COURT FILE NO.: FC1480/19-1

DATE: June 21, 2022

ONTARIO

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

FAMILY COURT

INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SUBSECTIONS 87(8) AND (9) OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017

BETWEEN:

Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex

Applicant

• and -

E.E. and D.G.

Respondents

Counsel: Christine McLeod for the Society Toenie Hersch for E.E. Eric Vallillee for D.G. Deborah L. Stewart for the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: May 31 and June 1, 2, 3, 2022

TOBIN J.

A Hearing on Oral Evidence was Required

[1] The Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex (Society) brought a child protection application seeking a finding that the respondents’ child was in need of protection. The disposition sought was an order placing the child with the parents subject to Society supervision for six months on terms and conditions.

[2] On January 13, 2022, the parties appeared before me with a Statement of Agreed Facts (SAF) and a request for the final order. The term of the supervision order sought was now 12 months. The SAF set out that both parents had “serious histories of violence” for which they were both held not criminally responsible. Both had been subject to detention orders under the Ontario Review Board (ORB) and were eventually granted absolute discharges. As well, both parents remain engaged in ongoing mental health care. They were having extended periods of access to their child without supervision and without any concerns being observed.

[3] Following my review of the SAF, counsel and parties were advised that I could not grant the relief requested on the basis of the documents then filed. I noted that the disposition sought may be in the child’s best interests, but a hearing with more evidence was required.

[4] That day, I made an order appointing the Children’s Lawyer to act on behalf of the child and directed a trial management meeting be held.

[5] These are my reasons following the four-day hearing that was held.

The Child and Parties

[6] This case concerns the child, N. (the child). He is now two and a half years old. The respondent, E.E., is the child’s mother (mother). The respondent, D.G., is the child’s father (father).

The Position of the Parties

[7] At the hearing, the Society continued to ask for the same relief sought in the SAF with some additional terms and conditions. The mother and father (collectively referred to as the parents) support the Society’s request.

[8] The Children’s Lawyer agrees with the finding that the child be found to be in need of protection but does not agree with the disposition sought by the parties. The disposition order asked for by the Children’s Lawyer is to maintain the status quo whereby the child remains in the care of the paternal grandmother, with extended access to the parents.

Issues

[9] The issues to be decided are:

1. On what basis is the child to be found to be in need of protection?

2. Based on a consideration of the child’s best interests, what disposition should be made?

Statutory Findings

[10] The statutory findings required under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (CYFSA) s. 90(s) are as follows:

a) the child’s name: N., born […] 2019;

b) on October 29, 2020, Price J. determined the child is not a First Nation, Inuit or Métis child; and

c) the child was not brought to a place of safety before the hearing.

Evidence

[11] The parties filed a document brief that contained reports and other documents concerning the mother and father prepared in relation to their respective involvement in the ORB proceedings. The brief was filed on consent and the documents are to be considered by the court for the truth of their contents.

The Mother

[12] The mother is 35 years of age. She was born in … and, when she was six, moved to Canada.

[13] In 2015, the mother was the parent of one child, A.B., who was then six years old. The mother was A.B.’s sole caregiver.

[14] On October 22, 2015, while in their home, the mother attacked A.B. with a knife, stabbing and slashing her at least eight times. The mother then called 911 and reported what she had done. The police arrived, then arrested and charged the mother with attempted murder.

[15] On June 1, 2016, the mother was found not criminally responsible of the attempted murder charge on account of a mental disorder. She was then placed under the jurisdiction of the ORB. The index offence under which she was placed under the jurisdiction of the ORB was the serious violence involving A.B.

[16] The mother was admitted to the Southwest Centre for Forensic Mental Health Care (Southwest Centre). While there, she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and treated by an extensive medical team. She was prescribed anti-psychotic medication and engaged in many therapies. She also had the support of some of her family members.

[17] By October 2018, the mother had made significant progress in her recovery and began her transition to living in the community. She moved to an apartment in London and remained subject to terms and conditions, which she followed.

[18] Since her release into the community, the mother has obtained and maintained employment. As well, she continues to engage in ongoing therapy, including with her psychiatrist and psychologist.

[19] While resident at the Southwest Centre, she met and became friends with the father.

