COURT FILE NO.: FC220/21-02

DATE: May 25, 2023

SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE – ONTARIO

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

RE: Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex, Applicant

AND:

J.R., S.D., H.R., M.S. and E.P., Respondents

BEFORE: SAH J.

COUNSEL: Kevin Chao, for the Society Marlene VanderSpek, for the Respondent E.P. (foster parent) Marnelle Dragila, for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer

HEARD: April 11, 2023

ENDORSEMENT

Overview

[1] This child protection proceeding involves one child, C.D., born 2012 (the “child”). There are two motions before the court within the Status Review Application.

[2] In the first motion, the foster parent advanced a motion seeking to be added as a party to the child protection proceeding.

[3] In the second motion, the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex (the “Society”) seeks an order that the maternal grandparents have, at minimum, weekly phone access and, after one month, monthly in-person access. The maternal grandparents are not parties to the Status Review Application.

[4] On these two motions, the Society filed three affidavits, the foster parent filed two, and the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (the “OCL”) filed two affidavits.

Background

[5] On May 12, 2022, under the order of Price J., the child was found to be in need of protection pursuant to s. 74(2)(k) and s. 74(2)(n) of the Child, Youth, and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (the “CYFSA”).

[6] The child was placed in the interim care and custody of the Society for a period of six months. The order was silent on the issue of access.

[7] The current Status Review Application seeks a continued finding, an order placing the child in extended society care, and an order granting the father reasonable access to the child, supervised at the Society's discretion.

[8] The child is almost 12 years old. In his short life, the child has suffered considerable trauma, loss, and abandonment.

[9] At two months old, the child began residing with his paternal grandparents.

[10] When he was eight years old, his paternal grandmother was found dead on the floor with a blanket over her. His paternal grandfather was found in his bed, in medical distress. The child was home with the grandparents at the time. He covered up his grandmother with a blanket as he thought that she was sleeping and would get cold. He could not wake up his grandfather, so he put himself to bed the previous night. The grandfather survived.

[11] The day after the child’s maternal grandmother was found dead, his father reportedly showed up to see him at 4:00 a.m., intoxicated.

[12] It was later determined that the child could not return to the paternal grandfather due to alleged drug use over the years and the Society finding a glass pipe and cocaine in his bedroom.

[13] On January 11, 2021, the child was placed with his mother and siblings, with the hope that he would reconnect with other extended family members.

[14] This placement lasted just over one month. On February 22, 2021, the mother reported that her family was falling apart and the other children had become angry and withdrawn. She reported that the child needed more help than she was able to provide.

[15] The child was diagnosed with ADHD and had a history of constipation. He was referred to an eating disorder programme because of how restrictive his eating habits were. In 2021, he was still using pullups due to a phobia with toilets, was afraid of dogs and bugs, and did not like to go outside.

[16] The child’s mother described him to be unsafe, toxic, defiant, scary, and to have a double personality. She claimed that he lies about everything and is manipulative.

[17] By February 24, 2021, the mother advised she could no longer care for the child due to his behaviour and the negative, destructive impact it was having on her family.

[18] On February 25, 2021, a placement was found for the child with an approved Society foster family in the Niagara region.

[19] On February 26, 2021, the child was placed with the same foster parent who seeks to be added as a party to this litigation.

[20] According to the foster parent, at the time of placement, the Society advised that there could be a scenario where the child would be placed in extended society care and that he would be eligible for adoption.

[21] By all accounts, the child has been thriving in the care of the foster parent.

[22] A kinship search was commenced in April 2022; however, it was not completed until July 2022.

[23] Seven months after the child was placed with the foster parent, the maternal grandparents indicated that they would like to put forward a plan of care.

[24] According to the foster parent, the Society had made threats to remove the child from his care, indicating that extended society care is no longer an option for the child.

[25] Two access visits have occurred between the child and the maternal grandparents.

Issues

The issues to be determined are:

1. Should the foster parent be added as a party to this child protection proceeding?

2. What access, if any, between the child and his maternal grandparents is in the child’s best interest?

Issue 1: Party Status

Position of the Parties

The Society

[26] The Society takes the position that the addition of the foster parent as a party will not serve any purpose which could not otherwise be achieved through expanded participation rights available under s. 79(3) of the CYFSA. Alternatively, the Society takes the position that the foster parent could provide evidence through affidavit evidence and/or as a witness, if necessary.

