Nova Scotia (Community Services) v. C.G., 2019 NSSC 186

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia FAMILY DIVISION Citation: Nova Scotia (Community Services) v. C.G. , 2019 NSSC 186 Date: 20190527 Docket: 103883 Registry: Port Hawkesbury Between: Minister of Community Services Applicant v. C.G., C.P., B.F., L.S. and CO.G. by Guardian Ad Litem Arden White Respondent Restriction on Publication : Publishers of this case please take note that s. 94(1) of the Children and Family Services Act applies and may require editing of this judgement or its hearing before publication.

Section 94(1) Provides: “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 pursuant to this Act, or a parent or guardian, a foster parent or relative of the child.” Judge: The Honourable Justice C.

Murray Heard: June 11, 2018, June 18, 2018, July 17, 2018, August 13, 2018, August 14, 2018, September 10, 2018, October 11, 2018, October 12, 2018, October 29, 2018, October 30, 2018, November 13, 2018 and November 27, 2018 in Port Hawkesbury, Nova Scotia Written Release: May 27, 2019 Counsel: Lindsay McDonald for the Applicant Drew MacQuarrie for the Applicant Douglas MacKinlay for the Respondent C.G. Coline Morrow for the Respondent C.P. Jeanne Sumbu for the Respondent L.S.

Lisa Fraser Hill for the Guardian Ad Litem Arden White __________________________________________________________________ Index Introduction Paragraph 1 Issues Paragraph 10 Background and Procedural History Paragraph 15 Evidence Paragraph 31 Professional Reports Paragraph 133 The Children Paragraph 212 Parties’ Positions Paragraph 288 The Law Paragraph 307 Legal Analysis Paragraph 324 Conclusion Paragraph 433

By the Court: INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] This is the Final Disposition Hearing in a child protection proceeding relating to children CO.G. (D.O.B . […], 2001), L.G. (D.O.B. […], 2003), S.G. (D.O.B. […], 2006), M.G. (D.O.B. […], 2009), A.G. (D.O.B. […], 2010), MA.G. (D.O.B. […], 2010) and N.G. (D.O.B. […], 2011). [ 2 ] The Respondent C.G. is the Mother of each of the children. The Respondent C.G. has been residing in […] at the time of the Final Disposition. [ 3 ] The Respondent C.P. is the father of the two eldest children, CO.G. and L.G. C.P. lives in […], Nova Scotia and attends […]school in Halifax.

The Respondents C.G. and C.P. also have an adult son, D.G. C.P. has twins from another relationship. [ 4 ] The Respondent B.F. is the father of S.G and B.F. lives in […], Nova Scotia. [ 5 ] The Respondent L.S. is the father of M.G., A.G., MA.G. and N.G. L.S. lives in […], Nova Scotia.

L.S. has six older children from a prior marriage. [ 6 ] Arden White was appointed as Guardian Ad Litem for the child CO.G. and as a Respondent in these proceedings on May 8, 2018. [ 7 ] This proceeding commenced by way of a Notice of Child Protection Application dated and filed on January 16, 2017, for an order determining that children are in need of protective services within the meaning of s. 22(2)(

d) of the Children and Family Services Act . Given that the proceeding commenced on January 16, 2017, before the amendments came into force, it is governed by the version of the Children and Family Services Act in place prior to it being amended in March 2017. [ 8 ] The Minister removed the children from the care of Respondent mother, C.G., on the 12 th of January 2017, based on substantial risk of sexual abuse arising from unsupervised contact with the maternal grandparents. [ 9 ] Since the proceeding commenced, the children have lived away from their mother.

The children CO.G. and L.G. have been in the care of the Respondent Father C.P. under supervision of the Minister and the five younger children have been in the Minister’s care. L.G.’s parenting time has evolved into unsupervised parenting time. The Respondent Mother C.G. has been having supervised contact with the children. ISSUES [ 10 ] In order to decide this case, I will answer the following questions: 1. Are the children still in of protective services? 2. What order should be granted? [ 11 ] As argued by Ms.

McDonald, counsel for the Minister of Community Services, the issue for the Court is substantial risk of sexual abuse within the meaning of s. 22(2)(

d) of the Children and Family Services Act .

