her husband. Ms. L.R.1 said she wanted someone to tell G.R. he had to listen to her when it was time to do his homework and to support her decision to take his technology away. Ms. Godin offered to speak with G.R. but suggested that a support worker from FCS could offer better support to the family for the behaviors that Ms. L.R.1 claimed G.R. was exhibiting.

[53] When Ms. Godin went upstairs to speak with G.R., he had a blanket over his head and wouldn’t respond. Ms. L.R.1 entered the room and began to speak loudly about how G.R. needed to respect her. After Ms. L.R.1 left, G.R. provided an explanation to Ms. Godin regarding the incident with Ms. L.R.1. His mother took his computer away and he tried to grab it back. He denied beating her up. He had completed a couple of school assignments but his mother still took the computer away and this upset him. G.R. and Ms. Godin talked about how maybe his mother might be willing to agree to let him use his computer or phone for a certain amount of time after school if he could show his mother that he completed his homework. Ms. Godin suggested that it's not healthy to be on screens all day and that G.R.’s mom seemed to have some pretty reasonable rules, that G.R. ought to do his work and be respectful. G.R. didn't disagree but said he wanted to live with his father. When asked why, G.R. said his dad didn’t yell or get mad at him like his mom. G.R. said he would like to talk to his dad but that his mom didn’t let him use his phone and his dad probably wouldn't pick up if he called from his mom’s phone.

[54] G.R. and Ms. Godin then discussed the safety plan that if G.R. and his mom start fighting they should separate and go in separate rooms. G.R. said that drawing helped to calm him down and he had been encouraged to go in his room, close the door, and draw or write if he's feeling frustrated about mom's rules etc. Also, if he was feeling unsafe, he said that he had a friend who lived nearby and he could go there.

[55] Ms. L.R.1 was frustrated that Ms. Godin could not do more for her at this time. She wanted someone to come and ensure that G.R. did his homework in the morning and to give G.R. a speech about how he must listen to her and respect her.

[56] Later, when Ms. Thomas asked Ms. L.R.1 if she had met with Ms. Godin, she said yes but that Ms. Godin had been no help and complained about a lack of support. Ms. Thomas mentioned that Ms. Godin had recommended the services of a child and family support worker to help with parenting.

[57] On April 21, 2021 Ms. Thomas made a referral for a support worker to provide assistance.

Events Leading to Bringing G.R. to a Place of Safety

[58] On April 29, 2021 Ms. L.R.1 texted Ms. Thomas and asked how she could bring action against Mr. J.B. for psychological abuse. She said that G.R. had beaten her up that morning after she had discovered that he had hidden another school laptop under his bed. Ms. L.R.1 said she was worried about G.R. nearly causing a fire in the house. L.R.1 said that G.R. also stole her Visa card and some money and left the house. Ms. Thomas recommended contacting the police or the hospital or to reach out to a family member. She was angry that Mr. J.B. did not answer his phone or texts. Ms. L.R.1 thought that G.R. needed to be in a foster home that night.

[59] Ms. Thomas facilitated a conference call with Ms. L.R.1 and Mr. J.B. that turned into a conflict between the parents. When Ms. Thomas said that her role was to look after G.R. and that she was worried he was being exposed to parental conflict and shouting, Ms. L.R.1 said, “Oh my god! Shouting” and began shouting again. Ms. Thomas attempted to make a plan that involved G.R. going into emergency foster care or Mr. J.B. traveling to Deep River to pick him up. Mr. J.B. wasn’t in favour of G.R. going into foster care, but Ms. L.R.1 thought it was a better option than G.R. returning to live with his father.

[60] G.R. was brought into the call. Both parents agreed G.R. could sometimes be violent when either parent attempted to take his computer away. G.R. denied hitting his mother, began to cry and said he wanted to live with his dad. The conversation became unproductive and the worker advised she would be ending the call.

