Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services of Nova Scotia v. RD, 2021 NSSC 66

Supreme Court of Nova Scotia (FAMILY DIVISION) Citation: Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services of Nova Scotia v. RD, 2021 NSSC 66 Date: 20210224 Docket: 098744 Registry: Sydney, NS Between: Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services of Nova Scotia Applicant v. R.D, S.S.J. Respondents Library Heading Judge: The Honourable Justice Pamela A. Marche Heard: February 11, 2021 in Sydney, Nova Scotia Written Decision: February 24, 2021 Subject: Child Protection, Termination of Access, Permanent Care, Adoption, Indigenous Child

Summary: Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services (MFCS) filed a motion to terminate the access provision in a Permanent Care Order related to a five-year-old boy with special needs who has been in care since birth. MFCS plans for the child to be adopted. The child’s mother, RD, has a right of supervised access under the Permanent Care Order but has not exercised with the child in over two years due to ongoing protection concerns. RD objected to access being terminated.

The child’s father, SSJ, does not have a right of access under the Permanent Care Order but objected to MFCS’s motion on the basis that provisions of the provincial child protection legislation operationally frustrated the federal legislation related to Indigenous children and child protection. Issues:

(1) Do provisions within the Nova Scotia Children and Family Services Act , 1990, c. 5 related to child placement in the context of permanent care operationally frustrate an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, Metis children, youth and families , SC. 2019, c. 24 and therefore render those aspects of the CFSA invalid based on the doctrine of federal paramountcy?

(2) Are the submissions of SSJ relevant or material given that SSJ does not have a right of access pursuant to the Permanent Care and Custody Order?

(3) Should the Permanent Care and Custody Order be varied to remove the access provisions for RD? Result: Argument that provisions of the Nova Scotia Children and Family Services Act , 1990, c. 5 operationally frustrated an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, Metis children, youth and families , SC. 2019, c. 24 was withdrawn because notice of the constitution question was not provided as required by the Constitutional Questions Act , RSNS 1989, c. 89 . SSJ received notice of the proceeding, had party status, and was given full opportunity to make submissions.

His position was considered in the context of the legislation, case law and factual circumstances. Provision for access in the Permanent Care and Custody Order was terminated because it was in the best interest of the child to do so. THIS INFORMATION SHEET DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE COURT'S DECISION. QUOTES MUST BE FROM THE DECISION, NOT THIS LIBRARY SHEET. SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia

FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services of Nova Scotia. RD, 2021 NSSC 66 Date: 20210224 Docket: 098744 Registry: Sydney, NS Between: Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services of Nova Scotia Applicant v. R.D., S.S.J Respondents Judge: The Honourable Justice Pamela A. Marche Heard: February 11, 2021, in Sydney, Nova Scotia Written Release: February 24, 2021 Counsel : Ann Levangie for the Applicant Liam Smith for the Respondent S.S.J. R.D – Self-Represented Respondent By the Court: Overview [ 1 ] This matter involves a five-year old boy, RS born December *, 2015.

The boy’s biological mother is RD and the boy’s biological father is SSJ. RS is a band member of * First Nation as are both of his birth parents. RS has been in care since birth. [ 2 ] Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services (MFCS) filed a motion to terminate the access provision in the Permanent Care and Custody Order related to RS. MFCS is making this motion because they are planning for RS to be adopted and they argue the access provision is an impediment to this. [ 3 ] RD and SSJ do not agree that access for RS should be terminated.

Procedural Background [ 4 ] On September 17, 2019 MFCS filed a motion to terminate access provisions in the Permanent Care and Custody Order granted on March 27, 2017. This permanent care order provides RD with supervised access to RS, in cooperation and conjunction with MFCS.

