Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville v. C.P. et al.
COURT FILE NO.: 21-160
DATE: 2022/02/07
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.
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE - ONTARIO
RE: Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville, Applicant
AND:
C.P., M.C.1, M.C.2, and A.P., Respondents
BEFORE: The Honourable Justice M. Fraser
COUNSEL: Heather Morrison, Counsel for the Applicant
David Danielson, Counsel for C.P.
M.C.1 – self-represented
Penelope G. Gardner, Counsel for M.C.2
Cedric Nahim, Counsel for A.P.
Jennifer A. O’Reilly, agent for The Office of the Children’s Lawyer
HEARD: January 27, 2022
ENDORSEMENT
[1] The Applicant, Family and Children’s Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (the “FCSLLG”) has brought a motion seeking an order that the child, T., born February 2012, be placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society, with access to the Respondents as follows:
a. The Respondent father, M.C.1 to have supervised access a minimum of twice per week for 2 hours per visit at the Rose Garden or alternate approved location agreed to by M.C.1 and FCSLLG. At the discretion of FCSLLG, the frequency and duration of access may increase and the level of supervision of access may decrease or be eliminated in accordance with T.'s best interests.
b. The Respondent mother, C. P. to have access with T. minimally once per week to include an overnight. At the discretion of FCSLLG, the frequency and duration of access may increase in accordance with T.'s best interests.
c. The Respondent paternal uncle, M.C.2 to have access with T. a minimum of once per week for two hours. At the discretion of FCSLLG, the frequency and duration of access may increase in accordance with T.'s best interests.
d. The Respondent stepmother, A.P. to have access with T. twice per week for 1 hour, to be exercised during M.C.1's access with T. The frequency and duration of access may increase and the level of supervision of access decrease or be eliminated at the discretion of FCSLLG in accordance with T.'s best interests.
[2] C.P. has brought her own cross-motion. She asks for a temporary order allowing her unsupervised access with T. every Friday after school until Sunday at 5:00 p.m. or alternatively on those days at times considered appropriate by the court.
[3] M.C.1 and the Respondent stepmother, A.P. both oppose FCSLLG’s motion and seek an order returning T. to their care on an unsupervised or alternatively supervised basis. They ask alternatively for liberal and unrestricted access to T.
[4] M.C.1 also served a cross-motion which was not filed. However, I received the motion at the hearing. By this motion M.C.1 asked for relief which was not directly related to the temporary care and custody hearing (ie. an order for a psychoeducational assessment, an order that the application be transferred to Kingston, an order that the family court clinic conduct a s. 98 assessment, an order granting leave to bring a motion to dismiss the application, among other things). I was only prepared to allow his motion to proceed to the extent that he asked for a temporary placement different than that sought by the FCSLLG. The other relief claimed by his motion was simply too broad to be addressed in the time allotted for this hearing and time had not been reserved for a motion of that breadth.
[5] M.C.2 asks for unsupervised access with T. He has only recently served his Answer and Plan of Care and he asks for an Order allowing for the late filing of his responding documents.
[6] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer takes the position, on behalf of T., that an order should issue in terms which provide that T. remain in care, for M.C.1’s and A.P.’s access with T. be supervised, and for C.P and M.C.2’s access with T. to continue on an unsupervised basis.
Legal considerations on temporary care and custody motion:
[7] The legal test for me to apply on this motion is set out in subsections 94 (2), (4), (5) and (6) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act (the “Act”) that reads as follows:
Custody during adjournment
94(2) Where a hearing is adjourned, the court shall make a temporary order for care and custody providing that the child,
(a) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part;
(b) remain in or be returned to the care and custody of the person referred to in clause (a), subject to the society's supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate
(c) be placed in the care and custody of a person other than the person referred to in clause (a), with the consent of that other person, subject to the society's supervision and on such reasonable terms and conditions as the court considers appropriate; or
(d) remain or be placed in the care and custody of the society, but not be placed in a place of temporary detention, of open or of secure custody.
Criteria
(4) The court shall not make an order under clause (2) (c) or (d) unless the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer harm and that the child cannot be protected adequately by an order under clause (2) (a) or (b).
Placement with relative, etc.