[27] Further, the Society takes the position that, should it seek extended society care, the foster parent has not been duly approved as an adoptive placement and, therefore, is not capable of putting forward a plan that is in the child’s best interest.

[28] Finally, the Society takes the position that adding the foster parent as a party will only serve to complicate the proceeding and will not serve the best interests of the child.

The Foster Parent

[29] As moving party, the foster parent seeks to be added as a party and highlights the conflicting interests between him and the Society. He claims that adding him as a party is required to enhance the court’s ability to weigh evidence which may not be objectively presented to the court.

[30] The foster parent takes the position that all of the factors applied in considering whether the court should exercise its discretion under r. 7(5) have been met.

The OCL

[31] The OCL supports and consents to the foster parent’s motion to be added as a party and relies on the foster parent’s submissions.

Legal Framework

[32] In a child protection proceeding, party status is determined under provincial or federal statutes which define party status, or under r. 7(5) of the Family Law Rules, O Reg 114/99.

[33] A child protection proceeding cannot be resolved without first determining who the parties are. See: Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v. T.E. [2023] O.J. No. 1107, 2023 ONCA 149.

[34] If a person is a “parent” as defined in the statute, the court has no discretion and must add them as a party.

[35] The federal statute is not engaged as the child is not identified as having a connection to a First Nation, Inuit or Metis community.

[36] The provincial legislation, the CYFSA, s. 79(1), applies. This section provides:

The following are parties to a proceeding under this Part:

1. The applicant.

2. The society having jurisdiction in the matter.

3. The child’s parent.

4. In the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, the persons described in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 and a representative chosen by each of the child’s bands and First Nations, Inuit or Métis communities.

[37] Section 74(1) of the CYFSA defines “parent” but does not include foster parent.

[38] The definition of “foster parent” is found in section 2(1) of the CYFSA. A foster parent is defined as a person, who is not the child’s parent or a person with whom the child has been placed for adoption under Part VII of the Act, who provides residential care to a child and receives compensation for caring for the child. Also see: Windsor-Essex Children’s Aid Society v D.L.H. 2015 ONCJ 310.

[39] The application of r. 7 in child protection proceedings has been confirmed in many cases: see Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. T.M., 2021 ONCJ 640, Durham Children's Aid Society v JS, [2022] OJ No 1939, 2022 ONSC 2535, and AM v Valoris pour enfants et adultes de Prescott-Russell, [2017] OJ No 3684, 2017 ONCA 601, 139 OR (3d) 211, 2017 CarswellOnt 10732, 281 ACWS (3d) 105, 97 RFL (7th) 66.

[40] Rule 7 provides that a party is: “a person who makes a claim in a case or against whom a claim is made in a case”.

[41] Rule 7 (3) provides that:

A person starting a case shall name,

a) as an applicant, every person who makes a claim;

b) as a respondent,

(i) every person against whom a claim is made, and

(ii) every other person who should be a party to enable the court to decide all the issues in the case.

[42] Rule 7(4) distinguishes party status in cases involving children and states that in any of the following cases, every parent or other person who has care and control of the child involved, except a foster parent under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, shall be named as a party, unless the court orders otherwise:

1. A case about decision-making responsibility, parenting time or contact with respect to a child.

2. A child protection case.

3. A secure treatment case (Part VII of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017). O. Reg. 114/99, r. 7 (4); O. Reg. 298/18, s. 7 (1, 2); O. Reg. 535/18, s. 1; O. Reg. 42/21, s. 3 (2).

[43] Rule 7(5) states that the court “may order that any person who should be a party shall be added as a party and may give directions for service on that person”

[44] The Rules do not provide direction on how a court should exercise its discretion.

[45] Blishen J., in Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa v. S.B. [2023] O.J. No. 649, 2023 ONSC 880, states that “the addition of party to a proceeding is a contextual condition and must be decided on the specific facts of each case.”

[46] In the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v H.(S.) [2002] O.J. No. 4491, the court sets out the following principles for consideration:

1. Whether the addition of the party is in the best interests of the child;

2. Whether the addition of the party will delay or prolong the proceedings unduly;

3. Whether the addition of the party is necessary to determine the issues; and

4. Whether the additional party is capable of putting forward a plan that is in the best interests of the child.

[47] Marshman J. in Children's Aid Society of London and Middlesex v JP, [2000] OJ No 745, (adopted in AM v Valoris pour enfants et adultes de Prescott-Russell; Catholic Children’s Society of Hamilton v. J.G. [2015] O.J. No. 1106, 2015 ONSC 1540), added a another, fifth, consideration, specifically:

Whether the additional party has a legal interest in the proceedings, i.e. an order can be made in their favour or against them.