[12] S.22(2)(

d) of the Children and Family Services Act states: …

(2) A child is in need of protective services where (

c) The child has been sexually abused by a parent or guardian of the child, or by another person where a parent or guardian of the childknows or should know of the possibility of sexual abuse and fails to protect the child; (

d) There is a substantial risk that the child will be sexually abused as described in clause (c). [13] The Court of Appeal stated in M.J.B. v. Family and Children Services of Kings County, 2008 NSCA No. 64, at Paragraph 77: 77. The Act defines “substantial risk” to mean a real chance of danger that is apparent on the evidence: subsection 22(1). In the contexthere, it is the real chance of sexual abuse that must be proved to the civil standard. That future sexual abuse will actually occur need notbe established on a balance of probabilities (B.S. v.

British Columbia (Director of Child, Family and Community Services, (BC CA), 160 D.L.R. (4th) 264 [1998] B.C.J. No. 1085 (Q.L.) (C.A.) at paras 26 to 30). [14] Sexual Abuse is defined in the Act at s. 3(1)(

v) as follows: (v) “Sexual abuse” means: (

i) The employment, use, persuasion, inducement, enticement, or coercion of a child to engage in, or assist any other person to engage inany sexually explicit conduct or simulation of such conduct, or (ii) The use of a child in, or exposure to, prostitution, pornography or any unlawful sexual practice. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Interim Hearings [15] The Court proceeding began with an Interim Hearing before the Honourable Justice Cormier, on January 18th, 2017, by videoconference.

By Interim Order rendered on that date, on a reservation of rights basis, the two older children, CO.G. and L.G., wereplaced in the care of the Respondent father C.P. under the supervision of the Minister of Community Services.

The five youngerchildren, S.G., M.G., A.G., MA.G., and N.G., were placed in the temporary care and custody of the Minister, with supervised access toRespondent Mother C.G., on terms and conditions determined by the Minister in its discretion and access to the Respondent Fathers,B.F. and L.S., as arranged by the Minister, on terms and conditions determined by the Minister in its discretion, including discretionregarding supervision.

There were further conditions, including that the children CO.G. and L.G. shall not attend at, or in, or around, thehome of the Maternal Grandparents and that the Maternal Grandparents shall not have contact with any of the children except and unlesssupervised access arranged by the Minister and on terms and conditions in the Minister’s discretion. [16] The Interim Hearing was completed on February 13th, 2017, before the Honourable Justice D. Wilson by video conference.

AnInterim Order was rendered with the consent of Respondent parents, C.G. and L.S. on a reservation of rights basis, with the same termsas set out in the Interim Order rendered January 18, 2017. Protection Hearing [17] The Protection finding was made on April 3rd, 2017 before the Honourable Justice C. Maclellan under s. 22(2)(

d) of theChildren and Family Services Act. This finding was consented to by Respondents, C.G. and L.S., on a reservation of rights basis. It was

ordered that the children CO.G. and L.G. shall remain in the care and custody of C.P., subject to the Minister’s supervision and that the remaining children will remain in the temporary care and custody of the Minister. First Disposition [18] The First Disposition Pre-Trial and docket was held on July 17, 2017 before the Honourable Justice C. Beaton, at which time the parties agreed that it was in the best interests of the children to waive strict compliance with the 90-day time limit for purposes of First Disposition. The Disposition Plan of Care was before the court.

By Order rendered on that date and issued August 10 th , 2017, the two older children remained with the Respondent father C.P. under supervision and the five younger children remained in the temporary care and custody of the Minister. The matter was adjourned to September 14 th , 2017 for Settlement Conference, to November 15 th , 16 th and 17 th , 2017 for Placement Hearing and to October 16 th , 2017 for Disposition Review.

Reviews/Pretrials/Settlement Conferences [19] This matter was before Justice Legere-Sers on October 16, 2017 for Disposition Review, on November 8, 2017 for pre-trial, on December 18, 2017 for pre-trial telephone conference and docket review and on March 7, 2018 for Disposition Review. [20] This matter was before me for pre-trial on April 16, 2018, for pre-trial on April 24, 2018, and on May 8, 2018 for determination on the Minister’s motion pursuant to s. 96 for the appointment of a Guardian Ad Litem for the child CO.G. and the admission of past proceedings. [21] Two settlement conferences were held on September 14, 2017 and April 18, 2018. [22] Two placement hearings were scheduled and adjourned.