(5) Before making a temporary order for care and custody under clause (2) (d), the court shall consider whether it is in the child's best interests to make an order under clause (2) (c) to place the child in the care and custody of a person who is a relative of the child or a member of the child's extended family or community.
Terms and conditions in order
(6) A temporary order for care and custody of a child under clause (2) (b) or (c) may impose,
(a) reasonable terms and conditions relating to the child's care and supervision;
(b) reasonable terms and conditions on the child's parent, the person who will have care and custody of the child under the order, the child and any other person, other than a foster parent, who is putting forward a plan or who would participate in a plan for care and custody of or access to the child; and
(c) reasonable terms and conditions on the society that will supervise the placement, but shall not require the society to provide financial assistance or to purchase any goods or services.
[8] At a temporary care and custody hearing, the onus is on the Society to establish, on credible and trustworthy evidence, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is a real possibility that if a child is returned to the respondents, it is more probable than not that he or she will suffer harm. The onus is on the Society to establish that the child cannot be adequately protected by terms of conditions of an interim supervision order. (See: Children's Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T. 2000 CanLII 21157 (ON SC), [2000] O.J. No. 2273 (Ont. Sup. Ct.)). Simply stated, this is a two-part test that the Society must meet.
[9] A court must choose the order that is the least disruptive placement consistent with adequate protection of the child (subsection 1(2) of the Act). (see: Children's Aid Society of Hamilton v. B.D. and F.T.M., 2012 ONSC 2448).
[10] The degree of intrusiveness of the society's intervention and the interim protection ordered by the court should be proportional to the degree of risk. (See: CCAS of Toronto v. J.O.1, 2012 ONCJ 269).
[11] Subsection 94 (10) of the Act permits the court to admit and act on evidence that the court considers credible and trustworthy in the circumstance. In determining what evidence is credible and trustworthy, the evidence in its entirety must be viewed together. Evidence that may not be credible and trustworthy when viewed in isolation might reach that threshold when examined in the context of other evidence. (See: Family and Children's Service v. R.O., [2006] O.J. No. 969 (OCJ)).
[12] Section 93 of the Act permits the court to consider the past conduct of the person toward any child if that person is caring for or has access to or may care for or have access to a child who is the subject of the proceeding.
[13] Finally, a society seeking an order for temporary society care at this early stage of a case has only to demonstrate that it has reasonable grounds to believe that there is a protection risk for the child that justifies society intervention. (See: L.D. v. Durham Children’s Aid Society and R.L. and M.L., 2005 CanLII 63827, 21 R.F.L. (6th) 252, [2005] O.J. No. 5050 (Ont. Div. Ct.)). The burden on the society at this stage does not go as high as showing that on the balance of probabilities there is an actual risk to the child in the parent’s care. (See: CCAS of Toronto v. M.L.R. 2011 ONCJ 652).
Analysis:
[14] In making my determination I considered the evidence provided to me as set out in the following affidavits:
Affidavit of KarenLee Martineau, dated July 26, 2021
Affidavit of KarenLee Martineau, dated September 29, 2021
Affidavit of William Wright, dated December 2, 2021;
Affidavit of Caroline Senior, dated December 2, 2021
Affidavit of William Wright, dated January 19, 2022;
Affidavit of C.P., dated December 1, 2021;
Affidavit of C.P., dated January 21, 2022
Affidavit of Dr. Carl Angelo Rubino, dated February 12, 2021
Affidavit of M.C.1 dated October 13, 2021;
Affidavit of M.C.1 dated January 21, 2022
Affidavit of M.C.2 dated December 23, 2021;
Affidavit of A.P., dated November 30, 2021;
Affidavit of A.P., filed January 21, 2022;
Affidavit of Sandra Kapasky dated November 30, 2021; and
Affidavit of Sandra Kapasky dated January 20, 2022.
[15] On July 21, 2021 a warrant to remove T. and bring him to a place of safety was obtained by FCSLLG.
[16] The protection concerns alleged for T. include risk of emotional and physical harm related to his exposure to adult conflict in the home, intimidation, threats of harm, and based on concerns that his basic needs were not being met and that there was excessive/inappropriate punishment being used on T.