[48] The court should also consider the "the stage of proceedings." This does not mean that foster parents are to be added as parties automatically once there has been a finding in need of protection or an order for extended care. They do, however, suggest that the role of the foster parent changes and their rights to expanded participation or party status may not be reserved for only the rarest of cases once those determinations have been made. A less restrictive approach should be applied to situations where the foster parent is seeking expanded participation or party status to address the issue of placement, or access, once there has been a finding in need of protection or an order for extended care. (Children's Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v CT, [2018] OJ No 5688, 2018 ONCJ 764)

[49] If there is any conflict of interest between the Society and the foster parents, adding the foster parent as a party enhances the court’s ability to weigh evidence, otherwise there is a risk that evidence may not be objectively presented to the court. See: Children’s Aid Society of the Districts of Sudbury and Manitoulin v. A.H., 2022 ONCJ 131, at paras. 11 and 39.

[50] The court in the Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Waterloo v. C.T.C. et al., 2018 ONSC 5729, stressed the importance of a child-centered approach and the court having the best evidence before it to make a decision in accordance with the child’s best interests. At para. 45, the court states:

The Court below emphasized, as was done in A.M., supra, at paras. 20 and 27 and S.(R.D.) supra at para. 14, that the overarching consideration with respect to expanded participation or a request for party status once a protection finding has been made is the best interests of the child. As Justice Czutrin stated at para 14 of R.(D.S.)., the Court at this stage must consider “all available, relevant evidence to make this determination.” The Motions Judge stated:

At this stage of the analysis, the court’s decision must be child centred. It is therefore important that the court have the best evidence available from a party fully informed in order to make a determination as to whether access is beneficial and meaningful and whether orders would impair the adoptability of a child. […]

[51] The court continued to state, at para. 35:

Justice Czutrin stressed that the determination of whether a foster parent should be granted expanded rights of participation is to be determined on a case by case and contextual basis. He articulated the following factors which were endorsed by the Ontario Court of Appeal in A.M. v. Valoris, supra at paras. 25 and 26:

a. The age of the child and the timeline considerations under the legislation;

b. Whether a finding of protection has been made at the time of the request for participation;

c. Whether foster parents will be called to testify and whether their evidence will be challenged;

d. Whether those who had care of the child at the commencement of proceeding are presenting a plan;

e. The time of the continuing placement of the child;

f. The child’s contact with proposed caregivers;

g. Whether the application has been amended; and

h. Other factors which would clarify best interests.

Analysis

[52] For reasons to follow, I exercise my discretion, under r. 7 of the FLR, to add the foster parent as a party to this proceeding.

[53] I make the following findings.

Foster parent is necessary to decide issues

[54] The foster parent is required to be added to enable the court to decide all the issues in the case. On this status review application, the court must determine if a finding for continued need of protection is appropriate, the appropriate disposition, and the issue of access. The child has been in the care of the foster parent for over two years. This is his second longest placement, after the eight years he spent with his now deceased paternal grandmother.

[55] The parties do not dispute the existence of the strong bond and connection between the child and the foster parent. He knows the child intimately and is required to give evidence on the substantial issues to be determined.

[56] My finding that the foster parent is necessary to decide the issues was reinforced by the notable absence of evidence presented by the Society on the issue of access. As further particularised below, the Society’s choice of evidence presented on this motion was not comprehensive and therefore not balanced.

[57] The foster parent presented evidence, as confirmed by the OCL, which assisted the court in weighing all the necessary evidence to determine the issue of access. Whether or not the Society’s selective evidence was intentional or deliberate does not change the fact that there was conflicting evidence and the risk that all relevant evidence was not before the court.

[58] At the risk that such selective evidence may continue to be presented to the court, the evidence of the foster parent will assist the court in weighing all evidence required on the status review application.

No delay to proceedings

[59] The addition of the foster parent as a party will not delay or prolong the proceeding unduly.

[60] A settlement conference has not yet been held and no trial date has been set. Once added, the foster parent will be provided with timelines for the filing of their material.

Foster parent capable of putting forward a plan

[61] I do not agree with the Society's position that the foster parent is not capable of putting forward a plan.

[62] I agree with the Society in that, at this time, the foster parent cannot seek a s. 102 order because he is not a party. At trial, he would likely support the Society's request that the child be placed in extended society care so that he could later be approved as an adoptive placement.

