COURT FILE NO.: FC-17-FO283-002
DATE: 2022-10-17
WARNING: This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:
87(8) Prohibition re identifying child — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.
(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.
142(3) Offences re publication — A person who contravenes subsection 87(8) or 134(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87(7)(c) or subsection 87(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo, Applicant
AND:
J.P., mother
R.H., father
Qualipu Mi’Kmaq First Nation, Band
M.B. and C.B., kin caregivers
BEFORE: Justice M. Tweedie
COUNSEL: Eric Smith counsel for the Applicant Brent Balmer counsel for the mother Father self-represented Qualipu Mi’Kmaq First Nation not attending Scott Grainger, counsel for the kin caregivers Valeria Ruoso, Office of the Children’s Lawyer
HEARD: September 21, 2022
ENDORSEMENT
[1] This is a motion brought by the mother, J.P., seeking a temporary order placing the child A.P. born in 2017, back in the care of M.B. and C.B., former foster parents and former kin caregivers to the child.
BACKGROUND
[2] The child’s mother is a member of the Qalipu Mi’Kmaq First Nation.
[3] The child’s father is Black.
[4] The kin are White and practice the Mennonite faith.
[5] Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo (“the Society”) removed A.P. (“the child”) from the care of his mother at birth and placed him with M.B. and C.B. as foster parents. In September 2018 he was placed in the care of his maternal grandmother. She was unable to continue to care for him and in March 2019 the maternal grandmother arranged for the child to return to the care of the foster parents, this time as kin. An interim order placing the child in the care of the kin was granted on May 7, 2019, and then a final order was granted on July 30, 2019, placing the child in the care of the kin, subject to supervision, for a period of 6 months.
[6] On April 30, 2021, the child went on a weekend visit with his father at the father’s home in Peel Region. This became an extended visit while an investigation took place regarding concerns with the kin. On June 7, 2021, Justice Breithaupt Smith granted a temporary without prejudice order that the child be placed in the care of his father subject to terms and Society supervision.
[7] A temporary care hearing was argued on August 26 and 27, 2021. The kin were added as parties to the proceedings on consent/unopposed in advance of the argument. The kin and mother argued that the child should be placed with the kin, and the father and the Society argued that the child should be placed with his father.
[8] On November 22, 2021, Justice Walters granted a temporary order that the child remain in the care of his father subject to terms and the supervision of the Society. Justice Walters did not make an order for access between the kin and the child but ordered the Society to arrange forthwith an expert assessment regarding such access.
[9] In January 2022, the child made disclosures during an access visit with his mother that he was hit by the father. Peel Children’s Aid Society (“Peel CAS”) and Peel Regional Police Special Victims Unit investigated. No charges were laid and the Society did not verify the concerns.
[10] In March 2022, the kin brought a motion seeking, among other things, the return of the child to their care. This motion was not scheduled to be argued as the parties were awaiting the outcome of the access assessment report.
[11] On May 30, 2022, Peel CAS received an anonymous report raising concerns about the father’s supervision of the child. Minimal details were provided by the referent when questioned. On June 1, 2022, Peel CAS received a report from Peel Regional Police regarding concerns that the father was producing and trafficking fentanyl while the child was in the home and was leaving the child unattended. Peel CAS worker Rubirani Prasad attended the home unannounced with two officers from Peel Regional Police, met with the entire family, did not verify the concerns, and assessed the child as being safe in the home.
[12] On July 28, 2022, Peel Regional Police executed a search warrant at the home of the father and his partner, whose initials are also J.P. so she will be referred to as Ms. P. The father was arrested and taken into custody. He was charged with numerous drug and weapons related offences. He has been denied bail on Secondary and Tertiary grounds and remains in custody.
[13] The child remains in the home of Ms. P. There is currently a temporary without prejudice order placing the child in the care of Ms. P. subject to Society supervision. This order was granted because there were simply no options available without argument of this motion and there was no order authorizing the child to be in the care of Ms. P.