[17] The application before the court is the FCSLLG's protection application which was first returnable July 27, 2021 and which seeks a protection finding and an order placing T. in the interim society care of FCSLLG for a period of 6 months. A without prejudice order was made on July 27, 2021 placing T. in the temporary care and custody of FCSLLG with access by the Respondents.
[18] M.C.1 and A. P. have served Answers seeking the return of T. to their joint care.
[19] C. P. has filed an Answer seeking placement of T. in her care.
Events leading up to T. being brought to a Place of Safety:
[20] M.C.1 and A.P. have been involved in a common law relationship for approximately six years. FCSLLG’s involvement with A.P. and M.C.1 began in September 2019. FCSLLG verified concerns related to their caregiving skills as M.C.1 and A. P. were reported struggling with A.P.s daughter, A. due to her needs and their differing parenting styles. There was concern in relation to how M.C.1 interacted with A.
[21] M.C.1 was observed to be loud, demanding and quick to anger towards A., FCSLLG workers, and community collaterals.
[22] FCSLLG workers attended their home on a bi-weekly basis and in June/July 2021 on an almost weekly basis.
[23] Since September 2019 there have been four subsequent investigations; the last three being in April, May and July 2021. Referrals investigated included concerns about adult conflict in the home, spanking A. and T. on the buttocks and legs, and physical restraints being used to disciple both.
[24] T., to FCSLLG's knowledge, moved into the home in February 2021. M.C.1 and A.P. advised he moved into the home in October 2020. Prior to that time, T. had been living with his paternal uncle M.C.2 and the issues of custody and access were dealt with by the Family Court in Cornwall.
[25] FCSLLG workers observed M.C.1 and A.P. yelling at each other, at T., and arguing about parenting styles including A.P. reporting conflict about the length of time that M.C.1 would leave A. in her room when disciplining her. FCSLLG asserts that attempts to teach and model positive parenting techniques were not successful in changing the behaviour of M.C.1 and A.P.
[26] Following T.'s formal placement in M.C.1’s care in the family court proceedings (by way of Order dated February 23, 2021), FCSLLG maintains that the workers observed the number of arguments between M.C.1 and A.P. in the presence of the children was increasing. More specifically, T. was observed to be called names and called a “liar” by both M.C.1 and A.P. when he got upset about something, T. was disciplined by being sent to his room.
[27] T. reported that he was not allowed out of his bedroom in the mornings until either M.C.1 or A.P. was up. T. also reported often waiting for breakfast and his medications for a long time. T. claimed that if he did not comply, M.C.1 physically forced him to the bedroom and at times has restrained him.
[28] T. completed a “safety house” exercise in June 2021. He reported that he would not feel safe if A.P. was in the home but would only feel safe in his home if C.P. was living there with him. He explained that if C.P. was there, he believed she would protect him by putting him behind her during times of conflict or physical threats by his father or A.P.
[29] The FCSLLG in their affidavits recount a repeated pattern of destructive interpersonal interactions between M.C.1, A.P. and T. FCSLLG workers also assert that such high conflict interactions were reported by T. in private interviews. T. stated that although he has told many people about this, no one is helping him.
[30] The FCSLLG workers report observing A.P. openly blaming T. for issues in the home.
[31] M.C.1 was observed using intimidating behaviours to manage T.'s misbehaviours. He would get into T.'s personal space, demand T. change his behaviour, make threats to restrain him, threaten to remove toys, remove visits, and remove him from school.
[32] It was regularly observed that M.C.1 did not respond to T.'s questions right away. He would stare at T. instead for a couple of minutes. T. would wait for the approval or for a response and T. would get upset. When T. got upset, M.C.1 got upset with T. and would threaten T. with room time, yell at T. and then T. was sent to his bedroom.
[33] On one occasion, T. asked to play with a toy on the couch as the other child, A., was playing on the couch with a toy. This was not allowed. According to the worker, M.C.1 stared at T., did not let him bring the truck on the couch or any other toy and eventually T. ended up in his bedroom upset and this followed by M.C.1 restraining T. It was observed that T. was not out of control, and he asked his father to leave him alone in his bedroom. According to the worker, M.C.1 refused to listen to him and is reported to have entered into T.'s personal space telling him he did not care that the child protection worker was watching and that he would do what he wanted.