[63] However, these facts do not act as a barrier to him putting forward a plan. The strength of the proposed plan and/or potential success of same need not be determined at this stage.

[64] On this motion, the court is only required to determine if the foster parent’s plan merits consideration. In my view, it does because there is undisputed evidence of the child’s lack of connection with his family of origin and the strong connection with the foster parent.

[65] Even if this court were to agree with the Society’s position, it is not necessary that all factors favour the person seeking party status for the court to grant the order, as the only mandatory factor is whether the proposed party has a legal interest in the case. See: Highland Shores Children’s Aid Society v. T.S., 2019 ONSC 5765, at para. 17.

[66] Here, the foster parent has a legal interest in the case.

[67] In fact, under s. 115(4)(e) of the CYFSA, the foster parent, with whom the child has lived continuously for at least two years, may apply for a review of the child’s status. This section alone creates a legal interest.

Adding the foster parent is in the child’s best interest

[68] The Society suggests that the foster parent is not supportive of its request for access and is therefore not acting in the child's best interest. I disagree with its position because the evidence demonstrates the opposite. The foster parent attended a visit, despite not being asked to initially, and facilitated in-person access between the child and his maternal grandparents.

[69] The foster parent deposes, and the OCL confirms, that the child was reluctant to attend the visit which occurred at African Lion Safari. He refused to exit the vehicle.

[70] The foster parent voluntarily drove the child to African Lion Safari, felt that it was important that the child take steps to try and spend time with his maternal grandparents, cancelled plans that he had for the day to stay with the child, and encouraged the child to enjoy himself and engage with his maternal grandparents. This evidence is undisputed.

[71] The Society submitted that the foster parent was not modelling good behaviour but there is no evidence in the affidavits submitted that support this.

[72] Further, the foster parent has been the child’s sole caregiver for over two years with the approval of the Society. Without his evidence, the court will not hear from the one individual who cared for the child recently and consistently.

[73] The child and the foster parent have developed a trusting and dependable relationship.

[74] The child refers to the foster parent as “dad” and identifies as a member of his family. The child requested through the OCL that the court be advised that he considers the foster parent to be his father and the foster parent family to be his own.

[75] Further, if found to be in continued need of protection, the factors in s. 74(3) will need to be considered when determining disposition. This includes, as set out in the Catholic Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M.(C.), [1994] 2 SCR 165, identifying the psychological bond of a child with a foster family.

[76] The foster parent wishes to put forward a plan to care for the child permanently. If added, the foster parent can present evidence regarding the child and his current physical, mental and emotional needs and development, their relationship, and the proposed plan which I have already found merits consideration.

[77] The foster parent can also offer evidence about the child’s relationships and emotional ties to other members of the child’s extended family and members of the child’s community, the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity.

[78] The foster parent will be added as a party on the issue of continued finding because he can provide current evidence about the child’s needs, emotional, physical, and physical state. If not added as a party, there is no guarantee that he will be called as a witness by the other parties.

[79] In summary, the court cannot consider all evidence about the child without weighing the most current and relevant evidence from the person who has consistently cared for him for over two years.

Participatory rights are not enough

[80] I am not satisfied that the participatory rights offered under s.79(3) of the CYFSA are sufficient given the facts of this case.

[81] Having participatory rights would entitle the foster parent to the same notice of the proceeding as a party and would allow him to be present at the hearing with a lawyer who may make submissions to the court. However, the court would not have the ability to consider his proposed plan.

[82] If the Society’s plan does not include the foster parent, the court cannot weigh the competing plans. This, in my view, renders the participatory rights under s. 79 insufficient to adequately evaluate what may be in the child’s best interest.

Disposition

[83] The foster parent will be added as a party to this proceeding on the issue of continued finding, disposition and access, with timelines set for the filing of his pleadings.

Issue 2: Access

Position of the Parties

The Society

[84] As a moving party, the Society seeks an order for access between the child and the maternal grandparents to occur by telephone at minimum once a week, with the expectation that the foster parent will role-model if the child does not engage. After one month, the Society requests that access occur in person, once a month at minimum.

[85] The Society submits the child would not engage in access without a court order. The Society submits there are overwhelming benefits for the child which outweigh his wishes, including the importance of the child maintaining a connection to his family heritage, the importance of the child’s development with a family member, and the child’s relationships with members of his extended family.

The Foster Parent

[86] The foster parent made no submissions on this issue. As a non-party seeking party status, submissions were only made on party status.