[61] On April 30, 2021 numerous communications between Ms. Thomas and Ms. L.R.1 took place. Ms. Thomas spoke with and texted with Ms. L.R.1 in an effort to persuade her to agree to a voluntary placement with Mr. J.B. to allow her to work on her relationship with G.R. until professional supports were in place. Ms. L.R.1 did not agree with this plan and was upset and angry. Ms. Thomas said that she understood that Ms. L.R.1 was struggling at the moment and asking for support but that Ms. Thomas could not be there for her immediately and on a daily basis. She said she was recommending that G.R. not be placed in foster care and that Mr. J.B. should pick G.R. up based on a voluntary agreement between both parents. Ms. L.R.1 was strongly opposed to this suggestion and said she would be blamed. When Ms. Thomas recommended that Ms. L.R.1 and G.R. have some time apart in order to have a healthy relationship, Ms. L.R.1 terminated the call.

[62] In a subsequent discussion Ms. L.R.1 again made it clear that she did not approve of G.R. going with Mr. J.B.. Ms. Thomas sent a text explaining that a plan could be put in place with phone calls, access visits and professional supports. Ms. L.R.1 responded by saying, “Please never call me again”.

[63] In another communication with Ms. L.R.1, Ms. Thomas advised her that FCS was in support of G.R. living with his father temporarily.

[64] At around 3:00 p.m. Mr. J.B. advised Ms. Thomas that he was leaving for Deep River to pick up G.R. that evening which he did at about 11:00 p.m.

[65] On May 1st 2021, Ms. L.R.1 contacted the FCS night duty worker suggesting that FCS had helped Mr. J.B. to “kidnap” her son and demanded to speak with Ms. Thomas.

[66] The next evening Ms. L.R.1 again contacted the FCS night duty worker and requested to speak with Ms. Thomas and her supervisor. When the night worker said that Ms. Thomas was not on call and not available until Monday, Ms. L.R.1 became agitated and hung up.

[67] On May 6, 2021 FCS obtained an order placing G.R. in the care of Mr. J.B. on a temporary basis subject to supervision and conditions.

G.R.’s Time in Mr. J.B.’s Temporary Care and Custody

[68] Since Mr. J.B. resides in Toronto, CCAS continued to provide inter-agency assistance. Ms. L.R.1 would not agree to a Voluntary Service Agreement. Ms. L.R.1 repeated her concerns on a regular basis that G.R. was failing school, was left alone and continued to engage in inappropriate and addictive online behaviour. Ms. L.R.1 said that Mr. J.B. was not taking G.R. to medical appointments but did not specify to FCS any details. Ms. L.R.1 also said she did not receive communications from Mr. J.B. about G.R.’s well-being. Ms. L.R.1 has expressed frustration with the FCS workers and said she felt like everyone was working against her.

[69] Mr. J.B. registered G.R. in a credit recovery program in August 2021. He attempted to register G.R. in two local high schools in Toronto, but this did not work out because one did not have space for G.R. and G.R. refused to attend the other one. Mr. J.B. then enrolled G.R. in St. Mary’s School, where he works as a teacher. Ms. L.R.1 voiced strong opposition to G.R. attending this school and indicated her intentions to change G.R.’s school at the earliest opportunity. With the resumption of in class learning, G.R. has been traveling with his father to St. Mary’s School each day.

[70] FCS continued to make efforts to engage with Ms. L.R.1 but she was mistrustful and sometimes belittled their efforts. Ms. L.R.1 stated that the communications and updates from FCS were condescending or contained inaccurate and insensitive information. Despite this, Ms. L.R.1 requested daily updates from FCS. Ms. L.R.1 sometimes sent her FCS workers a large number of messages, such as 27 text messages on July 22nd, 2021 and 31 text messages and five phone calls on July 23rd, 2021, or five back-to-back emails on September 14th, 2021.

[71] Ms. L.R.1 is frustrated with her communication with G.R. and feels cut out of his life. Ms. L.R.1 told FCS numerous times that there were extended periods when she would not hear from Mr. J.B. or G.R.. Mr. J.B. disputed this claim, stating that G.R. had in fact called his mother. Other times, Mr. J.B. said G.R. did not feel like talking to his mother. Ms. L.R.1 said she is not interested in “prison calls” with G.R. and expects regular email updates from Mr. J.B.. Ms. L.R.1 wants to contact G.R. daily to check in on him. She feels she has no way to contact her son and that Mr. J.B. blocks her texts, emails and calls. The lack of communication with G.R. has been very difficult for Ms. L.R.1 to cope with. FCS continued to encourage Mr. J.B. to follow the terms of the court order regarding phone calls, virtual, and in-person visits.