[34] Both T. and A. reported to FCSLLG workers being spanked and restrained.
[35] On July 21, 2021, FCSLLG received a report from Valoris (the child protection agency in Prescott-Russell). The intake worker reported receipt of a call from an occupational therapist who had been in the M.C.1 and A.P.’s home that day. The occupational therapist was attending the home for M.C.1 and while in the home she heard shouting from the second floor. The therapist reported that A.P. went upstairs, and she heard more shouting. She heard a child scream and say he had been pushed and his leg twisted. The daughter apparently then started screaming. M.C.1 then went to the second floor and brought A. to the main floor pulling her by the hand while she kicked him in the leg. M.C.1 then took a garbage bag and threatened A. that he would throw all the toys in the garbage if she did not behave. A.P. told M.C.1 that she would leave his “fat ass” if he touched the toys, that he was useless, and she did all the cleaning. T. was said to scream at A.P. that she was a “child abuser” and that she should “go to jail”, and A.P. responded with touch me again and see what will happen and threatened to call CAS.
[36] FCSLLG obtained a warrant to bring T. to a place of safety.
[37] According to FCSLLG workers, T. has consistently expressed the wish that he not be returned to the care of M.C.1 or A.P. Furthermore, T. has reported to FCSLLG workers that he wants to have visits with M.C.1 but that he wishes such visits to be supervised to ensure his father does not yell at him or hit him. He recently agreed to A.P. joining M.C.1 for arrange access so that A.P. has joined M.C.1’s access visits with T. since November 2021.
[38] FCSLLG reports that T. is doing well in his foster home. The foster parents describe him as being "super smart" and having "a good heart". It is their perception that when T. becomes frustrated, he can de-escalate within a few minutes. They help T. identify the emotion and allow him to re-direct to another activity including building Lego or biking outside.
[39] There have nonetheless been further challenges. In October 2021 the school reported difficulties with T. and on October 26, 2021 a "Worrisome Meeting" was arranged to occur virtually. Representatives from the school, the school board, FCSLLG and Children's Mental Health attended. School staff described the incident that prompted the meeting; that T. was not following direction in gym class. The class focus transitioned to the subject of mental health and T. did not want to participate, shouting it was a waste of time. T. left the classroom and ran down the hall. Children were lined up outside the bathroom and T. apparently made comments to one of the students calling her names and saying he would shoot her with a bb gun (T. acknowledges that he does not have a bb gun).
[40] As a result of this incident, T. was transitioned to the Education Community Partners Program (ECPP) at S[...] Catholic School. The program has smaller class sizes, more staff support and special transportation. The focus in this program is on therapeutic support and the school works closely with community partners including Children's Mental Health. T. started there November 15, 2021 and according to FCSLLG he appears to be enjoying the school program.
[41] FCSLLG takes the position that M.C.1 has not shown a willingness to engage in the type of parenting programs that FCSLLG has felt he needs to engage in to learn and address some of the parenting concerns. Also, it believes that A.P. has not engaged in counselling services. FCSLLG reports that M.C.1 and A.P. have not been cooperative with FCSLLG as evidenced by their continued combative nature of their interactions and the great difficulty experienced in making progress in developing even an access trajectory. As such its position is that a supervision order would be inadequate to protect T.
[42] M.C.1 and A.P. do not agree that there are protection concerns. M.C.1 and A.P. maintain that they have always protected and loved T. M.C.1 claims that he has advocated for T. and ensured that he received the necessary care from medical professionals. M.C.1 asserts that T. suffers from a number of behavioural issues, and that he and A.P. have responded to these worrisome behaviours by attempting to calm T. by placing him on their lap when he becomes violent. While they admitted to spanking T., they claim this was not a regular occurrence and that their goal was never to hurt T. but to demonstrate that his actions were unacceptable.
[43] According to M.C.1 and A.P., apart from an incident which occurred in January 2022, the visits with T. have been going well. The visits currently occur both at the Rose Garden Centre and at A.P.’s home in Kingston.
[44] M.C.1 and A.P. claim they have attended multiple meetings with the Society, school staff and other service providers.