[20] The father was also a resident at the Southwest Centre. He was released from this institution before the mother was. They reconnected after she began living in the community.

[21] She became pregnant with the child in … 2019 and the father moved in with her in … 2019.

[22] The mother and father have lived together since that time.

[23] While she was pregnant, the mother’s treatment team recommended that she inform the Society of her pregnancy. She did. The Society wanted the mother to agree to have a long-term CAS social worker involved following the birth of the child. The mother declined this offer of long-term CAS involvement.

[24] Following the birth of the child on […] 2019, the Society wanted the mother to agree to a voluntary plan that would require her to be supervised with the baby 24 hours per day. The mother did not agree with this plan.

[25] In was in these circumstances the child protection case was started by the Society on December 18, 2019.

[26] The next day, December 19, 2019, the matter was before the court on a temporary care and custody hearing. By order of Korpan J. dated December 19, 2019, the child was placed in the care of his paternal aunt.

The Father

[27] The father is 39 years of age.

[28] He described his childhood as a difficult one. As an adolescent, he took drugs to cope with his struggles and anger issues. He would become quite violent and eventually became involved in the criminal justice system. This first occurred in 1999 when he was 16 years of age.

[29] Between 1999 and 2013, he lived a “negative lifestyle,” one that involved drug use.

[30] The father’s criminal history includes several assaults and failures to comply with probation orders.

[31] On November 22, 2012, the father was an in-patient at a psychiatric ward at the Grand River Hospital. He had been arrested under the Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M.7 after an incident involving a standoff with police. That day, he assaulted another patient after a verbal dispute. While he was being arrested by two police officers and two hospital security personnel for that assault, he resisted and assaulted them. These assaults took place while the father was on probation and subject to a term that he keep the peace and be of good behaviour. He was charged with failure to comply, with a probation term.

[32] On December 3, 2012, the father was in custody for the November 22, 2012 offences. He was incarcerated at Maplehurst Correctional Complex. That day, the father viciously beat his cellmate, causing that person serious injuries.

[33] On September 13, 2013, the father was found not criminally responsible by reason of mental disorder of the offences described above. These were his index offences. He was then “subject to a disposition” of the ORB. The diagnosis eventually made was that the father suffered from schizophrenia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

[34] The father was then admitted to the Provincial Forensic Programs Division of Waypoint Center for Mental Health Care (“Waypoint”).

[35] On December 10, 2013, the father was transferred to the Secure Forensic Program at St. Joseph’s Healthcare in Hamilton.

[36] While in hospital in Hamilton, the father explained that his medical team removed him from medications on the basis that his past behavior was related to substance abuse. As he was no longer abusing drugs, the medications may no longer be required.

[37] After this change in his medication regime, his condition deteriorated. He described himself as being paranoid and delusional.

[38] On February 2, 2016, he assaulted two other patients in an unprovoked attack, one on the hospital grounds and the other in the general forensic unit. The next day, he violently attacked a member of the nursing staff, security staff and a psychiatrist before being restrained.

[39] On February 9, 2016, the father was returned to Waypoint. While there, his medications were resumed. The father’s evidence, which I accept, is that with the resumption of the regime of medication, he felt better.

[40] In addition to taking his medication, he participated in group therapies and other activities, all because it was “pertinent” to his recovery.

[41] The episode gave him insight into how he felt when off medication and that he did not want to feel that way again. He takes his medication because he knows it helps him.

[42] On October 29, 2017, the father was transferred to the Southwest Centre. After making positive gains, he began transitioning to a community environment. In July 2018, he was discharged from the Southwest Centre to a transition rehabilitation group home. His psychotic symptoms were controlled by his medication regime.

[43] In the October 23, 2018 ORB annual report, it notes that the father “expressed a good deal of remorse and shame related to his index offence …” and that he “… has good insight into his need for medication.”

[44] In 2019, the father:

a) obtained fulltime employment (January);

b) earned his Ontario high school equivalency certificate (March); and

c) moved to community living (August). This is when the mother and father started living together.

The Child is Born and the Society Intervenes

[45] The child was born […] 2019.

[46] The mother and father had all of the needed supplies and took the child home on December 16, 2019.