[14] On August 16, 2022, the mother brought this motion, seeking an order placing the child in the care of the kin subject to Society supervision. The kin support the mother’s motion.
[15] The Society’s factum indicated that it sought to continue the November 2022 temporary order of Justice Walters placing the child in the care of the father. However, at the hearing of the motion it was clarified that the Society seeks an order that the child be placed in the care of Ms. P. subject to Society supervision. It did not bring a cross motion before the court requesting this relief.
DECISION OF JUSTICE WALTERS NOVEMBER 22, 2021
[16] In her decision dated November 22, 2021, Justice Walters made a number of findings which are relevant to the issues currently before the court. These are:
a. While the kin supported and embraced the child’s indigenous heritage, they did not do the same for his Black heritage, and further lacked understanding of the impact that racism would have on the child throughout his life.
b. The kin did not support or foster a relationship of the child with his father or paternal family and could not acknowledge the benefit the child would have by having the father involved in his life.
c. The kin love the child. However, the kin were not child focused and subjected the child to emotional harm by exposing him to their own emotions, conducting surveillance on the father, questioning and recording the child about his visits with the father, taking pictures of the child crying so that they could post them to Facebook instead of consoling him. Justice Walters states “what emerges is a pattern of behaviour from the kin that resembles a high conflict custody and access case where the child is in the middle.”
d. The father had not been given adequate support by the Society following the child’s birth, nor did the Society adequately consider his plan until 2020.
e. An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Métis children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24 (“The Federal Act”) requires that, to the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of the child, priority of placement be given to the child’s parents, and as a result, placed the child with his father.
[17] Justice Walters also ordered that the Society forthwith obtain an expert report regarding access between the child and the kin. The Society did not do this “forthwith” and did not arrange for such an assessment until February 17, 2022. Dr. Kristen McLeod started the assessment process on April 5, 2022 and her report is dated July 22, 2022. I will refer to the report later in these reasons.
ISSUES AND THE LAW
[18] The application before the court is a Status Review Application.
[19] Section 113(8) of the Child Youth and Family Services Act, S.O. 2017 c. 14, Sched. 1 (the CYFSA) states that when a Status Review Application is brought, the child shall remain in the care of the person having charge of the child until the application is disposed of, unless the court is satisfied that the child’s best interests require a change in the child’s care and custody.
[20] The factors the court must consider when making a determination in the best interests of a child are set out in s. 74(3) of the CYFSA and s. 10(2) of The Federal Act. The factors that are outlined in The Federal Act overlap those in the CYFSA and also include consideration of family violence and the impact on this child, and any civil or criminal proceeding. The test under The Federal Act has been referred to as an “augmented best interests test”. (see CAS v. K.C. and Constance Lake First Nation, 2020 ONSC 5513, and Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. S.S. and T.F., 2022 ONSC 744)
[21] It is clear that the child’s best interests require a change in his placement. There has been a material change in circumstances resulting from the father’s incarceration. The father, with whom the child is legally placed, is no longer able to maintain charge of the child given his incarceration. He has been denied bail, is awaiting trial as his matter proceeds through the criminal justice system, and it is uncertain how long he will remain in custody.
[22] However, there are competing plans before the court and the issue becomes what plan is in the child best’s interests?
POSITION OF THE PARTIES
The Band’s position
[23] The band did not participate in the hearing and did not communicate any position through any of the parties.
OCL – Child’s Views and Preferences
[24] Child’s counsel advised that she was not able to obtain the child’s views and preferences, especially with respect to the complex issues before the court in this motion. In her submissions, the OCL highlighted the factors the Court must consider when determining an Indigenous child’s best interests, that there were serious protection concerns regarding the father, and that the Society had not formally brought a motion seeking placement with Ms. P.
The Father’s position
[25] The father attended the hearing virtually from Central East Correction Centre. I had arranged for Duty Counsel to be present, however, the father declined to consult with him.