Final Disposition Hearing [23] Final Disposition Hearing commenced on June 11 th , 2018 and continued on June 18 th , 2018, July 17 th , 2018, August 13 th , 2018, August 14 th , 2018, September 10 th , 2018, October 11 th , 2018, October 12 th , 2018 October 29 th , 2018, October 30 th , 2018, November 13 th , 2018 and November 27 th , 2018. On the latter date, oral submissions were heard at the request of the parties. The Court reserved decision with a tentative date for oral decision being December 20, 2018. [24] The first 3 days of evidence were within the legislative timelines.

The parties consented to continuing the hearing beyond the disposition time limit so as to have all of the evidence heard in the children’s best interests and all consented to the status quo order issued October 17 th , 2018 for that purpose. [25] This matter ran over by several months due to scheduling challenges. Throughout this proceeding the parties were advised that private matters could be bumped to accommodate this matter. In addition, other dates were offered both in court and through discussions with the scheduling clerk, but not all counsel were available.

The matter went beyond normal court times on at least seven hearing dates.

Attempts were made to reschedule an oral decision which was originally scheduled for December 2018 but to no avail given availability of counsel. [26] The Respondent Mother, C.G., has been present throughout the proceedings. [27] The Respondent Father, C.P. did not attend, nor did he have counsel on his behalf at the completion of Interim Hearing on February 13 th , 2017, the Pre-Trial and docket Protection Hearing on April 3 rd , 2017, the First Disposition Pre-Trial and Docket on July 17 th , 2017, the Settlement Conference on September 14 th , 2017, and the Disposition Review on October 16 th , 2017.

C.P. has participated

throughout the Final Disposition Hearing with his personal appearance up to and including September 10 th , 2018 and on November 13 th , 2018. He was not in attendance on October 2 nd , 2018, October 11 th , 2018, October 12 th , 2018, October 29 th , 2018; October 30 th , 2018 but counsel was present on his behalf. [28] The Respondent Father, B.F., has not engaged in services and has had limited involvement in these proceedings notwithstanding personal service throughout.

He did not attend any of the eleven days of Final Disposition Hearings but did attend earlier in this proceeding, namely the first appearance on January 18 th , 2017, first disposition pre-trial and docket on July 17 th , 2017; the pre-trial telephone conference and docket review on December 18 th , 2017. [29] The Respondent Father, L.S., has participated throughout this proceeding with the exception of January 18, 2017. [30] Arden White, Guardian Ad Litem, attended all of the trial. His counsel, Ms.

Fraser-Hill had been providing independent legal advice for the children CO.G., L.G. and S.G. and appeared on their behalf at court appearances since February 13 th , 2017 up to his appointment as Guardian Ad Litem on May 8, 2018. EVIDENCE [31] In total eleven days of evidence was heard and a total of 38 exhibits were tendered into evidence. The Minister called 14 witnesses including one witness in rebuttal. Respondents, L.S. and C.P., were their only witnesses. C.G, the Respondent Mother, had three witnesses in addition to herself, namely her son, D.G., Bernadette Poirier and Michael MacInnis.

Arden White, Guardian Ad Litem for the child CO.G., was his only witness. [32] On June 11, 2018, the Court heard from Val Rule (Clinical and Forensic Psychologist) Dr. Allister Webster, Samantha Wong (Speech-Language Pathologist), Andrew Lafford (Access Worker), Audrey Cremo (Access Facilitator) and Brenda MacInnis (Case Aide). Eight exhibits were tendered by the Minister at that time. Exhibits 1 and 2 were Agency Court documents containing the pleadings filed by the Minister.

It included copies of all affidavits submitted by the child protection workers including Dan Shea, Meghan Graham, Laura Kennedy, and Erin Warner (the child in care worker). Exhibit 3 was the Agency Court Documents Prior Proceedings Affidavit dated January 16, 2017. Exhibit 4 was Professional Reports, enclosing at Tab 1 Val Rule’s CV and Safe Consultation dated July 24 th , 2017 and Letter dated November 2 nd , 2017. At Tab 2 was Dr. Allister Webster’s CV and Report dated February 28 th , 2018. At Tab 3 was Dr. Reginald Landry’s CV and Developmental Assessment Report on N.G., dated November 7 th , 2017.

Exhibit 5 was the Court Orders. Exhibit 6 was the school report cards. Exhibit 7 was the Speech-Language Pathology Report for N.G., dated February 27 th , 2017 by Samantha Wong. Exhibit 8 was the Child, Youth and Family Supports Incident Reporting form for contact with the child submitted by Brenda MacInnis for date of incident, September 13 th , 2017. [33] On June 18 th , 2018, the Court heard from Gary Neufeld, Jenna Guy (formerly Case Aide), Darlene Praught (Case Aide), Constable Stevens and Dan Shea (Intake Social Worker).