The Order does not contain a clause allowing SSJ access to RS. [ 5 ] Several pre-trial conferences were held in this matter: • November 28, 2019 – this pre-trial was adjourned at the request of RD so that she might obtain legal counsel. • January 13, 2020 – this pre-trial was adjourned again at the request of RD because she had only recently applied to NSLA and needed additional time to get a lawyer. • February 26, 2020 – this pre-trial was also adjourned because RD was still waiting to have a lawyer appointed. • May 20, 2020 – RD was represented by counsel at this pre-trial and a Settlement Conference was scheduled. • August 19, 2020 – the Settlement Conference was adjourned at the request of counsel. • October 9, 2020 – RD was present and represented by Counsel at this pre-trial and the Settlement Conference was rescheduled. • October 27, 2020 – the Settlement Conference did not proceed because neither RD nor SSJ appeared. • November 3, 2020 – RD participated in this pre-trial with her counsel.

A hearing date was set for February 11, 2021. All parties agreed that the hearing would proceed by cross-examination of affidavit evidence and filing deadlines were set. • January 12, 2021 - RD did not attend this pre-trial even though she had been served notice that her counsel would be making a motion to be removed from the record. Counsel for RD was released from the file. [ 6 ] RD did not offer any evidence to oppose the motion to terminate access. Nor did RD file a motion to terminate the Permanent

Care and Custody Order. RD was served personally with the affidavit evidence, pre-trial submissions and Book of Authorities filed by MFCS, as well as correspondence from Counsel for MFCS confirming the hearing date and time. [ 7 ] RD did attend at the hearing, unrepresented. She indicated she thought that the hearing was scheduled for a different date. The Court acknowledged the Affidavit of Service relating to RD and reviewed the procedural history of the file with RD, noting the passage of time since the Motion to Terminate Access was first filed.

RD agreed to proceed. [ 8 ] Counsel for MFCS and SSJ agreed the relevant evidence was contained in affidavits already filed with the Court and cross- examination was not necessary. RD was provided with the opportunity to cross-examine the affiants, all of whom were present in Court, but declined to do so. [ 9 ] The following affidavits were entered as exhibits and considered by the Court: three affidavits from RS’s Child in Care Caseworker Ms.

Wendy Aboud dated September 16, 2019, July 8, 2020, and January 20, 2021, and an affidavit of SSJ, dated January 8, 2021. [ 10 ] The proceeding was upsetting for RD who left the court room abruptly at one point. The matter adjourned briefly and RD was encouraged to reconsider attending. RD ultimately decided to participate and utilized the services of an Interpreter throughout the proceeding. [ 11 ] The Court heard submissions from Counsel for MFCS, Counsel for SSJ and from RD on February 11, 2021. Issues 1.

Do provisions within the Nova Scotia Children and Family Services Act , 1990, c. 5 ( CFSA ), related to child placement in the context of permanent care operationally frustrate an Act respecting First Nations, Inuit, Metis, children, youth and families, S.C. 2019, c. 24 ( FNIM ), and therefore render those aspects of the CFSA invalid based on the doctrine of federal paramountcy? 2. Are the submissions of SSJ relevant or material given that SSJ does not have a right of access pursuant to the Permanent Care and Custody Order? 3.

Should the Permanent Care and Custody Order be varied to remove the access provision for RD? Issue One: Do provisions within the CFSA related to child placement in the context of permanent care operationally frustrate FNIM , and therefore render those aspects of the CFSA invalid based on the doctrine of federal paramountcy? [ 12 ] SSJ argued in pretrial submissions that components of the CFSA , as they relate to access and adoption, frustrate the operational purpose of FNIM , particularly s. 16(3) of FNIM , and are therefore invalid.

Section 16(3) of FNIM directs, in the context of providing child and family services in relation to an Indigenous child, there must be a reassessment, conducted on an ongoing basis, of whether it would be appropriate to place the child with a person identified in s. 16(1) of FNIM . Section (16)(1) sets out the order of priority of placement of an Indigenous child, to the extent that it is consistent with the best interests of that child. [ 13 ] MFCS identified SSJ’s argument as raising a constitutional question.

MFCS correctly noted that when the constitutional validity or constitutional applicability of any law is brought into question, the Attorney General of Canada must be notified as required by the Constitutional Questions Act , RSNS 1989, c. 89 . [ 14 ] Counsel for SSJ acknowledged that notice of the constitutional issue had not been properly provided and withdrew this issue from consideration by the Court.