[45] With respect to October 2021 at T.’s school, M.C.1 and A.P. assert that T.’s principal noted that this behaviour was new and confirmed that such incidents were not occurring while in the care of M.C.1 and A.P. They maintain therefore that the present behaviour issues the FCSLLG is outlining are not issues which occurred when T. was in their care and/or not as a result of their care.
[46] M.C.1 and A.P. state that they have enrolled in new programs to gain additional parenting tips and tools. Supporting documentation to evidence the successful completion of such programs or information concerning the nature of such programs was not provided.
[47] The family court order which was in place when T. was brought to a place of safety provided that T. would have an overnight visit once a week with his mother. T. has continued to have overnight visits with C.P. These overnight access visits have taken place in the home of his maternal aunt and T. has consistently spent time with C.P. and the extended maternal family on a weekly basis. C.P. has not been able to consistently stay overnight. She has a number of children and she has struggled with their care.
[48] According to FCSLLG workers, T. has expressed the wish to have more visits with C.P. He feels comfortable with her visits and comfortable with the notion that they continue to be unsupervised. FCSLLG workers report that T. speaks positively of C.P. and loves spending time with his mother and extended maternal family.
[49] FCSLLG is presently looking into C.P.’s network to consider expanding access. It is concurrently assessing her plan to parent T. full time.
[50] In response to C.P.’s request for expanded access time, FCSLLG reports that its worker, Mr. Wright has made efforts to meet with C.P. to plan how more extended access might occur but observes that she is not taking advantage of the time she has been allotted and that T. is stretched pretty thin managing time with all who are participating in his life especially once travel time is considered.
[51] M.C.2 has now presented a plan of care to parent T. He was out of time for filing his Answer and Plan of Care. I am prepared to make an order for the late filing of these documents. M.C.2’s own children were returned to his care in early October and were the subject to a temporary Order of supervision. This Order has since been terminated and a contract of expectations has been entered into between FCSLLG and M.C.2 (as it concerns his children). He is presently working with his child protection worker with respect to T. and safety planning.
[52] According to FCSLLG, T. did not initially want to see M.C.2 and there was an allegation made by T. in July 2021 that M.C.2 had elbowed him / restrained him in such a way that hurt him. FCSLLG investigated these allegations and did not verify that there was any intention to harm T. As a precaution, T’s visits with M.C.2 began in a supervised way to allow FCSLLG to assess how the visits were going and as a result the access have not transitioned to unsupervised.
[53] Ms. O’Reilly appeared as agent for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer to represent T. She reports that T. clearly articulates his parenting schedule and his feelings when visits are missed. There were no concerns that his views were being influenced. T. was able to provide age-appropriate reasons to support his views and preferences although could present as immature for his age in respect to his emotional regulation and understanding.
[54] Ms. Sandra Kapasky was appointed to assist as a clinician pursuant to section 89 of the Courts of Justice Act and she swore two affidavits which, in particular, noted the following:
- Of visits with M.C.1, T. reports:
a. That visits are good when he and his father do crafts, plays games or go for walks.
b. His father sometimes yells at him and no one does anything about it.
c. T. stated that he does not feel safe around his father.
- Of visits with M.C.2, T. reports:
a. That he enjoys his visits.
b. That he does not feel they need to be supervised.
c. And noted an inconsistency with respect to their frequency.
- Of visits with C. P., T. reports:
a. The visits occur at his maternal aunt or grandmother’s homes and T. has fun with siblings.
b. That his mother has not been able to maintain care of all his siblings.
c. That his mother is not present for the duration of visits.
[55] The Office of the Children’s Lawyer takes the following position on behalf of T.:
a. T. continue to have supervised visits with M.C.1;
b. T. shall have unsupervised visits with M.C.2;
c. T. does not wish to return to the care of M.C.1 or A.P. at this time;
d. Placement options which should be further considered should include C.P., the maternal aunt and grandmother and his present foster home.
Conclusion:
[56] The focus in this case must, as always, be on the needs and interest of T. The paramount purpose of the Act as outlined under subsection 1(1) is to promote the best interest, protection and well-being of children.
[57] I bear in mind that the least disruption course of action is the action the court should implement.
