Statutory Publication Prohibitions

This is a case under the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 and subject to subsections 87(8) and 87(9) of this legislation. These subsections and subsection 142(3) of the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows:

87 (8) Prohibition re identifying child — No person shall publish or make public information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding, or the child’s parent or foster parent or a member of the child’s family.

(9) Prohibition re identifying person charged — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part.

142 (3) Offences re publication — A person who contravenes subsection 87 (8) or 134 (11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 87 (7) (c) or subsection 87 (9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both.

Court File and Parties

COURT FILE NO.: FC-14-1044-6 DATE: 2024/03/05

ONTARIO SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 AND IN THE MATTER OF: J.J.L. (DOB May 2015), E.L. (DOB May 2016), C.C.L. (DOB October 2019), and I.L. (DOB April 2021)

BETWEEN:

The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa Applicant – and – R.S. (Mother) – and – C.L. (Father) – and – B.S. (Maternal Grandmother) Respondents

COUNSEL: Brian Fisher for the Applicant Sonya Notturno, for the Mother Jean Claude Dubuisson, for the Father

HEARD: October 23-27, October 30-November 2, December 5-7, 2023

Somji J.

Overview

[1] The Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa (“Society”) brings a status review application seeking an order to place the Respondent parents’ four children in extended society care with a view to adoption by their maternal grandmother, B.S. (“grandmother”). The four children are J.J.L., age 8; E.L., age 7; C.C.L., age 3; and I.L., age 2 (“children”). They have been living with their grandmother, also a party to this proceeding, since December 2021, with the parents having access twice a week for an hour and a half and on occasional weekends.

[2] The Society argues that the children continue to be at risk of harm if placed in the parents’ care because: (i) there is continued adult conflict in the form of loud verbal arguments; (ii) the parents are not attentive and create dangerous situations; and (iii) the parents lack a robust family support network. The Society argues that upon finding the children are in need of protection, it is in the best interests of the children that they be placed in extended society care for adoption by the grandmother with both the parents and children being access holders. In the alternative, the Society argues that the children should be placed under a six-month supervision order with terms that address gradual reintegration of the children with their parents.

[3] The grandmother supports the Society’s plan for extended society care. She argues the children have thrived in her care and that she can meet all their needs, including financially. She argues that she loves the children, took responsibility for them at their time of need, and has quit her job to care for the children. She did not consent to the Society’s proposal for a legal custody order and seeks instead to adopt the children. If adopted, she claims the children would be united with their eldest brother, whom she previously adopted. It is also her intention that her son and family members become trustees for the children upon adoption. The grandmother stated that it is her plan that the parents would still see the children upon adoption, but provided no information on what that access might look like.

[4] The parents seek the return of the four children in their care. They argue that they have addressed many of the Society’s protection concerns, and those concerns are no longer valid so as to warrant further supervision by the Society. Nonetheless, the parents recognize that they need continuing support with parenting. They have proposed a plan of care where the family would reside with the father’s sister T.L., her husband, and teenage daughter. This would provide the parents with respite as well as guidance and assistance with parenting.

[5] On December 17, 2023, I gave an oral decision stating that I found that the parents have made significant changes to their lives such that the protection concerns identified are minimal and, moreover, can be managed under the parents’ proposed plan of care. That plan involves the parents and children living with T.L. and her family, which I find would allow the parents respite as well as guidance and support, at least in the short term, as the parents reintegrate to full-time care of the children. Consequently, I found that it was in the best interests of the children to return to their parents’ care under the parents’ proposed plan and be subject to a supervision order of 12 months. With input from the Society and counsel, I issued a Temporary Supervision Order with conditions and requested the matter return before me in the new year to address further conditions.

[6] Below I set out the reasons for my decision. All legislative references are to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, 2017, S.O. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1 (“CYFSA”), unless otherwise stated.

History of Proceedings

[7] The current legal proceedings involving the four children commenced in September 2019. However, the Society has been involved with these parents since 2014, when their first child, J.L. (who is not subject of these proceedings) was born. J.L. was placed in the grandmother’s care upon exiting the hospital and was later made a Crown Ward and adopted by the grandmother in 2016. The mother would have been in her early 20s at the time of J.L.’s birth. It is not disputed that the father is C.L., but the mother declared the father “unknown” at the time. The mother testified that she has no recollection of the legal proceedings involving J.L. She never had an opportunity to care for J.L. because he was placed in the grandmother’s care directly from exiting the hospital and from her perspective, effectively adopted from that point on. The Society did not present any other evidence regarding those early years in the parents’ history. Consequently, I find J.L.’s adoption has no bearing on this application.

[8] Since that time, the parents have gone on to have four more children. Statutory findings were made for J.J.L., E.L., and C.C.L. by Audet J. on September 11, 2019.

[9] On December 13, 2019, Doyle J. found J.J.L., C.C.L., and E.L. were in need of protection and issued a Final Order placing the children in the parents’ care, subject to Society supervision. The parents were subject to further supervision orders with the children in their care between 2019 and December 2021. In August 2021, Mackinnon J. placed the parties’ youngest child, I.L., in the temporary care of the parents, subject to Society supervision.

[10] The supervision orders required the parents to complete parenting courses, attend Family Group Conferences and Family Network Meetings (“family meetings”), address adult conflict, and meet with a public health nurse. The father also had conditions to address his alcohol addiction. It is not disputed that the parents made little progress on these objectives and this lack of progress, along with a series of events in the fall of 2021, resulted in the Society’s decision to apprehend the children in December 2021.

[11] The period that followed the summer of 2021 was a tumultuous one for the parents. The father was still drinking and had partnered with another woman. The mother was left caring for the children with the help of the grandmother and then for a period by herself. During this time, the mother did manage to get the children to school and establish a safe home and school routine for the children. Nonetheless, the parental conflicts continued. There were instances when the mother refused to let the father see the children because he was drunk, prompting further verbal conflicts between them. On November 25, 2021, there was an incident of parental conflict. The father and his girlfriend were drunk. The father alleged the mother was obstructing his access to the children. A family meeting was called and, with the agreement of the parents, the children moved in with their grandmother. On this same date, Blishen J. granted a temporary order which included an access schedule for the parents.

[12] The following week, it came to the Society’s attention that the parents were not complying with the access arrangements and there had been conflict between the father and grandmother where the father was described to have been aggressive. Consequently, on December 9, 2021, the Society took all four children to a place of safety (“apprehension”). Although the children were already living with the grandmother, they were formally removed from the parents’ care and placed in the grandmother’s care where they have remained since.

[13] On December 14, 2021, Shelston J. granted a temporary without-prejudice order placing the children with the grandmother, subject to Society supervision.

[14] This was followed by a decision of Laliberte J. on January 24, 2022, which continued the interim supervision order of December 14, 2021, on a with-prejudice basis.

[15] On March 29, 2022, Mackinnon J. made statutory findings regarding I.L and found I.L. was in need of protection. Her Honour issued Final Orders placing I.L. and the other three children with their grandmother, subject to Society supervision, for a period of five months and with access to their parents a minimum of twice per week. Subsequently, on August 24, 2023, Labrosse J. issued a temporary access order that governed the parents’ access schedule at the time of trial.

[16] In June 2022, the parents reunited. However, the father continued drinking. A few months later, on August 2, 2022, the Society filed a Status Review Application seeking an order pursuant to s. 102 of the CYFSA placing the children in the custody of the grandmother.