Gary Neufeld’s CV and professional reports dated May 2 nd , 2018, June 8 th , 2018 and June 12 th , 2018 were tendered as Exhibit 9. During the testimony of Constable Stevens, Exhibit 10 was tendered by consent, including a general report dated September 13 th , 2017, 6 pages of notes, visitors sign in book and letter dated September 12 th , 2017. [34] On July 17 th , 2018, the Court heard from Erin Warner (Child in Care Worker) and Laura Kennedy (Long Term Child Protection Worker). Exhibits 11 and 12 were tendered by the Minister on that date. Exhibit 11 was the Psycho-Educational Assessment Reports from Dr.

Reginald Landry for MA.G., A.G., S.G. and M.S. Exhibit 12 was the Case Activity Report dated May 31 st , 2018. [35] On August 13 th , 2018, Laura Kennedy was recalled for purposes of cross-examination. Respondent Father, L.S., commenced his case on August 13 th , 2018 and tendered into evidence his affidavit as Exhibit 13. [36] On August 14 th , 2018, the cross-examination of Respondent L.S., by Mr. MacKinlay, continued and Exhibit 14, a case note, was tendered into evidence on that date.

Respondent C.P., commenced his case on August 14 th , 2018 and tendered into evidenced his affidavit sworn June 1 st , 2018 as exhibit 15.

[37] On September 10 th , 2018, the cross-examination of Respondent Father C.P. continued and a letter written by C.P. was tendered as Exhibit 16. The Court also heard from the first witness for Respondent Mother C.G., namely her son, D.G. D.G.’s affidavit sworn October 30, 2017 was tendered as Exhibit 17. [38] The matter was scheduled for October 2 nd , 2018 but did not proceed as one of the counsel had a family emergency and was unable to attend. [39] October 11 th , 2018, the Court heard from Bernadette Poirier, Program Supervisor of … and Mike MacInnis. Two letters signed by Ms.

Poirier dated February 7 th , 2017 and June 22 nd , 2017 were tendered into evidence as Exhibits 18 and 19. Exhibits 20, 21 and 22 were tendered through Mr. MacInnis, namely his CV, a

Summary Report regarding his involvement as a Clinical Therapist with Respondent Mother C.G. and as well as a fax from Mr.

MacInnis enclosing signed consent forms. [40] On October 12, 2018, the Court heard from Respondent Mother C.G, who tendered into evidence Exhibits 23 to 32, namely her parenting statement and response to application relating to the two oldest children; her notice of application and parenting statement relating to S.G.; her response application and parenting statement relating to her children with Respondent L.S.; her affidavit sworn October 30, 2017; her Affidavit sworn June 11 th , 2018; another Affidavit sworn June 11 th , 2018; and two pictures of the child L.G. In cross-examination by Ms.

Sumbu, the Respondent Mother was shown Exhibit 33, her Facebook page. [41] On October 29 th , 2018, the Respondent Mother C.G. and Gary Neufeld were recalled. Three exhibits were tendered on that date namely, two consent forms (exhibit 34), Mr. Neufeld’s updated report (Exhibit 35) and a recognizance for the brother of C.G. wherein the Respondent Mother C.G. was named one of three sureties. [42] On October 30 th , 2018, Mr.

White, Guardian Ad Litem for the child C.G., gave evidence and he tendered into evidence his affidavit sworn May 29 th , 2018 as Exhibit 37. [43] On November 13 th , 2018, the Minister called Sergeant Thomas as a rebuttal witness through whom Exhibit 38 was tendered. The Respondent mother C.G. was recalled following the rebuttal evidence of Sgt. Thomas as agreed to by the parties.

History of Child Welfare Interventions [44] This is the third child protection proceeding involving these children. [45] These children have been the subject of two prior child protection proceedings brought by the Mi’kmaw Family and Children Services in 2012 and again in 2016.

There was also further child welfare involvement in 2014. [46] The risk of sexual abuse from the maternal grandparents and arising from unsupervised contact with these grandparents has been the major presenting and precipitating concern in each proceeding including the present proceeding. [47] On May 8, 2018, the Court ordered, with the consent of the parties, the admission into evidence of the prior child protection proceedings. [48] The P rior Proceedings Affidavit dated January 16, 2017 (Exhibit 3), set out the particulars of the prior protection proceedings including affidavits, orders and documentation about the substantiation of risk relating to the maternal grandparents.