[47] The Society tried to encourage the parents to work voluntarily with it to develop a plan to ensure the child’s safety. They refused. They wanted legal advice. On the day they brought the child home, a Society worker told the parents that the only way he could remain in their care was to ensure the mother was not left alone with him. They eventually agreed. The Society then learned that the father was under forensic psychiatric care.

[48] On December 18, 2019, the father did not respond to a Society worker’s enquiry about his mental health diagnosis or medications he was prescribed.

[49] That same day, on December 18, 2019, the Society started this child protection application. It also brought a temporary care and custody motion returnable the next day.

[50] On December 19, 2019, Korpan J. made a without prejudice order placing the child in the care of his paternal aunt, C.G., subject to terms. One of the terms required C.G. or the paternal grandmother, T.G., to be present when either or both parents were present with the child. The paternal grandmother cared for the child while C.G. was at work. The child remained with C.G. and her husband until early February 2020. He was then placed in the care of the paternal grandmother at her home because she was providing the majority of the child’s care. It was more convenient for her to provide this care in her own home. This arrangement was formally provided for in the order of Price J. dated October 29, 2020.

The Parents are Granted Absolute Discharges

The Father

[51] On … 2021, the father was granted an absolute discharge under s. 672.81(1) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 by the ORB.

[52] In the ORB decision dated …, 2021, it was found that the father “no longer poses a significant threat to the safety of the public …”

[53] The ORB reviewed the father’s hospital records. These records disclosed that since being transferred to the Southwest Centre:

a) the father made “excellent progress”;

b) he remained free of positive and negative symptoms;

c) his psychotic symptoms are controlled by medications;

d) he has remained abstinent from substance abuse and denies cravings; and

e) he has developed insight into the impact that substance misuse has had on him.

[54] These findings led the ORB to grant the father a conditional discharge in … 2020.

[55] Based on the evidence presented about his circumstances post-… 2020, the ORB found the father had:

… demonstrated improvement in his insight, has no recent issues with symptoms of his mental disorder, and has displayed no behavioural or supervision challenges. Furthermore, he has numerous protective factors including a supportive family, his spouse, and becoming a father. As well he is engaged in meaningful full-time employment …

The Mother

[56] The mother was granted her absolute discharge on …, 2021.

[57] The ORB decision of …, 2021 states that it was “unable to make a positive finding [the mother] is presently a significant threat to the safety of the public …”[^1]

[58] The ORB noted “there has been no real active psychosis since the index offence and her mental state has been stable for the past five years … [she] is compliant with her medication … has been in the community, living independently since … 2018.”

[59] The ORB was satisfied the mother knows the consequences of relapse if she were to stop taking her medication and that “even with optimal treatment she could suffer a bipolar relapse.”

[60] The following finding made by the ORB, at para. 41 of its decision, is most apposite to this case:

The board is confident any relapse in her psychosis will be seen readily by family members, her partner, or her professional supports. If any deterioration in her mental status is observed, the Board is confident these people will act with dispatch to assist [the mother] and public safety will not be compromised. Given the extremely serious nature of the index offence this oversight and support is critical to the Board’s finding.

The Parents’ Access

[61] The parents’ access with the child expanded once they were forthcoming about their histories and the Society was able to obtain information from their mental health professionals.

[62] The parents also demonstrated their cooperation with the Society by giving their worker the code to their apartment building. This allowed a Society worker to make unannounced visits to their home.

[63] Beginning in July 2021, the parents had access on weekends. Mother’s access was supervised by father.

[64] The Society worker was able to view the apartment, including the child’s room, which was found to be appropriate.

[65] By October 2021, the Society approved a few hours of unsupervised access by the mother.

[66] In late November 2021, the paternal grandmother suffered an injury. As a result, she was not able to care for the child. With the approval of the Society, the child was placed in the care of the mother and father. He remained in their fulltime care for approximately six to seven weeks without incident.

[67] During this time, the mother worked with the child, successfully helping him with his speech and learning the alphabet. He began talking a lot more than he had been.

[68] In early January 2022, the parties signed the SAF that would support the request that the court return the child to the parents’ care subject to terms and conditions. As set out earlier in these reasons, when the matter was before me, I did not grant the order asked for by the parties. This hearing on oral evidence was directed.

[69] This ruling was upsetting to the parents, but they understood that the court wanted more information. The mother was confident her doctors could provide what was needed.