[17] The grandmother responded that she would not consent to a custody order and seeks adoption instead. As a result, the Society filed an Amended Status Review Application on October 1, 2022, and brought a Summary Judgment Motion seeking an order for extended society care with a view to adoption of all four children. Engelking J. dismissed the motion, noting that an order for extended society care is the most intrusive order that can be sought under the CYFSA. Her Honour found that there was a genuine issue for trial as to what disposition is in the best interests of the children, namely the Society’s plan for extended society care or the parents’ plan proposing the return of the children to their care, subject to Society supervision.

[18] The mother filed an Amended Amended Answer and Plan of Care on September 21, 2023, where she seeks to have the children return to the parents’ care and under the residency and watchful supervision of her sister-in-law, T.L. The father supports the same plan. Both argue that the children are no longer in need of protection, and it is in their best interests that they be reunited with their parents’ care under the proposed plan. Alternatively, if this court finds the children are in need of protection, the parents seek a 12-month supervision order placing the children in their care under the same proposed plan, subject to Society supervision.

[19] The matter proceeded to an 11-day trial before me. The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts with respect to some of the procedural history, events involving the parents between 2019 and present, and police interventions. In addition, I heard testimony from the following nine witnesses: Society Child Protection Worker Ms. Redmond; Society Child and Youth Councillor Elizabeth Moscardi; Society Kinship Worker Karen Jolicoeur; Society Kinship Worker Nathalie Chapdelaine (collectively “Society workers”); the grandmother, B.S.; the mother, R.S.; the father, C.L.; and the father’s sister, T.L.

Relevant Legislative Framework

[20] Section 114 states that upon a status review application pursuant to s. 113, the court may do the following, in the child’s best interests:

(a) vary or terminate the original order made under subsection 101 (1), including a term or condition or a provision for access that is part of the order; (b) order that the original order terminate on a specified future date; (c) make a further order or orders under section 101; or (d) make an order under section 102.

[21] Section 101(1) states that where a court finds a child in need of protection, it may make various orders including an order for extended society care – which is what the Society seeks – or, alternatively, a supervision order. The legislation reads as follows:

101 (1) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders or an order under section 102, in the child’s best interests:

Supervision order

1. That the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the society, for a specified period of at least three months and not more than 12 months.

Interim society care

2. That the child be placed in interim society care and custody for a specified period not exceeding 12 months.

Extended society care

3. That the child be placed in extended society care until the order is terminated under section 116 or expires under section 123.

Consecutive orders of interim society care and supervision

4. That the child be placed in interim society care and custody under paragraph 2 for a specified period and then be returned to a parent or another person under paragraph 1, for a period or periods not exceeding a total of 12 months.

[22] Status review hearings require a two-fold examination where the court must determine (i) whether the children continue to be in need of protection, and (ii) what disposition is in the children’s best interests. The determination that is to be made is whether the order(s) previously made to protect the children continues to be required for future protection: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. M. (C.), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165.

[23] Even where the court finds on a status review that the children continue to be in need of protection, the court must consider the least restrictive measures consistent with the children’s best interests. Parents proposing a plan of care must provide evidence of the plan: Children’s Aid Society of Peel v. W. (M.J.) (1995), 23 O.R. (3d) 174 (C.A.).

Credibility Findings

[24] The Society argues that the parents are neither credible nor reliable. I disagree.

[25] I found the mother to be a credible witness. The mother had difficulty understanding and answering some questions, but I do not find this was because she was trying to be evasive or untruthful. Rather, as counsel points out, and which was apparent in her testimony, the mother has some intellectual challenges. The mother herself admits to these intellectual challenges which she explained made it difficult for her as a young adult to hold a job. The grandmother testified that because of these challenges, she had the Public Guardian and Trustee (“PGT”) take responsibility for managing her daughters finances since 2013. In February 2023, the mother was able to terminate that relationship. I found that in those instances where the mother took time to answer questions, it was because she had difficulty fully comprehending the questions. I found, however, that once she understood the question, she provided clear and straightforward responses based on her recollection of events.

[26] The Society identifies responses in the mother’s cross-examination where the mother refused to acknowledge she was “yelling” and was attempting to paint a rosy picture of things for the court thereby undermining her credibility. I did not find this to be the case. It is not disputed that the mother can be loud in her communications. This is noted by the police, the Society workers, and the mother herself. I accept that the mother is loud and, in those instances where witnesses described her as argumentative, she likely was speaking loudly and in a manner that would be perceived by others as yelling. Ultimately, I do not find much turns on this. It is a communication skill the mother must work on. As explained later, it may be a trait that has its roots in the mother’s perception that, because of her intellectual challenges, her views are not listened to or respected by others, including her mother, members of the maternal family, and the Society workers.

[27] During her testimony, the mother never yelled nor did she become argumentative or angry. On the contrary, I found her to be attentive and very respectful. Notwithstanding the mother’s intellectual challenges, I found she has a kind and loving spirit and is entirely committed to the well-being of her children. For example, despite her sadness and frustration at having been excluded from her mother’s home and maternal family gatherings and her mother wanting to adopt her children (which would terminate all her parental rights) rather than obtain a custody order, the mother never expressed anything but the utmost respect and love for her parents and maternal family throughout the trial. Her attitude is a testament not only to the strong values of kindness and respect that she was raised with, but a reflection of her commitment to raising her children with those same values.

[28] I find the father is equally committed to the well-being of his children and the mother. It was apparent from the testimony of all the witnesses describing the interactions of this couple that he not only loves the mother, but listens to and supports her. I also found the father sincere in his commitment to maintaining his sobriety. I accept the father’s evidence regarding his difficult childhood and youth, some of which was corroborated by his sister, and his evidence of an accident that contributed to his initial opiate and then alcohol addiction.

[29] Having said this, I did not find the father’s evidence reliable in other respects. As noted below, in instances where his evidence contradicted those of the other witnesses, I preferred the evidence of the other witnesses. I found the father was often reluctant to admit facts that were uncontroversial and tried to provide explanations that would minimize responsibility for his conduct. For example, the father’s explanation that he stole the grandmother’s neighbour’s cannabis plant because he was worried about the children’s exposure to it was not credible. If that was indeed the case, there were many other ways the father could have addressed this issue without resorting to theft.

[30] I am mindful, however, that the father’s responses to past incidents may be unreliable not because he is untruthful, but because he lacks any clear memory of these incidents, many of which occurred when he was an alcoholic. While not all police reports were admitted at trial for consideration, it is clear that there were over 30 police interventions involving the father since the Society started working with this family demonstrating the extent of his alcohol problem.

[31] I found the grandmother to be a credible witness. She provided evidence about the condition of the children both before and after they came into her care; the mother’s challenges as a child, teen, and young adult; her efforts in assisting both parents with the raising of their children; and the issues that led to the grandparents no longer allowing the parents into their home or at maternal family gatherings.

[32] I found the evidence of all the Society workers to be credible and reliable. However, where their versions of events contradicted those of the parents, I have provided an explanation for whether the discrepancy is an issue of witness credibility, a different interpretation of events, a misunderstanding, or a miscommunication.

Issue 1: Are the Children in Continued Need of Protection?

[33] The Society argues that the children are in need of protection pursuant to ss. 74(2)(b) and (h). Those provisions state as follows:

A child is in need of protection where,

(b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s, (i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or (ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child; [or] (h) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer emotional harm of the kind described in subclause (f) (i), (ii), (iii), (iv) or (v) resulting from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child’s parent or the person having charge of the child[.]

[34] Risk of physical harm can include physical abuse, inappropriate discipline, inadequate supervision, domestic violence, untreated mental illness, untreated addictions, and inadequate shelter/food: Children’s Aid Society of Oxford County v. E.M.T., 2019 ONCJ 767, at para. 16.