[58] It is undisputed that T. is a challenging child. He presents with concerning behavioural issues which need attention. These are not challenges that have only arisen since T. was brought to a place of safety. These challenges have been present with all caregivers based on the history provided in the affidavit evidence. It clearly has arisen with all of the parties at different points in time.
[59] While M.C.1’s. opposition to this application is based upon his assertion that he was fully aware of and attempting to get services available to address T.’s issues this may be so, but it does not negate the fact that it is also clear, based on the evidence put forward by FCSLLG, that T. was exposed to what appears to be inappropriate levels of conflict while in M.C.1’s care. This conflict was at times between M.C.1 and A.P.; M.C.1 or A.P. and T.; and M.C.1 or A.P. and A. Whether the exposure to this conflict contributed to the manifestation of some of T.’s challenging behaviours is, to some extent, beside the point. The bottom line is that he and A.P. have exposed T. to a high conflict environment and have employed approaches to parenting which, in my view, make it more probable than not that if T. were returned to M.C.1’s care at this time, he is likely to suffer physical or emotional harm.
[60] M.C.1 and A.P. maintain that they have been engaging in the services as recommended by the FCSLLG to address the concerns identified by FCSLLG. This is commendable and a very positive step. However, it is early days. At this juncture, I am not satisfied that they have accomplished the work necessary to provide a home which offers T. the emotional stability and structure that he needs.
[61] It has been argued on behalf of A.P. that the frequent reporting of concerns was unfounded and instead based racist perspectives in the community and police services and bias with the FCSLLG. The court must always be attuned to the possibility that there are conscious or unconscious biases at play and guard against them. That stated, the evidence before me for the purpose of today’s motion is not sufficient to draw such a conclusion.
[62] In my view, most of the incidents which the FCSLLG claim to have witnessed in the home of M.C.1 and A.P. is not specifically disputed by them. Instead what is disputed is the suggestion that this conduct was inappropriate or not warranted as a means by which to address some of T.’s behaviour.
[63] On the whole of the evidence, I am satisfied that the Society and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer has provided evidence which is both credible and trustworthy that T. would suffer physical and/or emotional harm if he were to be returned into the care of M.C.1 and A.P. at this time.
[64] Further, I am satisfied, based upon the evidence before me, T. could not be adequately protected by terms and conditions as part of an interim supervision order to M.C.1. At present, M.C.1 remains combative with the FCSLLG workers and does not appear open to addressing and acknowledging some of their concerns. I conclude that a supervision order, even if it might be the least disruptive option, is therefore not a sufficient safety plan. There are no terms of supervision in such circumstances which would adequately protect T.
[65] Neither C.P. nor Michael C. are in a position to take T. into their care at this time. As such I conclude that the least disruptive option available at this time is for T. to remain placed in the temporary care and custody of the Society, with access to the Respondents as follows:
a. The Respondent father, M.C.1 to have supervised access a minimum of twice per week for 2 hours per visit at the Rose Garden or alternate approved location agreed to by M.C.1 and FCSLLG. At the discretion of FCSLLG, the frequency and duration of access may increase and the level of supervision of access may decrease or be eliminated in accordance with T.'s best interests.
b. The Respondent mother C. P. to have access with T. minimally once per week to include an overnight. At the discretion of FCSLLG, the frequency and duration of access may increase in accordance with T.'s best interests.
c. The Respondent paternal uncle, M.C.2 to have access with T. a minimum of once per week for two hours. At the discretion of FCSLLG, the frequency and duration of access may increase in accordance with T.'s best interests.
d. The Respondent stepmother, A.P. to have access with T. twice per week for 1 hour, to be exercised during M.C.1's access with T. The frequency and duration of access may increase and the level of supervision of access decrease or be eliminated at the discretion of FCSLLG in accordance with T.'s best interests.
[66] Moving forward, both the FCSLLG and all Respondents are asked to focus on obtaining the required assessments, supports and services which would alleviate the risk of harm to T. To that end, I ask that all Respondents make it their priority to engage with the FCSLLG workers and to participate in what services are recommended to them so that they are able to address the concerns raised by FCSLLG.
[67] The time for the Respondent, M.C.2 to file his Answer and Plan of Care is extended a further ten days from today’s date.
Date: February 7, 2022
M. Fraser J.