[70] In late January 2022, after the paternal grandmother’s injuries had resolved, the child was returned to her primary care. The parents’ access increased to three days each week, with the details worked out between them and the paternal grandmother. They also had the child in their care additional time for holidays and special events, as approved by the Society.

The Parents’ Family and Community Support

[71] The mother has monthly appointments with her psychiatrist, Dr. Ellis, and weekly appointments with her psychologist, Dr. Laura Fazakas-DeHoog.

[72] The maternal grandfather lives in London and is also a support for the mother. They see each other about once a week and speak on the phone “a lot.” When the child is in London, he often visits with the maternal grandfather, who he calls “Poppa.”

[73] The mother also relies upon, and has considerable support, from the father, paternal grandmother and paternal aunt. They have been provided with some details of the mother’s history and medical condition. The mother described the paternal grandmother as a loving, warm and kind-hearted person.

[74] The paternal grandmother has become an important confidante of the mother.

[75] The maternal grandmother does not reside in London and is not a regular in-person support for the mother.

[76] As is the case for the mother, the paternal grandmother and paternal aunt are significant supports for the father. They are aware of his history and medical condition. The paternal grandmother, in particular, is an integral part of the father’s life and safety net. She knows what his symptoms look like and has been supportive of him for many years. She has “stuck by” him. As a consequence, the father trusts and is open with her.

[77] The father’s psychiatrist is also Dr. Ellis and they speak at least one time each month and sometimes two times. The father trusts Dr. Ellis and the advice he provides. The father receives monthly injections of his medication from a forensic outreach nurse.

[78] Both parties have come to appreciate the support they have been provided by the Society through its worker.

[79] One of the supports identified by the parties, Dr. Ellis and Dr. Fazakas-DeHoog is the relationship the mother and father have with each other. It was described by the mother as a good and supportive one and she expects it to be a long-term one. The father viewed the relationship as a healthy and happy one, with some challenges.

[80] One of the challenges occurred in March 2022. The mother left their home and stayed with her father for a couple of days. She described it as her needing a break from the stress she was then feeling and their lack of privacy. She told the worker at the time she felt like they were constantly under a microscope from family. Cross-examination revealed that an underlying issue was where the family’s Easter celebration would take place. The mother wanted to develop her nuclear family’s traditions.

[81] The father described to the Society worker, on the day the mother left, that they were struggling with the stress of court, driving (to and from access) and working fulltime. On that first day, the father was not sure if they would remain as a couple – nothing had been decided. The father thought they had separated. However, the mother returned two days later. There have been no further “breaks” since.

[82] The Society worker and Dr. Ellis were made aware of what had happened.

[83] It appears that this was not a separation, rather the mother needed some time to deal with the stress she was then feeling. I accept their evidence that their relationship remains intact.

[84] Dr. Ellis had no concerns about the incident. Dr. Fazakas-DeHoog was of the view that the mother made the right decision at the time.

[85] As a family, the mother and father spend time with the child in the community: swimming at the Y, attending reading groups in the community and attending outdoor activities. They have friends and are making new ones.

Is the child in need of protection?

[86] The parties, including the Children’s Lawyer, submit that the child can be found in need of protection under s. 74(2)(b) of the CYFSA. This section is formulated as follows:

74(2) A child is in need of protection where,

(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s,

(i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or

(ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child ;

[87] A finding under s. 74(2)(b) involves a risk of physical harm to a child. The risk is that the child is likely to suffer from physical harm. The risk may be a likelihood that:

a) the physical harm is inflicted by a person having charge of the child; or

b) the physical harm is as a result of the failure of the person having charge inadequately … supervising or protecting the child; or

c) the physical harm is as a result of a pattern of neglect in … supervising or protecting the child.

[88] In this case, I find that there is the potential of risk of physical harm to the child being inflicted by either or both parents or as a result of their failure to supervise or protect him. These risks arise: (i) should either or both parents suffer a relapse in their mental health conditions; and (ii) should either or both parents suffer a relapse in their mental health conditions and the other or both do not notice or address this relapse.

[89] I base this finding on the following:

1. Both parents have been diagnosed with very serious mental illnesses. Both can lead to psychosis. I accept the evidence of Dr. Ellis, who stated that it is his belief that the risk the parents pose “derives solely from their mental health diagnoses.”