[35] On December 13, 2019, Doyle J. found the three eldest children were in need of protection pursuant to ss. 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 74(2)(h) because there was a risk they would likely suffer physical and emotional harm if left in their parents’ care. These findings resulted in the consecutive supervision orders referred to above.

[36] A few months after I.L. was born in April 2021, Mackinnon J. found that she was at risk to likely suffer physical harm if left in the parents’ care and found her to be in need of protection pursuant to ss. 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii).

[37] These findings were not contested and the parents consented to the supervision orders.

[38] The Society argues that the children continue to be in need of protection pursuant to ss. 74(2)(b)(i) and (ii) and 74(2)(h) because, despite the parents’ strong love and affection for their children, they are unable to care for them. The Society identifies the following ongoing child protection concerns: (i) continued adult conflict in the form of loud verbal arguments; (ii) inattentive parents resulting in dangerous situations; and (iii) the lack a robust family network.

[39] I agree with the Society that, at the time of apprehension, the children were in need of protection. The reasons are addressed in the decision of Laliberte J. Ms. Redmond, Ms. Moscardi, and the grandmother testified to some, but not all, of these protection concerns. Based on the evidence presented at trial, it is clear that at the time of apprehension the following protection concerns were present: (i) the father’s alcohol addiction; (ii) the children’s exposure to verbal adult conflict; (iii) the parents’ failure to maintain the children’s dental care and immunizations; (iv) the parents’ missed visits with the public health nurses; and (v) the children’s late attendance at school, although I note very little evidence was presented at trial regarding the children’s schooling from independent sources.

[40] Following apprehension, the Society established an access trajectory plan with the mother on January 13, 2022. The plan set out a three-step graduated plan over ten weeks for increasing the mother’s access to the children and with gradually reduced supervision. On April 10, 2022, the Society developed a similar three-step access trajectory plan for the father. In addition to conditions for access, the trajectory plans stipulated conditions for maintaining programming.

[41] The father’s counsel argues that the protection concerns at the time of apprehension were limited to the father’s alcohol addiction and missed access visits. I respectfully disagree. I find there was evidence presented at trial, which was not seriously disputed by either the mother or father, that at the time of apprehension in December 2021 and for almost a year thereafter, the parents were struggling with many of the above-noted issues and had not made progress in the goals set out in their respective trajectory plans.

[42] However, I agree with parents’ counsel that since October 2022, the parents have seriously addressed the child protection concerns. On Thanksgiving weekend of October 2022, the father sobered up. This precipitated a whole host of changes in the parents’ behaviours:

• The parents started to address how to manage their verbal adult conflict.
• The police interventions effectively ended.
• The access visits resumed and the parents have remained consistent.
• Both parents took courses toward self-improvement.
• The parents made efforts to engage with social supports.
• The mother is on a waitlist with the Canadian Mental Health Association (“CMHA”).
• The mother is no longer subject to management of her money by PGT, allowing her to take control of her finances.
• The mother attempted to reconcile with her maternal extended family in order to create the robust family network the Society requests, but sadly the maternal family has not yet agreed to meet with her.

[43] The Society takes the position that, notwithstanding these efforts by the parents, there remain ongoing protection concerns. I address each of these concerns below.

A. Exposure to Adult Conflict

[44] The Society refers to incidents of adult conflict identified in police reports, witnessed by the Society protection workers, and witnessed by the children that demonstrate that the parents continue to have loud verbal arguments placing the children at risk of emotional harm.

i. Conflicts Identified in Police Reports

[45] The Society filed an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) in which the parties acknowledged verbal conflicts that resulted in police interventions on: December 21, 2018; June 30, 2019; July 10, 2019; July 28, 2019; September 25, 2019; November 9, 2019; February 27, 2020; May 21, 2020; and February 6, 2021. In each instance, police were called regarding loud arguments between the parents.

[46] The parents do not dispute these arguments occurred or that the police were called. They explained that they live in a two-bedroom subsidized apartment unit and have a particular neighbour who would regularly call the police on them if there was any kind of loud argument. The parents evidence is corroborated by the father’s sister, T.L., who testified that the parents’ apartment is old, the neighbours are rowdy, and it is generally an unsafe building. T.L. herself says she never goes there. The parents have been on a waitlist to find larger housing for their family of six but have been able to make little progress on this because since December 2021, the children have been residing with their grandmother. They cannot get a larger subsidized place without a court order confirming they are a family of six leaving them essentially in a catch-22.

[47] I do not find the police reports admitted into evidence substantiate the risk of continued adult conflict that might adversely impact the children. First, the police reports arose prior to October 2022 when the father was still drinking. Second, the conflicts identified by the police were verbal arguments and the police did not note any signs of physical violence, save for one incident of assault on the mother addressed below. Third, in none of the instances did the police indicate any concerns with the welfare of the children. On the contrary, in almost every instance the police reported the children seemed happy and healthy. I find these historic reports do not substantiate continued risk of adult verbal conflict.

[48] The only incident involving physical adult conflict arose on November 25, 2021. On that evening, the father assaulted the mother. He subsequently pled guilty to the charge. The father testified that it was the only incident involving physical violence toward his spouse, and he deeply regrets it. He was under the influence of alcohol at the time. As a result of the incident, the Society decided the children could not remain in the parents’ care. With the consent of the parents, the children were placed in the care of their grandmother and have been there since.

[49] Since October 2022, there have been no reports of police involvement save one incident discussed below.

ii. Conflict Witnessed by Society Workers

[50] The Society maintains that the children continue to be exposed to adult conflict. Ms. Moscardi testified that it is rare for the children not to be exposed to adult conflict during an access visit. However, she only provided three examples in her testimony.

[51] Ms. Moscardi testified that on October 11, 2023, the parents were yelling at one another during a supervised access visit due to a “misunderstanding” over a juice box, which made E.L. cry. During cross-examination, the mother acknowledged that she and the father raised their voices and argued in front of the children. The father did not offer evidence to the contrary.

[52] Ms. Moscardi testified that on August 16, 2023, the mother became upset with the Society worker for telling her the children could not play inside the building with a ball and raised her voice in front of the kids. The mother acknowledged this. The father did not offer any evidence to the contrary.

[53] Ms. Moscardi testified that on January 31, 2023, the parents got into an argument in front of the children over whether or not to bring pizza to an access visit. The mother acknowledged the incident, and the father offered no evidence to the contrary.

[54] It is not disputed that the mother speaks loudly. This was even referred to by the police who indicate in their report of June 30, 2019 that the mother seems to be “animated and loud as her natural state of being.” Even upon accepting Ms. Moscardi’s version of events, I do not find the juice box, ball, and pizza incidents are examples of adult conflict of such magnitude that they raise serious child protection concerns. Furthermore, both parents have become acutely aware of the need to minimize their loudness during disagreements and to discuss controversial matters away from the children. Ms. Moscardi acknowledged this in her testimony, referring to instances where the parents now leave the room to discuss issues involving the children.

iii. Conflicts Witnessed by the Children

[55] Ms. Chapdelaine testified that she interviewed the children regarding access visits at T.L.’s house on July 29 and September 15, 2023 after Ms. Redmond told her that the parents had been arguing. The July interview took place the day following the reported incident and the September interview a week after the reported incident. With respect to the July visit, Ms. Chapdelaine testified that J.J.L. told her that he could not sleep because the parents were fighting, and they continued to do so even after their aunt came up and told them to stop. Ms. Chapdelaine testified that E.L. told her she could not sleep on the first night of the July visit because the parents were arguing and that their aunt told them to stop fighting. When pressed further about how she felt, she testified “I felt nothing”. E.L. stated she was worried because her mother was crying.