The OCL

[87] The OCL submits that the access order sought by the Society is not in the child’s best interests and requests that the Society’s motion be dismissed.

[88] The OCL requests that this court give considerable weight to the child’s expressed views and preferences and, in the alternative, requests that the court order that any access between the child and his maternal grandparents be subject to the child’s wishes, as confirmed to the Society by the OCL.

Legal Framework

[89] Section 114 of the CYFSA provides that under a status review hearing, the court may, in the child’s best interests, vary or terminate the original order made under s. 101(1), including a term or condition, or a provision for access, that is part of the order.

[90] Section 104 of the CYFSA provides the court with the authority to make, in the child’s best interests, an order for access to a person, and may impose such terms and conditions on the order as the court considers appropriate.

[91] Section 74(3) of the CYFSA sets out factors to consider when determining the child’s best interests.

Analysis

[92] The paternal grandparents did not file material in support of the Society’s access motion. Further, they did not attend the motion when argued.

[93] Since being placed with the foster parent, the child has been doing very well in school. Despite his previous ADHD diagnosis, his doctors confirm that he functions well without medication.

[94] In addition to developing a trusting and dependable relationship with the foster parent, the child views the foster parent as his father and wants the foster family to be his own family. The child asked his lawyer to convey this message to the court.

[95] After being placed with the foster parent, the child did not wish to see his paternal grandfather and did not speak much about his biological family.

[96] The child attends grief and trauma therapy regularly, and his therapist reports that he is closed off about discussing the past and shuts down during conversations about his family.

[97] The child confirmed with the OCL clinician that he does not like talking about the past.

[98] The child has expressed that he does not want calls or gifts from those who wish to reconnect with him and also advised that he did not want to have any contact with his family or extended family.

[99] Despite the two in-person access visits set-up between the child and his paternal grandparents, the child’s sentiments remain the same. He does not want contact, in person or otherwise, with his maternal grandparents, and does not want the Society to provide them with information about him.

[100] The child’s position does not come as a surprise given the maternal grandparents’ lack of contact.

[101] The record reveals that the Society was unable to identify any alternate family placements. The child’s own mother did not identify the maternal grandmother as a potential kin placement either.

[102] The maternal grandparents did not have any contact with the child for the first eight to nine years of his life. The OCL submits, and the court agrees, that had they made a greater effort to see him during that time, he may have been open to seeing them and talking to them.

[103] The child has suffered psychological trauma and related abandonment by his biological family, first with the loss of his paternal grandmother, then with his brief placement with his own mother which ended in the child being placed with the current foster parent.

[104] Further, the record reveals that the maternal grandparents waited six months to seek access with the child while he was in foster care.

[105] The maternal grandparents, in September 2021, identified that they wanted to put in a plan for placement. The Society arranged the first visit in May 2022.

[106] No explanation was provided, by the maternal grandparents or the Society, as to why this delay occurred. The Society failed to provide an early assessment and failed to swiftly plan for the child.

[107] In the meantime, the child has been with the foster parent for over two years. When assessing the child’s best interests, I have given considerable consideration to the child’s emotional needs. I have also considered the importance of the continuity of the child’s care and the possible effects on the child of disruption of that continuity.

[108] The Society submits that there is a possibility the foster parent will get placement but that it is not guaranteed. It submits it is important for the child to develop a positive relationship with his maternal grandparents however fails to acknowledge that the child does not have a relationship at this time, nor does he have, nor ever had, emotional ties to this extended family.

[109] I accept the OCL’s submission that imposing access at this stage risks disrupting that continuity of care and the development of a positive and secure place, for the child, as a member of a family, which, from the child’s perspective, is the foster parent’s family. The court cannot overlook the child’s emotional and psychological needs, given the trauma that he has endured in relation to his family of origin.

[110] The Society did not explain why it took approximately eight months (September 2021 to May 2022) before it moved forward with access. It offered no explanation as to why it took the Society ten months (September 2021 to July 2022) to complete a kin assessment of the maternal grandmother. These delays are troubling.

[111] The record reveals that the OCL notified the Society of the child’s position as it relates to contact with the maternal grandparents. He was adamant that he did not wish to have contact with them. Despite this, the Society insisted that the child have contact, at one point erroneously telling the foster parent that the court had already ordered it.

[112] A Society worker told the child that he had no choice in the matter and that he must have contact with his maternal grandmother, and the child confirmed to the OCL that the worker did not ask him how he feels or what he thinks about having access with his grandparents.