Exhibit 3 also included affidavits and orders relating to the Respondent parents, L.S., C.G. and the former spouse of L.S.

[49] According to the Prior Proceedings Affidavit, these children have been the subject of child welfare intervention since as early as 2005. The first referral was in February 2005 regarding concerns that the Respondent Mother C.G. and her three oldest children D.G., CO.G. and L.G. had moved in with her parents and that her father had been charged with sexual offences. The attachments to the affidavit also referenced allegations from 2003 having been substantiated by that Agency and that her father was still considered a risk.

Those allegations related to inappropriate sexual contact by the maternal grandfather with two nieces of C.G, the Respondent Mother. 2012 child protection proceeding [50] In November 2011, the Mi’kmaw Agency responded to a school referral, that the child L.G. had disclosed that she and her sister, S.G. were sexually abused by their maternal grandfather. L.G. further disclosed that she and S.G. had told their mother this information. [51] A joint RCMP and Agency interview took place on December 8 th , 2011. Sgt.

Thomas testified on November 13, 2018 and tendered into evidence on that date as Court Exhibit No. 38, an Occurrence

summary, the General Report, and three Supplementary Occurrence Reports. Sgt. Thomas stated in her oral evidence that “I had no doubts in my mind as to whether or not the children were being honest with me. And I believe that both children were being honest with me. It's whether or not you can actually put them on a stand in front of a court and proceed criminally with a matter. But I never at any point doubted what the children were telling me…And they -- basically what they were telling me was that their grandfather ... had in fact touched them….Sexually.” [52] Sgt.

Thomas confirmed in cross-examination that there were other incidents, “Not in regards to ..(C.G.[sic]) and … (L.G. (sic) no. There were ….incidents in regards to the mother of a couple of the other children that were in the home. “ [53] Sgt. Thomas testified in cross-examination about hypervigilance of the Respondent Mother C.G. in this case. Sgt.

Thomas stated: “The hypervigilance was something that we've come to deal with parents that have dealt with sexual abuse themselves or been -- had their children or other children deal with sexual abuse and are very aware of it, on the lookout for it more than what you would say the average parent might be. So that they're very tuned into it, might be asking their children all the time if anything's taking place, if they've been touched, if they've been hurt. So it becomes very much a part of their existence.

And C.G. had basically with her kids been very vigilant and hypervigilant to the point of like asking them what had been taking place, if they'd ever been touched by anybody, ever been hurt by anybody.” “But I know when I spoke -- like she actively called to find out when the interviews were going to be taking place. This was a couple of weeks ..-- days later I believe so she was concerned about making sure that her children were interviewed.” Q. Okay. So there was never any issue with C.G. questioning the voracity of the allegations to you or your other Constables? … A. No, no. Q.

So she truly believed that something had occurred? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And she wanted -- in fact wanted her father charged is that correct? A. I -- to be honest I can't remember the -- any conversation re that but I know that she was very --- Q. Okay. And she kept her children from seeing her father?

A. As far as I know but I don't --- … Q. Yes. And you're aware that she had her children in counselling following the contact with the RCMP? A. She had -- yes I was aware that she was looking for --- Q. So would you agree with me that she certainly took those allegations seriously at the time? A. Yes, I had nothing to -- other than that that she was taking them seriously. S.G. that's because it's all very similar in that terms.

But I do remember one of them specifically saying that they were downstairs and I interjected with even -- because a lot of it becomes what a court would typically call leading. … [54] In cross-examination by Mr. MacKinlay, she stated: Q. You found C.G. to be Hypervigilant? A. Correct. Q. Can you remember why that was your assessment? A.

She had been over the—it would have been from 2010 probably into 2012 she’d been involved in several calls in regards to sexual interference, sexual assault with children in her home in regards to another young fellow that I can’t remember if he had a family connection to her but had a connection to her and he had disclosed sexual assault and there was one other incident and it became to the point that it was like this constant fear and constant concern that her children had been sexually assaulted or sexually interfered with.

To the point that like if you asked -- if your children came home from school you'd ask how was your day to being more to the effect of if you're somebody's hypervigilant you would ask were you sexually assaulted today. That would be the context. She was very worried about her children. Q. Okay. And you recall her being upset, angry with her parents at the time? A. Correct. Q. Including her father? A.