[26] The father first advised the Court that he did not care what happened and said that he agreed for the child to be returned to the care of the kin. I clarified to him that the purpose of the hearing was to determine where the child should live; that the mother and the kin were asking for an order placing the with kin, but that the Society were asking for an order that the child be placed with the father’s partner, Ms. P. The father then stated that he would like the child to remain in the care of Ms. P. However, he also then asked, “what am I fighting for?”, and I advised him that he needed to answer that question himself.
[27] The Society had arranged for Indigenous Alternative Dispute Resolution between the mother and father, and possibly to include the kin. The father had advised that he would participate. On September 14, 2022, the day of the mediation session, the father advised through the corrections facility social worker that he was reconsidering, and he did not participate in the session.
[28] Argument on the motion began at approximately 1:10 p.m. and at 1:43 p.m. the father abruptly left the video room from which he joined the hearing. The corrections officer advised that the father declined to return, despite her encouragement to stay. I advised the officer that the father was welcome to join the hearing again if he changed his mind, and I asked the officer to allow him the opportunity to rejoin if he wished. The matter ended at 5:05 p.m. The father did not rejoin the hearing.
[29] While the father is presumed to be innocent of the charges against him, he has not been able to obtain bail, and will be unavailable to parent his child for an unknown amount of time. Even if he were to be released, the charges and early morning raid when the child was in the home pose a significant risk that could not be mitigated by terms of supervision. I am also concerned about his lack of interest in participating in mediation and the motion, and his failure to stay until the motion’s completion. I am mindful that this could stem from his own experiences as a Black person and resulting lack of confidence in the criminal justice and child protection systems, however his low engagement with the process will have implications on the Society’s ability to engage and work with the father.
The mother’s plan and kin’s plan
[30] The mother is unable to care for the child due to a criminal prohibition order originally made on January 11, 2013. It is a lifetime prohibition from having any contact with any person under the age of 16 or being in a place where persons under the age of 16 are present. On October 29, 2021, the mother successfully obtained a variation of this prohibition which now allows her to have contact with the child in the presence of an adult approved in writing by the Society or other child protection agency.
[31] The mother hopes to expand her access with the child. The Society states that they are “open” to explore a potential plan placing the child in the care of his mother with community supports. Neither the mother nor the Society have provided any information as to what resources have been explored and whether their services/support would alleviate the concerns and address the significant barrier that the prohibition order presents.
[32] In the meantime, however, the mother seeks an order placing the child with the kin. The kin seek the same order.
[33] The mother states that placement in foster care would not be in the child’s best interests.
[34] The mother argues that the father is not available to care for the child, and even if he was released from custody, he presents an unacceptable risk to the child. She further argues that Ms. P. is not an appropriate caregiver for the following reasons:
a. Ms. P is not fully understanding of the risks posed by the father because she has stated that she would be his surety.
b. Ms. P. states that she was unaware of the father’s activities but despite this, can keep the child safe from the risks posed by those activities.
c. Ms. P. will not be able to always “have eyes on” the father and will continue to be unaware of his activities.
d. Ms. P. works nights and her children, 14 years old and 18 years old, care for the child overnight.
e. Ms. P. and the father were resistant to the mother having access with the child.
f. Ms. P.’s commitment to caring for the child long term is unclear.
g. Ms. P. has child protection involvement as a parent with Peel CAS, both recent and historical.
[35] The mother argues that Justice Walter’s finding of risk of emotional harm to the child in the care of the kin can be addressed:
a. Regarding the kin’s resistance to the child having a relationship with his father, she argues the relationship between the father and child has taken on less importance because the child cannot have the same relationship with his father now that he is incarcerated.
b. Regarding the kin’s inability to support the child’s Black identity, she states that, because of their history and experiences, they simply did not understand what it means to be a Black child or racialized person in our society, and this can be mitigated by education and support from the Society, which could be a term of supervision.