2. Should either or both parents suffer a relapse, the level of risk of physical harm to the child would be catastrophic. The behaviour that gave rise to their respective index offences could return.

3. The illnesses of both parents are manageable but cannot be cured.

[90] I agree with the statement made by Ms. Stewart in her opening that the risk is low but the consequences are very high.

What disposition order is in the child’s best interests?

[91] The Society and the parents submit that it is in the child’s best interests that he be returned to the parents’ care subject to terms and conditions.

[92] Counsel for the Children’s Lawyer submits that maintaining the status quo would be in the child’s best interests. She argues that the plan presented by the Society and parents is simply not strong enough to protect the child against the risk of harm. She asks that I take into account:

1. the mental health history of the parties;

2. that there is no cure for their diagnoses;

3. medication can assist but cannot ensure against a relapse;

4. at some point, the involvement of the Children's Aid Society will end;

5. this child is a vulnerable non-verbal toddler;

6. the parents can offer more safeguards to support the child’s safety. This would include sending the child to daycare, having the mother’s medication delivered to her by a third party or that she submit to testing, and advising the Society if she was no longer employed. In other words, advising the Society if there was any change in her pro-social circumstances;

7. the family support available to the parents is limited; and

8. the community and family supports in place are not fully informed or educated in what is necessary to spot and help prevent a relapse.

[93] I find that it is in the child’s best interests to be placed in the care and custody of the parents subject to supervision by the Society for a period of 12 months.

[94] The risk of harm to the child is low and there is a strong relapse monitoring and prevention system in place.

[95] Returning the child to the care of the parents, in the circumstances of this case, is the least disruptive course of action that is available and appropriate to help this child.

[96] I make this determination based upon the following:

• While on medication and participating in their respective mental health therapies, the parents have demonstrated an ability to meet the child’s needs while in their care. They are doing so now three nights and four days each week. They did so on a fulltime basis when the child was in their care for the six or seven weeks the paternal grandmother was unable to do so. They did so without incident.

• The child has not been identified as having any special needs. He was described as an energetic, loving, smart and attentive toddler.

• The child is biracial, as is the mother. In the care of the parents, he will be able to learn about, and be part of, his racial and cultural heritage.

• The Society’s proposed plan, as supported by the parents, will ensure the child continues to have contact and a relationship with his extended family. They remain part of the parents’ relapse prevention plan.

• The degree of risk to the child from either or both parents suffering a relapse is low:

(i) neither parent has had a relapse into psychosis while on medications and participating in recommended therapies;

(ii) the parties have been symptom-free for a number of years. When the stresses of this case and other factors were felt by the mother, she acted appropriately, according to her therapist, in dealing with these stresses;

(iii) while on medication and engaging in therapies, their conditions are manageable but it is recognized that they cannot be cured;

(iv) the parents are, and have been, compliant with their respective medications and therapies for a number of years. They have been effective in preventing relapses;

(v) the parents have and continue to meaningfully engage with their supports. Both see Dr. Ellis and follow his advice. The mother sees Dr. Fazakas-DeHoog quite often and this has been a positive and supportive therapeutic relationship. These relationships are to continue;

(vi) both the mother and father have developed good insight into their illnesses and symptoms, their index offences and what they need to do to remain symptom-free. Both parties gave evidence regarding their mental health and recovery in a straightforward manner. I accept the evidence they gave about their insight and compliance to be credible and sincere;

(vii) while the parties’ family support system is not large, it is committed, supportive and somewhat knowledgeable. The paternal grandmother was most convincing when stating that she will take steps to help her son if she sees symptoms return. Her loyalty to her son would require that she take steps to help her son get the help he needs if she saw signs of a relapse;

(viii) the Society worker has been “coached” by Dr. Ellis regarding signs of relapse to look for; the Society will be closely involved with this family during the term of the order;

(ix) if either or both parents suffered a decline in their mental health, the medical evidence provided is that it would be obvious and gradual. The parents are aware of their warning signs;

(x) the parents have demonstrated an ability to maintain a stable lifestyle. Their relationship is a strong and committed one. Both have maintained employment. They appear to function well in the community; and

(xi) based on the level of compliance with steps needed for them to stay well and the ongoing cooperation they have demonstrated, particularly with the Society, I find that it is much more probable than not the parents will comply with terms of supervision.