Correct. [55] In September 12, 2012, Worker MacAulay interviewed L.G. and S.G. and stated that S.G. appeared to be confused on what had happened to her, often referring back to what she had heard people saying in her home about the sons of L.S. putting their hand down the diaper of her sister M.G. downstairs and she remembered it was last year and they had been playing tag when it happened. Both children said no one else had ever touched them in this way before. Both stated they had told their Mother about the incidents.

Respondent C.G. dealt with this interview at paragraph 9 of her Affidavit (Exhibit 31). [56] It was further noted in the prior proceedings affidavit that in March 2012, Mi’kmaw Family and Children Services responded to referrals and cross referrals alleging sexual abuse of the children of the Respondent Mother C.G. and involving also the children of L.S. One of the children of L.S. (F.S.) reported that two of the sons of L.S. touched each other in a sexual way; that the former spouse of L.S. (C.S.) had sexually touched, a long time ago, one of the other children of L.S. (V.S.).

The Respondent Mother, C.G. referred to the

many accusations swirling at that time, before then, and after, at paragraphs 6 to 8 of her Affidavit (Exhibit 31). [57] On September 14, 2012, the Mi’kmaw Agency made the decision in a risk management conference to apply to the Court, that the children are in need of protection services pursuant to s. 22(2)(a), (b), (c), (

f) and (

g) of the Children and Family Services Act , and for a supervision order with the children remaining in the care of C.G. under Agency supervision and on terms and conditions including that the maternal grandparents not have any contact with the children. [58] The protection application was brought to the Court in Sydney as the parties were living in […]. A simultaneous application proceeded through the Sydney Court with respect to the children of L.S. and C.S. from September 2012 to July 2014. [59] Mr.

Shea was asked on cross-examination about the eight month gap between the joint interview of S.G. and L.G. and when Mi’kmaw Family made the decision to get involved. Mr. Shea did not have the specifics for the reason for the gap. Nor was Mr. Shea aware of any charges being laid. [60] The first child protection proceeding proceeded through Court on consent from the first appearance on or about October 3 rd , 2012 to June 2013. Respondent Mother, C.G. consented to findings under s. 22(2)(a), (

b) and (

c) of the Children and Family Services Act and also consented to a condition that her parents not have any, direct or indirect, contact with her children. The first matter was terminated in Court on June 12 th , 2013 as C.G. participated in services and understood her role in protecting her children from further sexual abuse as she continued to confirm she was not allowing her parents to have contact with them.

Respondent C.G. states at paragraph 13 of her Affidavit (Exhibit 31) that she was estranged from her parents at the time. [61] With the exception of the Court appearances on October 3 rd , 2012, October 30 th , 2012 and February 19 th , 2013 when Respondent C.P. was present, only Respondent C.G. was present throughout the proceedings.

L.S. and B.F. made no appearances during this child protection proceeding. 2014 Memorandum of Understanding [62] During a referral alleging physical neglect and abuse of children by C.G. in 2014 (i.e.. hitting the children with a belt), it was discovered that the children of C.G. were spending time in […] with the maternal grandparents without adult supervision in the summer. The Respondent C.G. deals with this referral at paragraphs 15 to 19 of her affidavit (Exhibit 31). [63] On September 4 th , 2014, the Respondent Mother C.G. confirmed that the children had been staying with her parents.

In case notes, at Exhibit E of Mr. Shea’s affidavit, “She confirmed that the children had spent time at her parents’ home over the summer”. The worker challenged the Respondent Mother C.G. about the children being there given past sexual abuse allegations, and she stated that none of it had been true and that there was not enough evidence. She also stated that the Judge had “dismissed everything in court”. The Worker explained that the proceedings had been terminated because the risk had been removed, including because she was not exposing her children to the maternal grandparents. Ms.

McCarthy explained that in seeking termination of the proceedings, the Agency had asked and expected that she continue to not allow her parents to have unsupervised access with her children. The Respondent Mother C.G. stated that no one had ever explained that to her. Ms. McCarthy stated, “I told her I felt she is a good Mother and we are asking her to step up again and protect the children from people whom we believe pose a risk to them”. (Exhibit

D) The Respondent Mother, C.G. stated at paragraph 14 (Exhibit 31) and later at paragraph 20 (Exhibit 31) that despite not knowing that no-contact order was the rule at the time, “I still ensured my children always had another adult with them when I visited or stayed at my parents, including my then adult son, …, my brother ..., and his wife …, as I have doubts about my parents due to all the accusations. [64] In Exhibit E, it was noted that the worker spoke with Respondent C.P. by telephone on June 20 th , 2014.