[36] The mother argues that the kin fully support the mother, support the child’s relationship with the mother, support and foster the child’s indigeneity, love the child, provided good care to him for the years he lived with them, and are committed long term to him.
[37] The kin state that the plan to place with Ms. P. is not in the child’s best interests for the same reasons as the mother.
[38] The kin state that placement with them is in the child’s best interests because:
a. They are committed to him.
b. They are committed to the child’s heritage and have made his Indigenous heritage a priority without CAS assistance. They have sought information from people in the community regarding his Black heritage and are on a waiting list for a course to increase their awareness.
c. The Society provided little, if any, education or support regarding nurturing the child’s Black identity, and did not do so until the father came back into the child’s life in March 2020. The father did not engage with the kin and therefore they did not gain cultural knowledge from him.
d. They parented the child for a significant period and the assessment of Dr. McLeod credits the kin for providing care that contributed to the child’s resilience.
e. They will ensure the child receives counseling to address the impact of multiple disruptions in his caregivers.
f. They will send the child to public school, as opposed to home schooling him, to provide the child with exposure to different ideas and cultures.
[39] I have concerns regarding the plan to place the child with the kin.
[40] The kin have not seen the child since March 3, 2022, via video. On June 7, 2022, the Society offered them virtual bi-weekly virtual visits pending the outcome of the assessment ordered by Justice Walters. In correspondence dated June 8, 2022, the kin refused virtual visits because they state it is unnatural and claim that the Society “would manipulate observations to suit their narrative”. The kin instead proposed supervised visits through the services at By Peaceful Waters. There is no evidence that the Society responded to that letter. While the Society may not have responded or have been willing to facilitate in person visits pending the completion of the access assessment, I find it concerning that the kin would not avail themselves of whatever type of contact with the child the Society was offering, while still continuing to negotiate and advocate for in person visits.
[41] I am not convinced of the kin’s commitment to encouraging a relationship between the child and the father, particularly now that he is facing serious criminal charges, which I note, he is presumed to be innocent of. The kin’s argument in this motion focused on re-iterating the concerns they voiced about the father at the hearing before Justice Walters, which were extremely critical of him. They did not state that they now understand the importance to the child of fostering that relationship despite the concerns they have regarding the father. In fact, it was stated on their behalf that the father “is now out of the picture”, suggesting a lack of understanding of the importance to the child of fostering some form of relationship with the father over the long term.
[42] The majority of the kin’s argument focused on how the Society “got it wrong” in its decision to place the child with his father, and that they have a lot of concerns regarding the “competence” and “integrity” of the Society. They essentially argued “we told you so”. The kin state that there has been a breakdown in trust with the Society, but that “by nature and faith” they “are forgiving” and that they would work with the Society “if the Society was willing to look at their strengths and weaknesses”. This suggests that they will not work with the Society if the Society does not admit to all the allegations the kin make against them.
[43] That the kin would maintain these positions despite Justice Walters’ articulated concerns about them suggests that they are unable to reflect and re-assess their role and behaviours leading to the removal of the child from their care. It further reinforces Justice Walters’ original assessment that the kin’s behaviour is akin to a high conflict case where the interests of the child are forgotten due to blind animosity toward the other party. It raises serious questions of the kin’s ability to follow the direction of the Society should the child be placed in their care. It raises some questions about their commitment to the child given their failure to do whatever they could to maintain a relationship with the child and given their willingness to work with the Society comes with demands attached.
Society’s plan
[44] The Society’s plan is to have the child remain in the care of Ms. P. subject to Society supervision.