Issue Two: Are the submissions of SSJ relevant or material given that SSJ does not have a right of access pursuant to the Permanent Care and Custody Order? [ 15 ] MFCS argues that the position and circumstances of SSJ are irrelevant and immaterial given he has no right of access under the current Permanent Care and Custody Order. [ 16 ] In response, Counsel for SSJ points to ss. 12(1) and 13 (

a) of FNIM : 12(1) In the context of providing child and family services in relation to an Indigenous child, to the extent that doing so is consistent with the best interests of the child, before taking any significant measure in relation to the child, the service provide must provide notice of the measure to the child’s parent … 13 In the context of a civil proceeding in respect of the provision of child and family services in relation to an Indigenous child, (

a) the child’s parent and the care provider have the right to make representations and to have party status… [ 17 ] The issue of whether SSJ is properly considered a parent given the existence of the permanent care order was not directly addressed. Nevertheless, I am satisfied that SSJ received proper notice of the proceeding, had party status, and was given full opportunity to make submissions. His position and submissions have been given full consideration within the context of the relevant legislation, case law and factual situation.

Issue Three: Should the Permanent Care and Custody Order be varied to remove the access provision for RD? Position of the Parties Position of MFCS [ 18 ] Mi’kmaw Family and Children’s Services (MFCS) is mandated as a Child Protection Agency under the CFSA . MFCS is governed by a Board of Directors comprised of the thirteen First Nation Chiefs in Nova Scotia, the Grand Chief, the President of the Native Women’s Association as well as the Agency’s Executive Director (ex-officio).

The purpose of MFCS is to ensure the health, safety, and well-being of Mi’kmaw children living in First Nation communities in Nova Scotia. [ 19 ] MFCS argues that it is in RS’s best interests to be adopted. RS has special needs that are best met by the stability and consistency afforded by adoption.

MFCS describes the access provisions of the permanent care order as keeping RS in a state of foster care “ limbo ”. [ 20 ] MFCS asserts that once the Permanent Care Order was granted, MFCS became the legal guardian of RS and MFCS is now the entity responsible for determining what is in RS’s best interests in terms of placement. [ 21 ] MFCS states they are bound by legislation and by policy to consider culture, race, religion, and language when making placement decisions for RS.

Section 47A of the CFSA requires the MFCS to develop, in a timely manner, a cultural connection plan for a child who is in permanent care. RS is currently placed in a Mi’kmaw home and it is MFCS policy to adopt into Mi’kmaw homes, where possible. [ 22 ] MFCS claims they have exhausted every possibility of a family placement for RS and, further, have explored every possible placement opportunity for RS within * First Nation.

MFCS claims RS has been placed within a culturally appropriate Mi’kmaw home that best meets RS’s needs. [ 23 ] MFCS acknowledges that language is an important component of culture but argues that language is not entirely determinative of what is in RS’s best interest in this case.

There was no evidence before the Court about whether the proposed adoptive parents speak Mi’kmaq. [ 24 ] In support of their position, MFCS relies on the unchallenged affidavit evidence of RS’s Child in Care Caseworker as follows: • MFCS has been involved with this family since 1993 in relation to issues involving drug abuse, mental health concerns, sexual abuse, eating disorders, unfit living conditions, inappropriate discipline, domestic violence, lack of parenting skills, and inadequate supervision. • RD has 13 children.

Several of these children were placed in permanent care but currently reside with RD, having run from their foster placements to reside with their mother. RD has no children in her legal care under the age of 16. • In May 2019, a Developmental Assessment found RS to have behavioural issues related to ADHD and Oppositional Defiant Disorder. It was recommended that caregivers for RS receive professional assistance in dealing with RS’s challenges. • RS’s behavioural issues are exacerbated when his routine is interrupted.

His behavioural issues include hitting, kicking, pushing, yelling and screaming for extended periods of time, throwing things, and urinating on the floor when angry. RS is easily upset and his behavioural issues can take hours to resolve. • RS has been in the same specialized foster home since July 2019. The foster parents provide stability and work consistently to meet RS’s therapeutic and medical needs. RS is reported to be stable and doing well in this placement which MFCS plans to maintain until RS is adopted. • RD has not exercised access with RS since December 2018.