[56] The Society suggests that E.L.’s statement is particularly telling because it reflects “how normalized the child’s exposure to adult conflict has become.” I respectfully disagree. When it comes to actual or risk of emotional harm, the courts will often benefit from expert evidence from a qualified mental health professional or child development specialist to provide the seriousness of the condition: S. (D.), Re (2001), 14 R.F.L. (5th) 414 (Ont S.C.), at para. 66. The Society has not provided any medical or other expert evidence that the children’s exposure to verbal conflicts has resulted in any emotional harm. The children have not been psychologically assessed nor have any school or other professional reports been filed to suggest the children are emotionally harmed by these arguments so as to constitute a serious protection concern.

[57] In addition, it is important to understand the context of the incidents. Both parents testified that the July incident arose because the father was locked out of T.L.’s house during a weekend visit. The children had all been put to bed after a full day of swimming and outside fun. The mother was exhausted and trying to put the youngest child to sleep when she saw the father outside tapping on the window. The mother was frustrated because she was trying to get the baby to sleep and could not understand why the father was outside yelling through the window. She started speaking loudly, asking him what he was doing. Eventually, the father phoned his own mother who phoned the mother to tell her that the father was locked out.

[58] After receiving the call, the mother went with the baby to the front door to let the father in. According to the mother, the parents and T.L. all laughed about the incident the next day. The mother acknowledged the kids were awoken by the incident. She explained to the children that the parents were not fighting, but that she had not understood why the father was outside and trying to get her attention. In short, the parents were not having a disagreement, but raising their voices in an attempt to deal with an urgent situation of the father trying to get back into the house. While I do not accept the father’s evidence that the urgency was that he was “afraid of coyotes”, I do accept that he was locked out and trying to get back inside the house. In these types of situations, people sometimes resort to making loud noises to get help. While the children were unfortunately awakened by the voices, I am not satisfied that the manner in which the parents handled the situation gives rise to ongoing protection concerns.

[59] Furthermore, I note that none of the Society staff spoke to the parents about the incident to determine what happened. The father’s sister T.L. herself had no recollection of the incident at all and appeared confused by this incident and the one on September 15, 2023. A discussion with the parents and T.L., and perhaps a second discussion with the parents and children, would have possibly dispelled the Society’s belief that the parents were fighting and perhaps assisted both J.J.L. and E.L. in understanding that, in emergency situations, parents may raise their voices to get someone’s attention, but this is not something to be alarmed about. There does not appear to have been any meaningful discussion involving the parents and T.L., but instead Ms. Chapdelaine was tasked to take statements from the children.

[60] Ms. Chapdelaine testified that both E.L. and J.J.L. told her on September 22, 2021 that on during a parent visit a week earlier, their aunt made them go outside while their parents were arguing. The mother does not recall this incident and the father minimized it as a disagreement. However, T.L. testified she recalls one incident where the family was having breakfast and the parents started to argue. T.L. did not see it as a “big deal” but did appropriately move the children outside. While it would have been better for the parents to remove themselves when the conflict arose, T.L.’s response in removing the kids minimized any risk of harm to the children. Moreover, there is no evidence that the children were harmed by this occurrence.

[61] Finally, the Society highlights an email the mother sent to Ms. Redmond explaining that, on October 15, 2023 the parents had a misunderstanding about a glass of water offered to the youngest child as a result of which T.L. yelled at the mother. T.L. testified that she is not one to yell but does sometimes raise her voice. However, she has no recollection of yelling at anyone, including the mother, over a glass of water.

[62] The Society suggests that this incident is disconcerting because T.L. is part of the parents’ plan of care. I do not place any weight on this incident as being determinative of anything. The parties have all acknowledged the incident and there is no evidence that it has had an adverse impact on the children or relationships between the parents and T.L.

[63] The Society suggests that the adult conflict has emotionally impacted the children. They look to the fact that even T.L. thinks they may need therapy because she has observed that the children are quick to tell people to stop arguing and perceive everything as argument, suggesting they may be sensitive to conflict. While this may be the case, neither the Society nor the grandmother have taken steps to assess the children to determine what, if any, therapy they may need. These children have been through a tremendous number of upheavals in the last four years, and while I would agree they could benefit from therapy and counselling, the Society has not presented any evidence from health or school professionals that the children are presently experiencing any personal issues, and if so, the cause of the concerns.

[64] On the contrary, the grandmother testified that except for J.J.L., who continues to manifest odd behaviours like eating cardboard, the children are all healthy and happy. Ms. Moscardi also testified that the children are happy to see their parents at their access visits. If the children are experiencing emotional issues or anxiety, it is unfair, in the absence of professional diagnoses, to attribute the cause as exposure to adult conflict. It is equally plausible that there are other factors in the children’s lives, including the separation from their biological parents, that could be the reason for their anxiety or stress.

[65] In determining whether a child is in need of protection, there must be a real likelihood of the risk of harm and not one that is merely speculative: Children’s Aid Society of Rainy River v. B.(C.), 2006 ONCJ 458, 43 C.C.L.I. (4th) 264 at para 19. In other words, the law requires a risk of harm that is not only a possibility but a likelihood: CAS Rainy River v B.(C.) at para 20; Children’s Aid Society of Ottawa-Carleton v. T., at para. 18. I find the examples of adult conflict identified by the Society since October 2022 do not reflect a likelihood of risk of harm.

B. Parents Alleged to be Inattentive and Create Dangerous Situations

[66] The Society argues that the parents are not sufficiently attentive to the needs of their children and continue to place them in dangerous situations. In this regard, Ms. Moscardi referred to three incidents.

[67] Ms. Moscardi testified that she attended a McDonalds restaurant with the parents. The father asked to go outside when he saw the grandmother arrive. The mother then did the same thing, leaving the children unattended. The mother denies this is what happened. She testified that Ms. Moscardi was on the phone, and she signalled to her that she was also going outside. The father states that he turned around and saw the mother asking Ms. Moscardi to leave.

[68] I do not accept the father’s version of events. It is inconsistent with both Ms. Moscardi’s and the mother’s versions. I accept that the mother was truthful about the incident. The incident would have occurred over a matter of seconds. The mother believed Ms. Moscardi had approved her exit when she did not. Furthermore, even if I were to reject the mother’s evidence and accept Ms. Moscardi’s version entirely, I do not find the mother’s conduct created a dangerous situation. This was not a situation where the children were alone. There was an adult present, and the mother knew that. I am not satisfied based on this single incident that these parents are so negligent that they would leave their children unattended at a restaurant.

[69] Ms. Moscardi testified that on December 21, 2022, the mother was preparing a snack when E.L. took a knife from her because she wanted to cut the food herself, and the mother was slow to react and take it away from her. Neither parent offered any evidence to the contrary. I accept that it occurred, but do not find it constitutes a serious child protection concern. Parents who cook with their children – an activity that is encouraged – may find themselves in situations where children pick up objects or approach hot items. The point is that the mother did respond appropriately and took the knife away and no one was harmed. This was an isolated incident.

[70] Ms. Moscardi testified that in the summer of 2023, C.C.L. left the parents’ bedroom where the family was gathered and started putting objects into an open slot beside the air conditioner. The father then came into the room and informed Ms. Moscardi that the air conditioner was unsafe. During his testimony, the father claimed that the air conditioner was secured by a “dead bolt” but that he did tell Ms. Moscardi that it was not secured. According to him, it was still moving around, but would not have fallen on C.C.L. The Society states that the incident is concerning because the air conditioner could have fallen on the child. I would agree.

[71] I do not accept the father’s testimony as it is unclear why he would have told Ms. Moscardi it was unsafe when it was dead bolted. However, I do not find this incident alone is sufficient to warrant an ongoing child protection concern. There is no evidence that the father did not attend to the issue or that the air conditioner continues to be left in an unsafe position.