[45] The Society does not support placement with the kin for the following reasons:
a. It would result in another disruption in caregivers for the child, at a time where the Society is working to return the child to the mother.
b. The kin are not willing to facilitate a relationship between the child and his father.
c. Justice Walters found that the kin’s actions while he was in their care placed him at risk of emotional harm and yet they still do not acknowledge this finding.
d. The kin are not willing or able to recognize or embrace the child’s cultural identity, evident because:
i. The kin have taken a “colour blind” approach which focuses on equality rather than equity;
ii. The kin have failed to recognize that the child will be subject to racism, systemic racism, discrimination and oppression based on his identity; and
iii. The kin have not articulated any plan to educate themselves on matters of equity, diversity, inclusion.
[46] The Society states that the child’s best interests are met by him being in the care of Ms. P. for the following reasons:
a. The child has been assessed by Peel CAS as safe in Ms. P’s care. Child protection workers and police officers have been to the home and have not noted any concerns with the care Ms. P. has provided to the child.
b. Ms. P. has stated that she had not noticed any “red flags” with the father’s behaviour and she had not seen any drugs in the home, and that there was nothing found in the home during the search.
c. Ms. P. has stated that she is committed to caring for the child and is attuned to his need to maintain connection with his mother, his Indigenous heritage, and his Black heritage.
d. Ms. P. has been in regular contact with the Society worker and provides information and updates.
e. Ms. P. has stated that she is supportive of the child’s relationship with his mother and agrees to attend to mediation with the mother to work on their relationship.
f. Ms. P. agrees to follow any order imposed on the father in his criminal proceedings and not allow the father to be unsupervised with the child should he be released.
g. The Society is working with the mother towards a plan of integrating the child to the mother’s care and therefore the current placement is temporary only. The child has had 4 changes in placement and 3 changes in caregivers since his birth and further disruption will not provide him with the continuity of care that his best interests require.
[47] I have concerns regarding the plan to place the child with Ms. P.
[48] The evidence of Ms. P.’s statements to the Peel child protection worker are before this court in the form of double hearsay. They are contained in an affidavit of a Peel child protection worker who has reviewed the contact logs of Rubirani Prasad, the worker who conducted the investigations in June and July 2022, and met with Ms. P. While this court can consider hearsay evidence on a motion, I give reduced weight to this evidence. I also find it concerning that the Society has not had more fulsome discussions with Ms. P. on its own accord.
[49] In late February 2022 the Society planned to increase the mother’s access to the child to include a day on the weekend. The father was resistant to expanding the mother’s access and refused to agree to weekend access. While Ms. P. has stated that she supports a relationship between the child and the mother, no one has asked her what that actually means, and whether she would be willing to go against the father’s wishes to not allow weekend visits. The distance between Ms. P.’s home and the mother’s home also poses barriers to arranging access between the mother and the child.
[50] The Society has not fully assessed Ms. P.’s plan. While Peel CAS has conducted a safety assessment, the Society cannot wholly rely on the assessment of Peel CAS.
[51] Firstly, the child’s placement is being supervised by the Society, not Peel CAS; the child is the Society’s responsibility. The Society workers possess relevant information and professional knowledge about the child and family that Peel CAS workers do not. The Society must take the information provided by another agency in consideration when making its decision about the course of action to take with respect to a family and child with whom it is working. It cannot delegate that decision making to a child protection authority that is only assisting in the discharge of the Society’s responsibilities.
[52] Secondly, assessing that a child is “safe” does not entail the same analysis as assessing what is in a child’s best interests, and the Society has the responsibility to conduct this more fulsome assessment. The evidence before the court documents only two telephone conversations and one text conversation between a worker from the Society and Ms. P. between the father’s arrest and September 14, 2022. The only one in which Ms. P.’s plan for the child was discussed took place on August 3, 2022. There was another, more fulsome, discussion between Society worker Stephanie Risken and Ms. P on September 15, 2022, only AFTER the mother served her reply affidavit in which she raised concerns regarding Ms. P.’s plan.