[113] The material, specifically the material of the OCL clinician and the foster parent, provides details of the two access visits.

[114] I find it perplexing that the Society’s material did not provide details of the access visits. The court has concerns that the Society may have deliberately selected evidence to be included or negligently overlooked important evidence on this issue.

[115] The Society has an obligation to provide the court with all information relevant to the issue it is asking the court to decide. In this case it did not. The court expects better.

[116] The Society’s failure to reply to the affidavit of the foster parent and the OCL leaves this court with undisputed evidence.

[117] Because of this evidence and based on the reliability of the evidence as set out by the foster parent and confirmed by the OCL clinician, the court accepts their evidence about the two in-person access visits.

[118] The first visit occurred in May 2022. The Society picked the child up from school and, despite previously stating that it wanted the first visit to occur in the presence of the foster parent, he was not present.

[119] The OCL submits this caused the child a tremendous amount of stress. He was under the impression the Society was taking him from his foster parent forever.

[120] However, the Society described this experience to be positive.

[121] The record also reveals that the child did not want to have a second access visit with his grandparents.

[122] While the Society acknowledged that the child was uncomfortable at the second visit, which occurred in August 2022, they provided no details about this visit in their affidavit.

[123] The second visit was to occur at African Lion Safari. The foster parent was only asked to take the child to the second visit because the Society did not have a driver. The Society’s plan was for the foster parent to drop the child off for the visit. However, when the child refused to exit the vehicle to go with the Society worker when they arrived at African Lion Safari, the foster parent was asked to join the visit so that the child would participate.

[124] The undisputed evidence before the court is that the child found the second visit very stressful. He asked the foster parent to join the visit because he was worried that the maternal grandparents would take him away.

[125] Since the African Lion Safari visit in August 2022, the child refused any further visits with the maternal grandparents and requested that the foster parent not share information about him.

[126] The child has advised his counsel that he does not trust the maternal grandparents and only remembers meeting them twice, after being placed in foster care. He could not describe what they look like or tell the OCL their names. The maternal grandparents are essentially strangers to him.

[127] The affidavit of the OCL clinician outlines that the child is emotional when speaking about contact with the maternal grandparents. He becomes tearful, he cries, his voice cracks, and he fidgets. The topic is a source of stress for him.

[128] The child is worried that the maternal grandparents will take him away, and that he is afraid that he will be made to eventually live with the maternal grandparents.

[129] The child told the OCL that it would make him sad if a judge forced him to have contact with the maternal grandparents against his wishes.

[130] I place considerable weight on the child’s views and preferences. His views are logically thought-out. In addition to voicing them clearly and consistently, his views and preferences come with a level of maturity given the way he connects his feelings to his past experience.

[131] The child connects his feelings toward his maternal grandparents to the way he felt when he was removed from his mother’s care following the death of his paternal grandmother.

[132] The child was told that he would only be away from his mother for a few days, however, he has not seen her in over two years. The child is afraid that this will reoccur if he is made to visit with his maternal grandparents. To ignore this evidence would be equivalent to ignoring his emotional needs.

[133] The child indicated to the OCL that his discomfort about contact with the maternal grandparents would go down slightly if he knew he would remain with the foster parent, but that he is still uncomfortable seeing them.

[134] I conclude that ordering specified access between the maternal grandparents and the child currently is not in his best interest. Any access should be subject to his wishes, with no minimums set at this time.

[135] During submissions, the Society mentioned reunification therapy. There is no request for such an order before the court. The Society is encouraged to consider all options available to address the concerns of the child when it comes to his maternal grandparents.

Disposition

[136] The child’s views on access may change over time. As such, any access between the child and his maternal grandparents should be subject to the child’s wishes, as confirmed to the Society by the OCL.

Order

[137] A temporary order shall issue as follows:

1. The foster parent shall be added as a party to this proceeding pursuant to Rule 7(5) of the Family Law Rules on all issues.

2. The foster parent shall serve and file his Answer and Plan of Care on or before June 23, 2023.

3. Access between the child and his maternal grandparents shall be subject to the child’s wishes, as confirmed to the Society by the OCL.

4. The Status Review Application is adjourned to July 6, 2023 at 2:30 p.m., at which time a settlement conference can be set if all pleadings are in order.

5. This is not an appropriate case for costs.

“Justice Kiran Sah”

Justice Kiran Sah

Date: May 25, 2023