C. Absence of a Robust Family Support Network

[72] The Society argues that the parents have alienated the maternal family from their lives, preventing them from creating a robust family network that can support them in their reintegration into the children’s lives. Ms. Redmond testified that she arranged for family meetings, but they were unsuccessful because the parents were always engaged in conflict. Consequently, the Society then proceeded to have the family members meet without the parents.

[73] While there may have been a high level of conflict during the initial family meetings, I am not satisfied that the Society’s response in excluding the parents for such an extended period from family meetings is consistent with the Society’s mandate toward reuniting the parents with their children. The exclusion would have the complete opposite effect by alienating the parents from planning around their children. As an alternative, the Society could have considered family meetings with the parents individually. Furthermore, after October 2022, when the father stopped drinking and the parents started changing their behaviours, the Society does not appear to have tried to facilitate these family meetings again with the parents to see if they could succeed.

[74] Furthermore, while I accept the grandmother’s evidence regarding the events leading to the parents exclusion from the maternal family gatherings – the father stole a cannabis plant and the mother had a disagreement with her aunts in Smith Falls on whether her youngest child should be taken to hospital – I am not prepared to find that the parents have failed to create a robust family network for two reasons.

[75] First, the mother has made concerted efforts to reconcile with her maternal family. She reached out to her aunts and uncles directly and through her own mother with no success. Other than her brother, S.S., the mother feels completely unsupported by the maternal family. Despite her frustration and sadness at being excluded by her maternal family, the mother expressed only respect, fondness, and love toward her maternal family during the trial.

[76] Creating a robust family network requires the cooperation of both the parents and family members. In this case, neither the grandmother nor the Society attempted to facilitate a reconciliation between the parents and the maternal family since October 2022. The collapse of the maternal support network cannot be attributed entirely to the fault of the parents.

[77] Second, when the maternal family closed their doors to the parents, the parents sought the assistance of the paternal family and have been able to work with T.L. to create a support network for themselves through the paternal family. While it may not be as robust as the Society expects, the parents have of their own initiative to develop a support network.

D. The Steps Taken by the Parents to Address the Protection Concerns

i. Programming Taken by the Parents

[78] In addition to the child protection concerns identified above, the Society pleads that the parents have demonstrated an inability to meet the children’s needs when caring for them despite being provided supports. I disagree. I find that the parents have taken programs to improve their parenting skills, that their parenting has improved, and that with some additional supports, they are able to meet the children’s needs.

[79] The mother completed the Happy Child Program. Ms. Redman testified this course focused on identifying emotions as parents rather than parenting skills, which was the aim of the Triple P course that the Society recommended she take.

[80] The mother testified that she did later complete Triple P, but did not have the $89 to receive the program certificate because she did not get the funding approval from the Society. Ms. Redmond does not recall such a request being made. Nonetheless, neither Ms. Redmond nor any of the Society workers appeared to have followed up with the organizers of Triple P to confirm program completion by the mother. Based on the mother’s testimony, including descriptions of what she learned, I accept that she did take the Triple P program.

[81] The mother took three free counselling sessions with Anne Wilson through the New Directions Program (“New Directions”) as well as 12 counselling sessions with Alison Melia with Partner Outreach while the father was attending New Directions. This programming was intended to provide the mother with tools should the father relapse and start drinking again.

[82] To address her learning challenges, the mother made arrangements to obtain a counsellor from CMHA and is on the waitlist. Furthermore, the mother is now independent of the PGT.

[83] The father has also taken addictions’ counselling. While he did not take the residential treatment program recommended by Michelle Flowersmith, he did complete New Directions and, more significantly, has maintained his sobriety since October 2022, except for one incident suggesting relapse. Ms. Moscardi testified that in July 2023, the father admitted he got drunk and threw a chair at a man who had been starting fires in the neighbourhood. Ms. Moscardi testified the father was unclear about the details of what happened. She personally observed glass inside and outside the patio door. The father denied in cross-examination that he told Ms. Moscardi he had been drinking but did confirm an incident involving a chair. I prefer Ms. Moscardi’s evidence as she would have no reason to fabricate the father’s admission to her. Aside from this incident, there is no evidence that the father has been drinking.

[84] I find the parents have taken considerable steps to improve their parenting and address the child protection concerns identified by the Society through programming since the time of apprehension. While the programming was not necessarily what the Society recommended, I do not find this determinative for several reasons.

[85] First, in assessing the parents’ progress in parenting, the issue is not simply what course they attended and what certificate they receive, but whether the parents are demonstrating an improvement in their parenting skills. Ms. Moscardi testified that she has seen some improvements in parenting during the access visits. T.L., who has spent full weekends with the parents and children over the past year, testified that the parents have benefited from their courses and have shown a marked improvement in their parenting skills. They are more attentive and engaged, and adhering to routines for their children’s meals and bathing.

[86] Second, I appreciate that the Society made considerable efforts to prepare trajectory plans and provide the parents with services, including provision of financial aid, cell phones, and food vouchers; assistance with obtaining birth certificates; and connections to community resources. However, I do not find that the plans prepared, the suggested programs, or the follow-up provided was necessarily undertaken with a view to what would best work for these parents, particularly during the period following the start of the father’s sobriety.

[87] The following is noted in the Preamble of the CYFSA:

Services provided to children and families should be child-centred. Children and families have better outcomes when services build on their strengths. Prevention services, early intervention services and community support services build on a family’s strengths and are invaluable in reducing the need for more disruptive services and interventions. [Emphasis added.]

[88] In Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v. J.I., Stayshyn J. explains that the Society’s duty is to provide services in a manner that is sensitive and responsive to an individual parent’s needs. This may require going so far as “setting aside a worker’s own agenda, reaching beneath a parent’s refusal to accept services and ‘walking with’ them ‘through the assistance’”: at para. 45. It was clear from my observations of the mother’s testimony and the mother’s own admission of her learning challenges that the mother needed a trajectory plan and programming that was sensitive to her intellectual abilities and socio-economic circumstances. The evidence suggests that this is not what was provided.

[89] For example, the Society emphasized for many months that the mother should take Triple P, which she did do eventually, rather than re-evaluating whether what the mother had learned from Happy Child was working or determining whether online courses such as Triple P were best suited for a person with her learning challenges.

[90] Similarly, the Society emphasized the mother’s objection to the father attending the residential treatment program for alcohol addiction with little regard for the mother’s reasons for doing so. The mother recognized that she would not be able to cope on her own with the four children if the father was away. The mother had already experienced the challenges of managing four children while living on her own in a two-bedroom apartment, on welfare, and with limited access to funds from PGT, during the period the father left the relationship in 2021. The mother should be credited for recognizing her own limitations and deciding that the father’s absence at a residential treatment program for an extended period would leave her in a dire situation and further risk the Society viewing the parents as being incapable of caring for their children. As Stayshyn J. stated, services need to be implemented to maintain the integrity of the family unit: J.I., at para. 42. At that juncture, what the mother needed most was the Society’s support in determining how the father could address his addiction while still ensuring the mother had the necessary support to parent successfully.

[91] Furthermore, in their testimony, the Society workers emphasized the parents’ failure to meet the various trajectory plans, but no evidence was offered on the attempts made by the Society to re-evaluate these objectives when it was clear they were not being met or to modify the plans in accordance with the parents’ strengths and weaknesses. For example, there was no discussion with CMHA about what kind of programming might be beneficial to the mother given her particular learning challenges.