MFCS has not supported access for either parent because of RS’s special needs and the continued chaos in RD’s home.

RD requested family support in November 2019 but did not follow through with meeting with the family support worker, despite multiple efforts by the family support worker to engage with RD. • MFCS continues to have protection concerns about RD’s home: o In March 2020 there was an altercation in RD’s home between her son Q and Q’s girlfriend that resulted in Q being charged with assault. o In March 2020, there was an altercation in RD’s home between RD’s daughters R and C that required police intervention. o In April 2020, RD’s daughter A disclosed to MFCS that SSJ was spending time with RD in RD’s residence while RD was exercising access with her other children. o In April 2020, RD’s daughter A disclosed to the RCMP that SSJ had sexually abused her when she was younger and, in response to A telling her mother, RD, about the abuse, RD said A was a liar. o In June 2020, RD threatened her daughter R’s respite caregiver. • SSJ did not participate in the court proceeding or case plan that led to the permanent care order being granted in 2017.

SSJ advised he did not wish to be served with court documentation or have access with RS. • MFCS continues to have protection concerns about SSJ:

o In April 2020, SSJ was charged with sexual exploitation, sexual interference, and sexual assault in relation to the child A. The matter is scheduled for trial and SSJ is on conditions not to have contact with anyone under the age of 18. o A violent incident occurred in April 2020 involving SSJ and his father, which resulted in SSJ being charged with assault with a weapon, assault causing bodily harm, uttering threats, failure to comply, and resisting arrest.

SSJ’s trial for these charges is scheduled for May 2021. o In October 2020 SSJ was intoxicated and charged with breach of undertakings, and failure to comply. o On January 9, 2021 SSJ was charged with assault. He was highly intoxicated at the time. o SSJ was incarcerated when this matter was heard on February 11, 2021.

Position of SSJ [ 25 ] Counsel for SSJ acknowledged that RS needs stability but asked the Court to consider six facts when considering the motion of MFCS: • RS is a band member of * First Nation. • RS’s biological parents are Mi’kmaq language speakers who are also members of * First Nation. • RS has twelve siblings in * First Nation. • RS’s paternal grandparents, SJSS and MS are Mi’kmaq language speakers who live in * First Nation. • RS has * paternal aunts and uncles living in * First Nation, all of whom are Mi’kmaq language speakers. • Since RS was born SSJ participated in and completed three programs on parenting and relationships.

He also completed a 35-day program for addictions. Position of RD [ 26 ] RD spoke through anger and tears about her experience. She talked about the challenges her family has experienced, referencing the legacy of residential schools. She talked about the hurt of seeing her son, RS, on the street and the reality of him not knowing her as his mother and her not knowing the colour of his eyes. She spoke of her other children crying because they do not know their sibling.

She felt the MFCS case worker assigned to her file should have been a Mi’kmaw person who would have had a better understanding of her family and community. She spoke of her children being treated like animals with no recognition of the importance of their family ties. She challenged the degree of cultural appropriateness in RS’s placement. RD’s words were hard to hear and important to be heard. Applicable Law Legislation and Legislative Purpose [ 27 ] I must now consider the position of all the parties within the context of the law. [ 28 ] The applicable legislation is both the CFSA and FNIM .

I am unaware of any coordinating agreement in place with any First Nation in Nova Scotia so there is no Indigenous-based child protection law I must consider at this time. [ 29 ] FNIM is not stand-alone legislation and it does not replace the CFSA as law in Nova Scotia.

Section 4 of FNIM states: For greater certainty, nothing in this Act affects the application of a provision of a provincial act or regulation, to the extent that the provision does not conflict with, or is not inconsistent with, the provisions of this Act . [ 30 ] I must interpret and administer the CFSA keeping in mind the purpose of that Act , which is to protect children from harm, promote the integrity of the family and assure the best interests of children.

The best interest of children is the paramount consideration (s. 2, CFSA ). [ 31 ] In my consideration of this case, I must also be mindful of the purpose and principles of FNIM .