• I have taken into account the primary and additional purposes set out at s. 1 of the CYFSA.

Supervision Terms

[97] Counsel for the Children’s Lawyer submitted that, if the child is returned to the care of the parents, supervision terms should include the following:

a) That the child attend daycare for at least three days per week. The reason for this request is that it would provide additional persons to observe the child and the parents. This would require the parents to advise the daycare workers of their mental health histories. This provision would also apply to the paternal grandmother, paternal aunt, maternal grandfather and anyone else who becomes part of the parents’ family support.

Counsel for the parents advise that they will reluctantly agree to send the child to daycare. They are of the view that they have missed the last two and a half years having the child in their care fulltime and want the next year before the child attends junior kindergarten to have him in their care fulltime. They object to providing the daycare facility with their medical histories. They argue that this is an unnecessary intrusion into their privacy and may undermine their ability to have the child placed in a daycare.

I agree with counsel for the Children’s Lawyer that additional monitoring in the community through daycare would be in the child’s best interests. The parents must accept that in this case there will be ongoing third-party monitoring.

The parents have proposed a term whereby the ongoing worker may make arrangements to meet with service providers involved with the child and parents to provide background and information and help that they may provide. The provision proposed is a reasonable one.

b) Counsel for the Children’s Lawyer also proposes that the mother’s medication be provided and monitored by a third party. Specifically, she proposes the mother take her medication through a long-lasting injection administered by a third party. Dr. Ellis’ evidence is that, if this was to be the case, a different antipsychotic medication would have to be found. He did not believe that the one currently taken by the mother has been developed into a depot form yet.

Without medical evidence that this change in medication could be achieved without disruption, and based upon the mother’s longstanding compliance, I am not inclined to accede to this request made by the Children’s Lawyer counsel.

c) Counsel for the Children’s Lawyer also proposed that the child be placed in the care of the father, with the mother being allowed to reside in the family home with him and the child. I am not satisfied that such a term is necessary and in the child’s best interests. The mother and father will be parenting the child jointly. In order to address the situation where one of the parents leaves their home, a provision requiring immediate reporting to the Society would be more appropriate.

d) The parents should be required to provide notice to the Society if either of them ceases to be employed. I agree, and would add or is suspended or are disciplined in any way through their employment.

Order

[98] For these reasons, the following order shall issue:

Having determined pursuant to s. 90 of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 that:

(a) the child’s full name is N… and his date of birth is […] 2019;

(b) the child is not a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child; and

(c) the child was not brought to a place of safety.

And on finding the child, N…, born […] 2019, to be in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(b) and s. 74(2)(b)(i) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017.

THIS COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The child, N..., born […] 2019, shall be placed in the care of the parents, E.E. and D.G., for a period of 12 months, subject to the supervision of the Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex, on the following terms and conditions:

i. That the parents, E.E. and D.G., allow access, on both a scheduled and unscheduled basis, to their home and cooperate with a worker or family support worker from the Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex as frequently as and for as long as deemed necessary by the Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex. The Society shall attend in-person, subject to Public Health regulations, with the parents and child at least two times each month, one scheduled and one unscheduled.

ii. That the parents, E.E. and D.G., attend and participate in all scheduled meetings with a worker from the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex as requested.

iii. That the parents, E.E. and D.G., allow a worker from the Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex to have independent access to the child, N...

iv. That the parents, E.E. and D.G., sign all necessary consents for the release of information including all medical and psychiatry and/or psychological notes, records, assessments and reports to and from the Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex as deemed necessary by the Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex.

v. That the parents, E.E. and D.G., shall inform the Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex of any change of address and/or telephone number change, prior to such change occurring.

vi. That the parents, E.E. and D.G., shall inform the Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex immediately if they or the other parent displays any change in demeanor, aggression or a change in mental health stability, or if they become aware that the other parent has stopped taking their medication, meeting with mental health professionals or following treatment directions/advice from their mental health treatment practitioners.

vii. That the parents, E.E. and D.G., ensure that the child, N..., is seen regularly by a family physician, at a frequency recommended by the said physician, and comply with any and all recommendations arising therefrom.