[92] In addition, it was apparent during the trial that financial management was a challenge for these parents, particularly the mother, and that it had impacted parental decisions such as the children’s dental care. The parents were receiving Ontario Works as well as the Canada Child Tax Benefit. However, the mother explained that because she was under the PGT, she received only $200/week. It does not appear that the Society did any work to determine how the PGT managed the mother’s finances, whether the mother was having difficulty accessing funds as she suggested for dental care because of PGT constraints, or why the parents were short funds and in constant need of food vouchers and other financial aid. Even after the mother was released from the PGT through her own efforts, the Society did not provide any guidance on programming for financial management with a view that this would be an important skill for the parents if the kids were returned to their care and they had to manage a household of six people and with children that may require special services.

[93] In addition, the Society pleads that it has tried since 2019 to ensure the parents have a safe and stable living environment for the children, with little progress. A safe, stable, and comfortable living environment can be a significant basis for successful parenting. One aspect of that environment is the home itself. Recognizing that a two-bedroom apartment would not likely be sufficient space for this family should the children return to their care, it appears that little work was done with the parents to develop a plan of care that would transition them into a larger home and one where they could have walking access to school and community services and supports given that neither parent drives. This transition would have provided the parents an opportunity to experience – and for the Society to observe – access visits with their children in a comfortable home environment. While I appreciate that a court order may be required justify a larger subsidized home, it does not appear that between 2019 and 2021, when the children were still in the parents’ care under temporary supervision orders, that there was much effort made in transitioning the parents to better living circumstances.

[94] Finally, I also find the Society did not ensure the parents remained involved in decisions around their children. Following apprehension in December 2021, the Society appears to have taken an approach whereby the grandmother was left to make all decisions surrounding the children to the exclusion and dismay of the parents. The parents were effectively sidelined rather than re-integrated into their children’s lives so they could engage and demonstrate their parenting skills. For example, the children were enrolled in school near the grandmother’s residence. While this was certainly convenient for her, it had the effect of excluding the parents from the children’s education and school community because neither parent drives and it takes an hour and a half to get to the children’s school by bus. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the grandmother or the Society took any pains to keep the parents involved in their children’s education, parent-teacher meetings, school activities, or school community, save for the homework the parents would occasionally assist with during their two weekly access visits.

[95] Another example relates to decisions around dental and medical care for the children. To the grandmother’s credit, the children were finally able to obtain the dental and immunization care they needed. However, neither the grandmother nor the Society appears to have ensured that the parents were involved in the children’s ongoing dental and medical care. While the mother acknowledges she did attend some medical appointments for the children with her mother, she was not regularly informed of them or provided follow-up. Neither parent appears to have been invited to attend for dental appointments. The parents’ involvement in their children’s health appears to be limited to those crisis situations during an access visit where they felt the children needed medical attention. For example, the parents only learned that C.C.L. had been prescribed asthma medication and puffers, which the grandmother had, when they took him for an emergency visit to CHEO during an access visit.

[96] If the objective following apprehension was to reunite these parents with their children, then part of that responsibility was ensuring the parents were at least informed of decisions surrounding their children’s education and medical care. This would serve to educate the parents about the necessary requirements to care for the children, to keep them knowledgeable about their children’s development, and to help foster connections between the parents and professional service providers so that the parents could follow through if and when the children were returned to their care. The evidence presented indicates that little, if any, of this was done by the grandmother or the Society.

ii. Access Visits

[97] After December 2021, when the children were brought to safety, the grandmother refused to allow any parental visits with the children to occur at her home. Consequently, the parents’ supervised visits took place at the Society’s centre twice a week for an hour and a half.

[98] It is not disputed that between December 2021 and when the father stopped drinking in October 2022, the parents missed a large number of access visits both when they were separated and even after they reunited in June 2022. The father offered no explanation for his failure to attend access visits with the children during that period.

[99] The mother could not entirely explain why she missed access visits in that same period, but did provide some context for what was going on in her life at the time. The mother acknowledged she was depressed and discouraged about her personal circumstances. The father had left her and, in addition, all her children were taken away. The maternal grandmother stopped allowing the mother to visit the children in her home and she was excluded from activities with the extended maternal family. After June 2022, when the parents got back together, the mother explained that the father was often sick (still drinking) and she feared that if she left him alone he would destroy their apartment or that he would pass out and injure himself. This was not a fanciful concern as there was evidence that on one occasion, the father had left the water taps on while drunk and flooded the apartment. While none of this condones the mother’s failure in missing access visits with children, it does provide context to the situation.

[100] What is more important, however, is that both parents made a remarkable turnaround after October 2022, and since that time, they have been consistent in attending access visits, demonstrating their ability, when healthy and supported, to prioritize their children. As the father’s counsel points out, this progress was evidenced by the Society’s agreement, as reflected in the Labrosse J.’s order, to increase the parents’ access to the children in August 2023.

E. Conclusion

[101] I find the parents have made significant changes to their lives since apprehension. Nonetheless, I find that some child protection concerns identified by the Society, such as management of adult conflict, still minimally exist. Moreover, I find that any risk of harm to the children as a result of these concerns can be managed under the parents’ proposed plan of care. Given that it has been two years since all four children have been in the full-time care of the parents, both of whom are still taking programming to address personal issues, I find the family would benefit from a living arrangement where the parents have some respite and oversight on parenting. Below, I set out why I believe the parents’ proposed plan of care is in the best interests of the children as opposed to the Society’s request for extended society care.

Issue 2: What Disposition is in the Best Interests of the Children?

[102] Upon finding the children are in need of protection, the court must consider what disposition is in their best interests. Section 74(3) sets out a non-exhaustive list of factors to be considered, as follows:

(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall,

(a) consider the child’s views and wishes, given due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained; (b) in the case of a First Nations, Inuk or Métis child, consider the importance, in recognition of the uniqueness of First Nations, Inuit and Métis cultures, heritages and traditions, of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connection to community, in addition to the considerations under clauses (a) and (c); and (c) consider any other circumstance of the case that the person considers relevant, including, (i) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs, (ii) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development, (iii) the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, (iv) the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage, (v) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family, (vi) the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community, (vii) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity, (viii) the merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent, (ix) the effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case, (x) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent, and (xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection. 2017, c. 14, Sched. 1, s. 74 (3).

[103] In addressing best interests, the court must consider that the paramount purpose of the CYFSA is to promote the best interests, protection, and well-being of children: CYFSA, s. 1(1). In addition, s. 1(2) emphasizes additional purposes which I find are relevant in this particular case:

• that while parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit;
• that the court order the least disruptive course of action where available and appropriate;
• that services to children be provided in a manner that:
  • respects a child’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment;
  • takes into account physical, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs of the child;
  • takes into account a child’s ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression;
  • takes into account a child’s cultural and linguistic needs;
  • provides early assessment, planning, and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children in accordance with their best interests; and
  • includes the participation of a child, their relatives, and the members of the extended family and community, where appropriate;
• that services to children and their families be provided in a manner that builds on the strengths of the families, wherever possible; and
• appropriate sharing of information to plan for and provide services essential for creating successful outcomes for children and families.

[104] In this case, I have considered all the best interests factors, but refer below to those which I find are most relevant, not necessarily in the order that they are listed in the legislation, and sometimes collectively given there may be overlap between the factors.

A. Risk of Harm and the Merits of the Proposed Plans of Care

[105] Section 74(3)(c)(x) requires the court to consider the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to, or allowed to remain in the care of a parent, and s. 74(3)(c)(xi) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection.

[106] I do not find the children are at risk of harm if returned to the parents under their proposed plan of care. Both parents agree that the current apartment is unsuitable because of its size, location, and neighbours. The mother contacted Ottawa Housing to find a larger place but is unable to obtain a larger home until such time as there is a court order indicating the children are in her care. As a result, the parents arrived at a new proposal to reside with T.L. and her family.