The purpose of this legislation is to affirm the inherent right of self-government, which includes jurisdiction in relation to child and family services, to set national standards in the provision of child and family services and to contribute to the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (s. 8, FNIM ). [ 32 ] I must interpret and administer FNIM in accordance with the principles of the best interests of the child, cultural continuity, and substantive equality ( s. 9 , FNIM ).

Section 10(1) of FNIM states that the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration in the making of decisions or taking of actions in the context of the provision of child and family services for Indigenous children. The best interests of the child is the paramount consideration in matters related to child apprehension. Best Interests Factors [ 33 ] Section 3(2) of the CFSA enumerates a non-exhaustive list of a factors for the Court to consider when determining a child’s best interests:

s. 3 (2) Where a person is directed pursuant to this Act, except in respect of a proposed adoption, to make an order or determination in thebest interests of a child, the person shall consider those of the following circumstances that are relevant: (

a) the importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent or guardian and a secure place as a member of afamily; (

b) the child’s relationships with relatives; (

c) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of the disruption of that continuity; (

d) the bonding that exists between the child and the child’s parent or guardian; (

e) the child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs; (

f) the child’s physical, mental, and emotional level of development; (

g) the child’s cultural, racial, and linguistic heritage; (ga) the child’s sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression; (

h) the religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised; (

i) the merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by an agency, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption,compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent or guardian; (

j) the child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained; (

k) the effect on the child of delay in the disposition of the case; (

l) the risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care ofa parent or guardian; (

m) the degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protective services; (

n) any other relevant circumstances. [34] Section 10(3) of FMIN identifies factors to be considered when determining the best interests of an Indigenous child:

(3) To determine the best interests of an Indigenous child, all factors related to the circumstances of the child must be considered,including: (

a) the child’s cultural, linguistic, religious, and spiritual upbringing and heritage; (

b) child’s need for stability; (

c) the nature and strength of the child’s relationship with his or her parent, the care provider, and any member of his or her family whoplays an important role in his or her life; (

d) the importance to the child of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connections to the language and territory of the Indigenousgroup, community, or people to which the child belongs; (

e) the child’s views and preferences, giving due weight to the child’s age and maturity, unless they cannot be ascertained; (

f) any plans for the child’s care, including care in accordance with the customs or traditions of the Indigenous group, community, orpeople to which the child belongs; (

g) any family violence and its impact on the child, including whether the child is directly or indirectly exposed to the family violenceas well as the physical, emotional, and psychological harm or risk of harm to the child; and (

h) any civil or criminal proceeding, order, condition, or measure that is relevant to the safety, security, and well-being of the child. [35] Section 10(2) of FNIM directs that, in assessing the best interests of the child, primary consideration must be given to thechild’s physical, emotional, and psychological safety, security and well-being, as well as the importance, for that child, of having anongoing relationship with his or her family and with the Indigenous group, community or people to which he or she belongs, and ofpreserving the child’s connection to his or her culture. [36] FNIM is meant to augment and enhance provincial and territorial child protection legislation.

The approach has been affirmedin CAS v. K.C. and Constance Lake First Nation, 2020 ONSC 5513 , 2020 ONCS 5513, and Michif CFS v. C.L.H. andW.J.B. 2020 MBQB 99. [37] In CAS v. K.C. and Constance Lake First Nation, supra, Madame Justice Smith of the Ontario Superior Court found atparagraph 10: … I interpret the interplay between Bill C-92 [now FNIM] and the CYFSA as establishing an augmented best interests test as the

paramount consideration that overrides the hierarchy of placement for Indigenous children as set out at section 16(1) of Bill C-92.

A rote application of Bill C-92’s section 16(1) to the detriment of the best interests of the Indigenous child detracts from the legislation’s overall goal of promoting substantive equality between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children. [ 38 ] In a similar manner, I found the interplay between the CFSA and FNIM in Nova Scotia serves to enrich and enhance the best interests test, as it relates to an Indigenous child, to specifically add a consideration of the importance to the child of preserving the child’s cultural identity and connections to the language and territory of the Indigenous group, community or people to which the child belongs.

Authority to Confirm, Vary or Terminate Access [ 39 ] Section 48(7) of the CFSA states that a court may, in the child’s best interests, confirm, vary, or terminate the access provisions of a permanent care order.