[53] I am concerned that there is limited evidence regarding Ms. P.’s level of commitment to this child. As stated earlier, most of the evidence of Ms. P’s statements is double hearsay or provided in the context of the conversation with Ms. Risken that happened shortly before the argument of the motion. There is no evidence that Ms. P. was questioned on what would happen if the father were to not obtain bail, if this did not occur for a year or more, or, if he were to be convicted and sentenced to imprisonment. These questions should have been asked. There is evidence that Ms. P. has already stated that she would require financial assistance if she were to continue to care for him. The father also declined to participate in mediation and left the hearing of the motion prematurely. If the father is disengaging from the process, how will this impact Ms. P.’s commitment to the child?
[54] Ms. P. works nights and the child is left to be cared for by Ms. P.’s 14- and 18-year-old daughters while she is working. There is no evidence that either of Ms. P.’s daughters were interviewed about their caregiving role. There is no evidence regarding the capacity of the daughters to provide this care, and whether they are committed to providing this care indefinitely.
[55] The Society’s evidence did not refer at all to Ms. P.’s child protection involvement. This was brought to the court’s attention by the mother, after having obtained disclosure from Peel CAS. This disclosure shows that Ms. P. was subject to an investigation by Peel CAS following a report made on June 30, 2022. The report outlined in Peel CAS contact logs alleged that Ms. P. was seen dragging her daughter in the house, threatening to punch her, and that Ms. P. yells every day. The caller also reported they also hear Ms. P. and the father screaming and yelling at each other. The investigation was not completed because Ms. P would not return the Peel CAS worker’s calls, and the file was closed because the child is 14 and not at a vulnerable age, and the family was involved with the Society. The contact log does not address potential risk to the child that is the subject of this motion. Peel CAS disclosure also suggests that Peel CAS has historical involvement with Ms. P. Not only does this raise concerns that risk of physical harm has not been fully investigated by either Peel CAS or the Society, but it also raises concerns that Ms. P. might not be cooperative with the Society in the context of a supervision order.
[56] While the Society may not think that placement of the child with Ms. P. will be long term because they are actively working with the mother to place the child in the mother’s care, there is little evidence that the plan to place the child with the mother is something that can be achieved in the near future. The Society states that it and the mother are exploring plans and working with community services, but neither the mother nor the Society have explained what that plan would entail. Neither has provided any evidence as to how far this exploration has gone, what consultations they have had with community partners, whether it is even realistic to think that there are community services or community members that could sustain long term 24/7 supervision of the mother with the child. This plan may never materialize. While the current situation may be legally “temporary”, it may last for a long time.
PLACEMENT
[57] There are protection concerns regarding both plans. I am tasked with determining which plan is more likely to meet the child’s best interests, and in which plan can the risks more likely be mitigated by virtue of a supervision order. I find the placement with the kin is the better of the two plans for the following reasons:
a. The kin appear more committed to the child and his well-being than Ms. P. Placement with the kin is less likely to break down.
b. There are unanswered questions about Ms. P.’s child protection involvement as a parent to her own children and resulting risk posed to the child.
c. The kin appear more likely to facilitate and foster a relationship between the child and his mother.
d. Dr. McLeod in her report states that the kin provided the child with stability and “responsive caregiving” and contributed to the child’s ability to transition to his father’s care. In her interaction with the child, the child did not show any negative response when speaking about the kin, and while initially confused, he did speak about the kin in familiar terms and indicated a desire to see them. This suggests that despite their absence, he still retains memory and positive thoughts about his time with them and that they are not strangers to him.
e. The risk of emotional harm posed by the kin’s lack of understanding of the experiences of Black people and impact of racism, and their mistrust of the father may be as a result of the kin’s lack of experiences with diverse populations and limited knowledge of resources on these issues. This risk can be mitigated through providing the kin with Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion training, engagement with community cultural groups, and informal discussions with Society workers and professionals involved with the child (such as Dr. McLeod).
f. There are concerns about the cooperation of the caregivers in either plan. However, the kin have demonstrated a long-term commitment to the child and there is very little information about the long-term commitment of Ms. P. The more committed to the child, the more motivation to cooperate. The kin want what is best for the child and I trust, after reviewing both Justice Walters’ decision and this decision, that they realize they must reflect on the impact of their past behaviours, understand how they were harmful to the child, and change their ways, for the benefit of the child they love.