[107] T.L. testified that she has a two-bedroom apartment and a bedroom in the basement. While the unit is tight for nine people, the children will have a room and the parents will sleep in the living room within earshot of the children. T.L. has made inquiries to find a larger unit in the Orleans area, where the children can be enrolled at a school within walking distance.

[108] The Society suggests that T.L.’s residence is not a good placement as the parents tried living there in 2020 without success. I disagree. While there were issues in 2020, I keep in mind that this was a stressful period for everyone in the midst of the pandemic, the father had not taken control of his drinking, and the parents had not benefited from the programming they have since done. There have been recent access visits in T.L.’s home on Christmas 2022, as well as on July 1, August 18, September 9, September 15, October 6, and October 14, 2023. These visits were largely from Friday to Sunday and went well.

[109] While there was reference to an incident where it was alleged the father accused T.L.’s spouse of having a gun, nothing came of this incident. T.L. indicated they do not have guns and, in fact, T.L. testified she was very upset to learn about this from Ms. Redmond during the trial proceedings. Furthermore, if there were any concerns about guns, the Society would not have permitted access visits to take place there during 2023.

[110] Based on T.L.’s testimony, I find that she is fully aware of the family dynamics; knows and understands her brother; is able to communicate clearly and respectfully with both parents about her expectations, including contributing financially for living costs; maintains an alcohol-free home; has experience raising her own teenage daughter; and has taken steps to discuss the arrangement with her spouse and daughter, who are supportive. T.L is also aware of C.C.L.’s allergies and has indicated she will make best efforts to reduce his exposure to the family cats.

[111] In sum, while the expectation is that the parents will eventually transition to living independently with their children, I find the proposal to reside at this time with T.L.’s family, whose members can provide the parents with both respite from and oversight on parenting, is a sound and reasonable plan that will address the minimal protection concerns identified.

[112] The parents wish to be involved with their children’s learning and intend to enrol them at a nearby school, which was the situation before apprehension. Consideration will be given to placing the younger children in daycare. Locating a residence within walking distance of a school is significant. The Society expressed concerns that the children were sometimes late or missed school when in the parents’ care. It is important that the parents set themselves up for success. Neither parent nor T.L. drives. T.L.’s spouse has work commitments. Finding a school within walking distance will simplify pick-ups and drop-offs generally and in circumstances where the kids may have different start and finish times. It will reduce the stress of having to arrange taxis if any of the four kids are delayed and miss a school bus. It will also allow the children to build a community of friends within their neighbourhood.

[113] Upon the return of the children to their care, the parents propose to continue with the daily routines the grandmother has put in place for them. In addition to schooling and managing home routines, the parents intend to continue having the children see their medical and dental providers. The mother has attended some medical appointments with the grandmother, and it would be of tremendous assistance to this family if the grandmother could continue supporting the parents by introducing them to the healthcare providers and driving them to appointments.

[114] It is not disputed that the parents are caring and loving with the children. There is no evidence of any physical violence toward the children. The parents are working on managing their adult conflict to minimize exposure to any emotional violence. The mother has no history of substance abuse and the father has commenced a path toward sobriety. Both parents have taken active steps to improve their parenting and communication skills.

B. Children’s Views and Wishes

[115] Section 74(3)(a) states that where a person is directed to make a determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall consider the child’s views and wishes, giving due weight in accordance with the child’s age and maturity, unless those wishes cannot be ascertained.

[116] In this case, both I.L. and C.C.L. are too young to express their views. E.L. has indicated that she does not wish to have to choose between her grandmother and parents’ homes. There was evidence during the trial that C.C.L. is very attached to his father and seeks him out.

[117] As the Society fairly points out, perhaps the best expression of the children’s wishes is the joy they express at their access visits and their desire for those parental visits to continue.

C. Children’s Physical, Mental, and Emotional Needs and Development

[118] Section 74(3)(c)(i) requires the court to consider the child’s physical, mental, and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs. Section 74(3)(c)(ii) requires the court to consider the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development.

[119] While I agree that the children have stabilized from having a consistent routine at their grandmother’s home, I am not persuaded that a return to the parents will adversely impact their emotional well-being. The children have enjoyed their visits with their parents both at the access centre and at T.L.’s home. The mother has shown tremendous respect toward her own parents, and I have no doubt that she will continue to foster her children’s relationships with the grandmother and relatives to maintain the children’s emotional ties to their maternal family. In fact, upon receiving my oral decision on December 17, 2023 ordering the return of the children to their care, both parents respected that the grandparents had made arrangements for Christmas with the children and were agreeable to allowing the eldest children to come home later on Christmas Day rather than immediately. They placed the children’s interests before their own notwithstanding their two-year wait for the children to return home.

[120] During the trial, the Society and the grandmother led considerable evidence about the parents’ neglect of their children’s teeth and failure to maintain their immunizations. For example, E.L. had to have seven tooth extractions when she was removed from her parents’ care. The grandmother testified she tried to have the mother take the children to the dentist, but was unsuccessful. I accept her testimony. In addition to dental care neglect, Ms. Redmond testified that the parents did not follow through with meetings with the public health nurse.

[121] The mother explained there were challenges in obtaining dental cards and that she could not get funds from the PGT for dental care without them. It is unclear to me if any of the mother’s account is accurate. On the other hand, the evidence about the parents’ financial circumstances is equally unclear, such that I am not prepared to discount the mother’s explanation altogether.

[122] Despite these examples of neglect, I find there is evidence that the parents are alert to their children’s medical needs. For example, during an access visit, the parents became very concerned about C.C.L.’s cough. They went to the bedroom to discuss the matter and decided to call an ambulance. While Ms. Moscardi was of the view that there was no serious concern, it was confirmed at the hospital that C.C.L. is asthmatic and needed to be attended to for this condition. The mother’s instincts were correct.

[123] On another occasion while in Calabogie with the maternal family, the mother was concerned about I.L.’s health and wanted to return to Ottawa. Her aunts and mother felt she was overreacting and insisted the child could be managed by medication from the drug store. Whether that was or was not the case is unclear. Nonetheless, what is important is that these two examples demonstrate that the mother is very alive and attuned to her children’s needs and will take steps to attend to their care.

[124] As the children’s mother, one would hope that the mother’s views and preferences are at least listened to. Sadly, because of her intellectual challenges, the mother feels that she is never properly listened to by family members and those around her. This can perhaps prompt her to respond in a loud and argumentative manner and, indeed, several people have described her in this manner. For this reason, I find that the mother could benefit from counselling that will assist her in building her self-esteem, learning how to respond to criticism or disagreement, and learning to better communicate her views and preferences. In addition, it is recommended that the Society facilitate a reconciliation between the mother and the maternal family so that the parents and maternal family members can openly express their views around past grievances and their expectations for the future.

[125] As a result of the grandmother’s efforts, the children ultimately received the dental care they needed. Given the weight placed on dental neglect during this trial, I find based on their testimonies that the parents will make efforts, with the assistance of T.L. and the grandmother if she agrees, to carry through with their obligations for dental and medical care.

[126] I am also satisfied that the parents will be able to provide for the children’s nutritional needs. T.L. noted that the mother has a preference to prepare home-cooked meals for the children rather than processed foods. Cooking for a household of nine is not easy and this is another area where the grandparents can lend their support should they wish to.

[127] Finally, it is also recommended that once the children are settled in their new school, the parents assess with school professionals whether the children need any psychological assessments or learning aids. The grandmother testified that by all accounts the children are doing well, but that J.J.L. continues to have some issues that warrant further investigation.