Section 48 must be interpreted in context of the operative provisions of s. 47 of the CFSA which deals with permanent care. [ 40 ] In Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) v. T.H. 2010 NSCA 63 , the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal found that once a permanent care order is issued, the Minister then becomes the child’s legal guardian and the Minister, not the Court, is responsible for ensuring the child’s best interests throughout the placement process.

After a permanent care order has issued, there is a de-emphasis on family contact and, instead, priority is assigned to long-term, stable placement . [ 41 ] In Children and Family Services of Colchester County v. K.T. , 2010 NSCA 72 , the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal confirmed that t he disposition judge must consider the child’s best interests at the permanent care hearing but, post permanent care being ordered, the Court is no longer responsible for overseeing every step of the child’s permanent care plan. This role goes to the Minister as the child’s legal guardian.

The Court found, in paragraph 37: Before the issuance of a permanent care order, the legislative focus is on preserving the family unit. This would understandably mean that when children are in temporary Agency care, parental access is to be encouraged so as to hopefully rehabilitate the family. However, with a permanent care order, the focus shifts. Any hope of preserving the family within the legislative time limits is presumably lost and the focus becomes a stable alternative plan.

Thus, upon securing a permanent care order, the Agency under the CFSA effectively becomes the parent. [ 42 ] Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was refused in both T.H. and K.T. [2010] S.C.C.A. 385 and [2010] S.C.C.A. 451. [ 43 ] The Nova Scotia Court of Appeal confirmed the law in T.H. and K.T . in P.H. v. Nova Scotia (Community Services), 2013 NSCA 83 .

The Court repeated that the provisions of the CFSA require a judge to defer to the role of the Minister once a permanent care order is issued: The judge will only order permanent care if it would be best for the child, and then the Minister will be responsible for ensuring that placement plans are in the child’s best interests. … If the plan leads to adoption, a court once again resumes oversight of the child’s best interests in order to approve the adoption (para. 105).

The disposition judge must consider the child’s best interests as the statute directs, but must recognize that by the terms of the CFSA, the Legislature expects the Minister to carry the burden of protecting the child’s interest once permanent care is ordered. There is no “gap” or “deferral” of considering the child’s best interests (para. 113). Decision [ 44 ] Once the permanent care order was issued, MFCS became RS’s legal guardian and MFCS is responsible for making placement decisions that are in the best interests of RS.

MFCS must ensure compliance with the provisions of the CFSA and FNIM as they relate to culture, language and heritage and all other aspects of a child’s best interests as defined by both statutes when making placement decisions about RS post permanent care. [ 45 ] I must make the decision about whether to terminate access within this over-arching context, understanding it is not for the Court to oversee MFCS’s permanency planning. [ 46 ] I acknowledge the concerns and issues raised by RD and SSJ and I recognize and regret this decision may be hurtful to them.

It is my responsibility, however, to make a decision that is in RS’s best interests. At this stage, given RS is the subject of a permanent care order, there is a de-emphasis on family contact and, instead, priority is assigned to long-term, stable placement . [ 47 ] I am granting the motion of MFCS to terminate access for RD. I am satisfied that it is in the best interests of RS that access be terminated because the provision for access in the permanent care order is impeding adoption planning for RS. [ 48 ] RS needs consistency and stability best provided by a permanent home.

RD and SSJ continue to experience significant chaos and upheaval in their lives. T here continue to be serious and ongoing protection issues in relation to both RD and SSJ and RS needs a permanent home, free from child protection concerns. [ 49 ] There has been limited contact between RS and RD and there is no access provision for SSJ to RS. RD has not followed through with the services requested of her by MFCS to allow healthy and positive access to RS. [ 50 ] RS has challenging developmental and behavioural needs that demand a comprehensive, specialized approach.

Neither RD nor SSJ are positioned to meet those needs. Conclusion

[ 51 ] It is in RS’s best interests that access provisions in the permanent care order granted on March 27, 2017 be removed and that MFCS pursue adoption planning for RS. The motion by MFCS to terminate access for RD is granted and access will terminate immediately. Marche, Pamela A., J.