[72] Ms. L.R.1 claims that Mr. J.B. missed several medical appointments without providing details. Mr. J.B. did not respond to FCS’s request for G.R.’s medical information.

[73] Ms. L.R.1 expressed frustration that G.R.’s school did not answer her communications and requests for information. Ms. L.R.1 reported that G.R. told her he hated his father and was having thoughts of suicide. FCS asked CCAS to follow up with Mr. J.B. and G.R., and they indicated that G.R. was not upset living with his father as described by Ms. L.R.1.

[74] G.R. was eager to visit his friends in Deep River over the summer. Mr. J.B. expressed concern about arranging parenting time with Ms. L.R.1 because Ms. L.R.1 wanted Mr. J.B. to supervise G.R. at home with her. Mr. J.B. supported G.R.’s desire to visit his family and friends in Deep River, but was concerned that Ms. L.R.1’s focus on long conversations with G.R. was a stressor for him.

[75] In August, 2021 W.R. brought his grandson to Deep River for a visit with family and friends. Deep River Police were called by L.R.2, Ms. L.R.1’s sister, because Ms. L.R.1 had allegedly taken her father’s phone in order to speak with Mr. J.B. without him blocking her number. Ms. L.R.1 disputed this version of events.

[76] Mr. W.R. indicated to FCS that his daughter was a good mother, a very intelligent woman, and that G.R. adored her. Mr. W.R. said Ms. L.R.1 comes on strong because of her mental health issues, and that G.R. struggles with this. Mr. W.R. said the separation has been difficult for his daughter.

[77] In September 2021 Ms. L.R.1 applied for leave to bring a motion on an urgent basis “to oppose, reverse/change the direction of May 6, 2021” because FCS involvement had placed G.R.’s health, safety, well-being, education and development at risk. The request for a hearing was deferred to a temporary care and custody motion.

The Temporary Care and Custody Motion

[78] This motion was heard on October 26, 2021 and proceeded virtually. Most participants used the Zoom platform. Mr. J.B. and Ms. L.R.1 called in by telephone.

[79] Deidre Newman, a lawyer and counsellor from the Oshawa/Whitby area identified herself as a friend of the court on behalf of Ms. L.R.1. She seemed informed regarding the family situation and was supportive of Ms. L.R.1. Ms. Newman assisted Ms. L.R.1 in preparing an Answer and Plan of Care. A copy of this document was available to the court the day of the hearing but arrangements will need to be made to have it formally filed.

[80] The hearing started at 10 a.m. and continued with some breaks until mid-afternoon. Mr. J.B. made some comments but did not submit any affidavit evidence. He left the hearing before lunch to return to work.

[81] Ms. L.R.1 spoke with duty counsel but does not qualify for legal aid. She did not provide an affidavit but made submissions. Also, she accepted the court’s invitation to be sworn and gave oral testimony in the form of a statement (but was not cross-examined) in place of an affidavit.

[82] There were a couple of instances when it appeared that Ms. L.R.1 had disconnected from the hearing then re-joined.

Comments by Ms. Ferri, Office of the Children’s Lawyer

[83] Terese Ferri is the OCL representative in this case. She was appointed in June, 2021. She had difficulty contacting G.R. to set up a meeting. They have had two Zoom meetings. She offered to arrange for a face to face meeting with a representative of the OCL in Toronto, but the proposal was not accepted.

[84] G.R. is not very communicative with Ms. Ferri. She said he was difficult to engage with. In July he told Ms. Ferri that he wanted to have contact with his mother. When they spoke in September, G.R. was more resistant to engaging with Ms. L.R.1 although he has the capacity to do so. He is not complying with the existing order regarding telephone contact with Ms. L.R.1. He said he wanted to remain with his father and to go to school with him.

[85] Ms. Ferri observed that G.R. needed relief from the parental conflict.

Issues to be Determined on this Motion

[86] Has FCS established, on credible and trustworthy evidence, reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if G.R. is returned to Ms. L.R.1’s care, it is more probable than not that he will suffer harm?