D. Children’s Cultural Identity, Language, and Community

[128] Section 74(3)(c)(iii) requires the court to consider the child’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, family diversity, disability, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression. Section 74(3)(c)(iv) requires consideration of the child’s cultural and linguistic heritage.

[129] The children are Filipino on their mother’s side and Franco-Ontarian on their father’s side. The children go to French school and the plan is they will continue to do so if a French school can be located nearby.

[130] The children are Catholic and also attend church regularly. Given the parents do not drive, this is something which, with the support of the grandmother, they could continue to do.

[131] The children have been exposed to their Filipino culture and extended family. The parents wish to be reunited with the maternal Filipino family. It is my sincere hope that the Filipino maternal family will make efforts to reconcile with the parents so that these children can grow up enjoying the warmth, love, and culture of their extended Filipino family.

[132] Should the maternal family invite the parents back into their lives, I have no doubt that the parents will ensure the children continue to be exposed to this side of their culture. Should the parents continue to be excluded, it will be up to them to decide if the children can continue to attend these family gatherings. If that is the case, it is recommended that the parents, grandmother, and Society give some consideration to discussing with professionals what effect the exclusion of the parents from maternal family gatherings has had, and if maintained, would continue to have on the children’s perception of their own parents and whether it could adversely impact the children’s relationship with their parents. Certainly, this would be an important subject of a family meeting.

E. Children’s Need for Security and Stability

[133] Section 74(3)(vii) addresses the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity. Section 74(3)(ix) requires the court to consider the effects of delay in the disposition of the case on the child.

[134] While the grandmother has developed a stable routine with the children since they came into her care, I am not persuaded that the children are so entrenched in the status quo that they would be unable to transition to their parents’ care provided the appropriate structures and supports were in place. The children have not demonstrated any reluctance to spend time with their parents and, by all accounts, the weekend visits with the parents at T.L.’s home, save for the two incidents identified above, have all gone well.

F. Children’s Relationship with Parents, Siblings, Family, and Community

[135] Section 74(3)(c)(v) requires the court to consider the importance of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family for the child’s development. Section 74(3)(c)(vi) requires the court to consider the child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family, or member of the child’s community. In this section, I address the children’s relationship with their parents, the maternal grandmother, as well as the extended maternal and paternal families.

[136] If extended society care and adoption to the grandmother results, I accept that the children would remain united with their elder brother. However, I do not find this ground alone is reason that all four children should be deprived of the opportunity to be raised by their own parents. The children’s right to develop a positive relationship with their own parents is equally important.

[137] Furthermore, there is evidence to suggest that adoption by the grandmother would not result in easy access by the parents to their children. Both parents, but particularly the father, expressed frustration at the limited access the parents have had with their eldest child J.L. since his adoption in 2016, suggesting that it would not necessarily be much different with the other children should they be adopted. I also note that after the apprehension, the grandmother did not allow the parents to visit their children in her own home and excluded the parents from extended family outings. The mother expressed frustration that the grandmother would not allow her more time with the youngest child, I.L., during her infancy. Even after the father stopped drinking, little effort was made on the grandmother’s part to rebuild her relationship with the parents. Despite the good intentions of the Society to allow the parents to be access holders, I find that an order for extended society care and adoption by the grandmother would not only result in the termination of parental rights but there would be a high risk that the parents would not achieve meaningful access to their children.

[138] The grandmother has grown to love the children as her own in these past two years. The transition from primary caregiver to grandmother will undoubtedly be difficult for her. However, it was evident during the testimony of the mother that she bears no ill will toward her own mother who stepped in to care for her children in their time of need. The parents wish for the maternal grandparents to be part of their children’s lives. The grandmother is able, if she wishes, to play a strong role in raising these children, but she will need to work with the parents to identify where they need support, be it with preparing meals, driving the parents and children to appointments, reintegrating with family, or managing complex administrative or financial tasks.

Conclusion

[139] In conclusion, upon consideration of all the evidence, I find that it is in the best interests of the children that, pursuant to ss. 114(c) and 101(1), the children be placed in the care and custody of the parents, subject to supervision by the Society, for 12 months.

[140] Each parent has personal challenges such that they may require, from time to time, some additional supports. The mother has a learning disability and sometimes struggles with complex decisions and tasks that may appear simple to others. The father has had addiction issues, but took the initiative to quit drinking for the sake of being able to be present to raise his children and to protect his family unit. I find the father would benefit from continued treatment to maintain his sobriety as well as therapy to address his childhood traumas. Nonetheless, I find that the father is in a good place in his life to resume parenting his children with the support of the mother, his sister, and the paternal family. While both parents can benefit from counselling and therapy to address their personal issues and to improve their parenting skills, I find they should pursue these goals alongside their immediate and primary focus of parenting their four children.

[141] It is often said that it takes a village to raise a child. These parents need that village. The parents have worked hard to improve their lives since apprehension, but they recognize that they need additional help and guidance in parenting. Therefore, the plan they have proposed to reside with T.L., a stay-at-home mom who is available to provide some supervision and support to the parents, is a sound and reasonable plan. Any additional support that can be provided by the grandparents, the maternal family, and the larger Filipino community would be of tremendous assistance to this young family.

[142] Finally, in arriving at my decision, I am mindful that the Society has been working with this family for an extended period, and the legislation does not contemplate that supervision orders become a long-term mechanism for protecting the children: Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. S.L., 2012 ONCJ 452, at para. 25. Nonetheless, keeping in mind the purposes of the legislation, the intrusiveness and severity of an extended society care order, the progress of the parents since October 2022, the parents’ need for transitional support, and the best interests of the children, I find that a 12-month supervision order is the appropriate disposition in this case.

Order

[143] Below, I set out in general language the required terms of a Final Order with the precise wording to be set out in the order itself. However, additional conditions may be added upon the parties reviewing this decision, including, but not limited to, conditions for programming.

[144] There will be a Final Order pursuant to ss. 114(c) and 101(1) providing the following:

1. The children shall be placed in the care and custody of their parents, subject to supervision by the Society, for a period of 12 months and abiding by the terms and conditions below.

Residency

2. The children shall reside with their parents in the home of T.L.
3. The parents or T.L. shall advise the Society of any changes in circumstances with respect to the residence.

Cooperation

4. The parents shall work cooperatively with the Society, including by allowing Society workers to attend the home on an announced and unannounced basis in a manner that complies with prevailing public health guidelines.
5. The Society workers may meet privately with the children at school.
6. The Society workers will meet with the parents and T.L. on a scheduled basis to discuss the transition and address concerns with respect to the parenting arrangement, including but not limited to the children’s schooling and health, attendance at medical and dental appointments, finances, housing, and access to social services.
7. The parents shall immediately advise the Society of any police involvement.
8. The parents shall sign consents requested by the Society to allow the Society to exchange information with other professionals and service providers involved with themselves and their children, upon consultation with legal counsel, if desired.
9. The parents shall make immediate arrangements for the three oldest children to be registered at a school within walking distance of T.L.’s residence.

Access

10. The grandmother shall have access to the children at the discretion of the parents but for a minimum of two hours per week.

Programming

11. The parents shall work with the Society to identify treatment and programming to address parenting, communication, adult conflict, and mental health issues.
12. The father shall continue with programming for addictions.
13. The parents shall attend for couple’s counselling to address managing adult conflict and improving their communication.
14. The mother shall attend for programming as recommended by CMHA.

Reconciliation

15. Upon agreement by the grandparents or any members of the maternal family, the Society shall facilitate reconciliation sessions between the parents and maternal family.

Somji J. Released: March 5, 2024