viii. That the mother, E.E., continue to take her medication as prescribed.

ix. That the mother, E.E., continue to participate in psychological services with Dr. Laura Fazakas-DeHoog, at least two times per month or more frequently as requested by her, and follow all recommendations for treatment and intervention.

x. That the mother, E.E., participate in psychiatric services with Dr. Jack Ellis, at least one time per month or more frequently as requested by him, and follow all recommendations for treatment and medication.

xi. That the father, D.G., continue to take his medication as prescribed.

xii. That the father, D.G., participate in psychiatric services with Dr. Jack Ellis, at least one time per month or more frequently as requested by him, and follow all recommendations for treatment and medication.

xiii. If either the mother, E.E., or the father, D.G., sleeps away from the parties’ shared home for two or more consecutive nights, or if there is a breakdown in their relationship, the parents shall notify the Society immediately and provide the Society with full information as to the circumstances and follow the Society’s directions regarding with whom the child shall reside.

xiv. Should either the mother, E.E., or the father, D.G., require hospitalization or receive any in-patient treatment related to their mental health, or should either parent have any involvement with police involving alleged or actual criminality or under the Mental Health Act, the parents shall notify the Society immediately.

xv. The ongoing worker assigned to this file by the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex may make arrangements to schedule and attend meetings in-person or by telephone with service providers involved with the child and the parents including daycares or schools, and the child’s pediatrician, for the purposes of explaining to such service providers that the parents have dealt with mental health difficulties in the past and are continuing to receive ongoing treatment to maintain their current stability, and also for the purpose of requesting the ongoing assistance of such service providers with the monitoring of the child and the parents for any signs of unexpected or mental health deterioration instability by meeting their obligations under the Duty to Report provisions of s. 125 of the CYFSA. Any such meetings shall involve consultation between the Society and the parents in advance to ensure that there is a mutual plan in place to avoid causing undue fear within or harm to the parents’ and child’s relationship with their service providers, and to mitigate the risk of the child losing access to service providers as a result of these meetings occurring. Part X of the CYFSA and the terms of the Personal Health Information Protection Act (“PHIPA”) shall continue to apply, but for greater clarity this includes the existing exceptions to non-disclosure and confidentiality relating to mitigating risks including but not limited to s. 40(1) of PHIPA and s. 292(1)(g) of the CYFSA, where the Society has concerns that meet the requirements of those statutory frameworks.

xvi. The child shall be registered in and attend a licenced daycare facility for at least two days each week (except while the parties are on vacation from their employment). The parents shall notify the Society immediately if the child misses two consecutive daycare attendances and provide the reasons why.

xvii. Both parents, E.E. and D.G., shall keep the Society informed if either parent is no longer employed, is disciplined through their employment or there is a change in their employment circumstances or in their attendance at any in-person school program if they are registered for same.

xviii. Neither parent, E.E. and D.G., shall use any non-prescribed substance, alcohol or other intoxicant. Should this occur, the other parent shall notify the Society immediately.

xix. The parents, E.E. and D.G., shall comply with random drug testing made on the request of the Society or their mental healthcare provider, with irrevocable releases to be provided to the mental healthcare provider to share those results with the Society.

xx. The parents, E.E. and D.G., shall arrange for the child to spend a minimum of one weekend per month, that includes at least one overnight and two days, with his paternal grandmother, T.G., or the paternal aunt, C.G., and at such other times as may be agreed to by the parents, maternal grandmother and paternal aunt, in consultation with the Society.

[99] This matter was tried because I required more evidence than was provided when the matter was before me with only a statement of agreed facts and plan of care. Counsel are to be commended for the professional and sensitive manner in which this case was presented and, in particular, Ms. Stewart for her very able and helpful cross-examinations and submissions.

“Justice Barry Tobin”

Justice Barry Tobin

Released: June 21, 2022

[^1]: In Winko v. British Columbia (Forensic Psychiatric Institute), 1999 CanLII 694 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 625, at para. 62, ¶ 2 provides as follows: A “significant threat to the safety of the public" means a real risk of physical or psychological harm to members of the public that is serious in the sense of going beyond the merely trivial or annoying. The conduct giving rise to the harm must be criminal in nature.