[58] The relationship between the parties, including the Society, is severely fractured. There were several affidavits filed for this motion, many of which focused on showing why the other party is wrong. This does not benefit the child in any way. This plan will require the good faith of all parties, and a desire to set aside differences, acknowledge deficiencies and strengths of each participant, and work together to make the best plan for the child. I strongly encourage all parties, including the Society, to engage in mediation to mend the relationships and forge a way to work together in a respectful manner which acknowledges the positive contributions of each to the child’s well-being.
COSTS
[59] The mother sought an order for costs in her Notice of Motion. This is a complex file. Each party had concerns regarding the plan presented by the other, and I have found that each had valid concerns. Rules 24(2) and 24(3) of the Family Law Rules Ont. Re. 114/99, as amended, states that there is no presumption of a costs award in a child protection case and such an order is in the court’s discretion. Should the mother seek costs and the parties are unable to resolve the issue, then written submissions regarding costs shall be submitted as follows:
a. The mother shall serve and file written submissions, no more than three pages, double spaced, with case law hyperlinked, by October 31, 2022;
b. The Society shall serve and file its responding submissions, no more than three pages, double spaced, with case law hyperlinked, by November 14, 2022;
c. The mother shall serve and file reply no more than two pages, double spaced, by November 21, 2022;
d. There shall be no extensions to these deadlines unless approved by myself;
e. The submissions shall be sent to my attention by email to kitchener.scjja@ontario.ca.
TEMPORARY ORDER
[60] Until October 31, 2022, the child shall remain in the care of Ms. P. subject to the terms of the temporary order of Justice Breithaupt Smith dated August 24, 2022.
[61] Until October 30, 2022, the child shall have access with the kin on a schedule to be determined by the Society with a view to support the child in his integration to the care of the kin.
[62] Commencing October 31, 2022, the child, A.P. born in 2017 shall be placed in the care of the kin M.B. and C.B., subject to Society supervision and subject to the following terms of supervision:
a. The kin shall co-operate with The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo
b. The kin shall meet with a worker from The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo at the home, agency and/or community as requested by the worker.
c. The kin shall advise The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo in advance of any change in address and/or telephone number.
d. The kin shall allow a worker from The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to have access to the home and to the child at home and at school on both a scheduled and unscheduled basis
e. The child shall be registered in a public school and the kin shall ensure his regular attendance and follow recommendations of the education professionals involved with the child.
f. The kin shall ensure that the child receives all necessary medical and dental care by attending regular appointments and following through with treatment recommendations.
g. The kin shall follow the direction of the Society regarding any counseling or assessments of the child, and if engaged, shall follow any treatment recommendations of the involved professionals.
h. The kin shall sign consents to release information to allow The Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo to communicate with service providers and vice versa.
i. The kin shall participate in Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion education as directed by the Society. This may include both formal and informal education sessions.
j. The kin shall engage in meaningful discussions with the Society regarding both the child’s Indigenous heritage and Black heritage and what impact this will have on him as he grows and develops.
k. The kin shall follow the direction of the Society regarding the child’s access with the mother and the father, and the child’s contact with other members of the maternal and paternal family, and Ms. P.
l. The kin shall ensure that the child remains connected with his maternal and paternal family and to his Indigenous heritage and Black heritage by supporting and facilitating contact with extended family and engaging the child in supports, services, ceremonies, and other cultural events.
[63] The mother’s access to the child shall be at the discretion of the Society and supervised as deemed necessary by the Society.
[64] The father’s access to the child shall be at the discretion of the Society and supervised as deemed necessary by the Society.
[65] Approval of this Order by unrepresented parties is waived.
________________________________
Tweedie, J.
Date: October 17, 2022