[87] If so, has FCS established that G.R. cannot be adequately protected in the care of his mother with terms of supervision?

[88] Is an order placing G.R. with his father, subject to supervision, the least disruptive order that will serve to protect G.R. while this Application proceeds?

Position of the Parties

[89] FCS seeks a temporary care and custody order maintaining G.R.’s placement with his father, subject to several conditions. This position is supported by Mr. J.B. although he agrees with Ms. L.R.1 that another mediation effort should be attempted. FCS doesn’t support the mediation proposal at this time because it is unlikely to be successful.

[90] In general terms, Ms. L.R.1 is completely dismayed and overwhelmed by the entire situation. She is very worried for her son’s well-being in his father’s care. She feels alone and unsupported and it seems to her that everyone is aligned against her. The involvement of FCS has been disastrous. FCS tends to accommodate Mr. J.B. even though he is in default. Her requests for help have been ignored. She is blocked out of her son’s life and Mr. J.B. does not communicate with her. Mr. J.B. and FCS ignore her concerns and suggestions for G.R.’s schooling, which is even more galling considering Ms. L.R.1’s expertise as an educator. Mr. J.B. should be doing more to parent cooperatively with her. G.R. should be back in Deep River living with her but with real support, communication and participation by Mr. J.B.. Ms. L.R.1 agrees with Mr. J.B. that mediation should be pursued.

[91] Ms. L.R.1’s Plan of Care requests that the FCS Application be withdrawn or dismissed and that G.R. be returned to the care of his mother and father jointly. Alternatively, she requests that G.R. be returned to their joint care under terms set by the court and that in the interim, she should have telephone and in person access.

Discussion and Analysis

[92] While it is a concern that there is not an abundance of information about how G.R. is doing presently, it is clear that he was failing to thrive while living in Deep River over the course of his Grade 9 school year. The reasons for this probably include parental conflict and Ms. L.R.1’s personal circumstances but there may be other causes as well. I would not be surprised if the isolation due to the pandemic was a contributing factor. G.R. may also be facing challenges that do not originate with his parents.

[93] In considering the circumstances before G.R. was placed with his father in May, 2021 and how events have unfolded since that placement, if G.R. was to return to his mother’s care in Deep River it is likely that the previous difficulties would quickly resurface. The conditions that led to G.R.’s placement with his father in Toronto have not changed. As a result, I have concluded that if G.R. returned to live with his mother at this time, it would probably be harmful to him and would not be in his best interests, even under supervision. Neither parent has demonstrated consistency in following FCS requests and recommendations. I am not confident that a supervision order would be complied with.

[94] The best evidence of G.R.’s wishes is that for now, he wants to continue living with his father in Toronto. This is an important consideration.

[95] Continuing assistance from CCAS in monitoring G.R.’s situation will be important. The parents have not signed releases for FCS to get current information directly from G.R.’s school which is not acceptable. The necessity of obtaining their consent for the release of information will be dispensed with.

[96] In considering Ms. L.R.1’s proposed Plan of Care, Ms. L.R.1 continues to hold strongly expressed, negative opinions regarding Mr. J.B.’s parenting of G.R.. He fails to measure up to her expectations for updates and communication. She disagrees with Mr. J.B. regarding G.R.’s present schooling arrangements. In context, her desire for “cooperative” parenting is unachievable under the present circumstances.

[97] Mr. J.B.’s responsiveness to FCS inquiries is inconsistent. There is evidence that he makes contact when it suits him. This needs to improve.

Disposition

[98] There shall be a temporary order granting the relief sought by FCS in its Notice of Motion.

[99] The necessity of consents from Ms. L.R.1 and Mr. J.B. for the release of school information directly to FCS, CCAS and the OCL is dispensed with.

[100] The time for Ms. L.R.1 to file her Answer and Plan of Care is extended to January 5, 2022.

[101] A return date is set for January 10, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. for a discussion of next steps.

Justice M. James

December 20, 2021

COURT FILE NO.: FC-21-118

DATE: December 20, 2021

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO

BETWEEN: Family and Children’s Services of Renfrew County v. L.R.1 and J.B.

BEFORE: Honourable Mr. Justice Martin James

REASONS FOR DECISION

James, J.

DATE: December 20, 2021