He advised, “that he sees his daughters on a semi regular basis and they have never disclosed anything of concern to him and he has not seen any indication of physical abuse”. The worker spoke to the Respondent C.P. again on September 2 nd , 2014 and he advised he has not had any concerns about the children. He stated that C.G. is strict, but he knows there are no drugs nor alcohol in the home.

He stated he has had the girls at his home and has not noticed an bruises or marks, nor have they ever disclosed any physical discipline. [65] The Agency concluded that there was insufficient information gathered to substantiate substantial risk of physical harm and abuse. Substantial risk of sexual abuse and inadequate supervision were substantiated based on the disclosure of two of the children of having spent time with the maternal grandparents over the summer without their Mother.

[66] The decision was made to seek confirmation of the agreement and to set out the terms of the agreement and the Agency’s expectation in a letter of understanding for C.G. The letter dated September 10 th , 2014 was given to C.G. and signed by her on September 11 th , 2014 and was attached as Exhibit F to Ms. MacAulay’s affidavit, sworn May 3 rd , 2016 (Exhibit 3). 2016 Child Protection Proceeding [67] The Agency again became involved with C.G. and the children pursuant to a referral received on April 22 nd , 2016, alleging that C.G. was leaving the children with the maternal grandparents.

The Agency obtained an ex-parte order to get access to and interview the children of C.G. It was substantiated that C.G. and her children were residing with her parents and that the children went on an extended road trip through the United States with the maternal grandparents. C.G. continued to maintain that the allegations against her parents were untrue.

The Agency substantiated concerns of risk of sexual abuse from the maternal grandparents and required C.G. to remove the children from the grandparents’ home and in the alternative, to the children being taken into care. [68] At paragraph 24 of her affidavit (Exhibit 31), the Respondent C.G. stated that by April 22, 2016, she was residing with her parents with the children after she lost her dwelling in […] and while she was waiting for new housing.

The Respondent C.G. stated that while she lived with her parents, she and her son, D.G. supervised their contact continuously, although occasionally her brother and sister in law would supervise. At paragraph 25, Respondent C.G. stated that she was told to move out, or her parents had to move out, or her children would go into care.

According to her affidavit, the Respondent C.G. moved out with her children to her brother’s place until they got their home in […] by September 2016. [69] In the prior proceeding affidavit (Exhibit 3), there was a reference to a conversation with Respondent Father C.P. on May 2 nd , 2016 and he was not aware of the sexual abuse concerns regarding the maternal grandparents and stated that he had not known that the child L.G. had previously disclosed that the grandparents had sexually abused her. In the case note attached at Exhibit G, to Ms.

McCarthy’s affidavit July 11 th , 2016 (Exhibit 3), it was stated, “…(C.P. sic) stated that he has never noticed anything out of the ordinary at the … home.” He said for a while he lived with them (many years ago) and did not observe anything sexual in nature. He did state, however, that if necessary he would be willing to take his children to live with him. C.P. stated that both maternal grandparents were in residential schools. He stated that the family is very conflictual and there is often feuding between the siblings.

He stated that he does not disbelieve the allegations about the maternal grandparents but he does find it hard to believe. [70] The prior proceedings affidavit further confirmed that on the Massachusetts sex offender register, that there were 5 charges for which the maternal grandfather was arraigned on or about February 1, 1993 and findings of guilt were made on March 8, 1993 with regards to lewdness in speech and behavior, open and gross lewd and lascivious behavior, and indecent exposure. At Exhibit M, it was noted that Ms.

Sergeant of the Massachusetts sex offender registry was unable to advise the age of the victim in the Massachusetts matters. [71] Mi’kmaw Family and Children Services interviewed the children of C.G. on June 6 th , 2016 and none disclosed any sexual abuse. The children L.G. and S.G. stated they could not remember having made disclosures in the past. 5-year-old A.G. stated that she saw her maternal grandfather’s penis before but no details were provided. Respondent C.G. deals with this interview of L.G. and S.G. in early 2016 in her affidavit (Exhibit 31).

She notes that “L.G. had been 8 when she made the initial disclosure in November 2011, and it had been at a time that I was very mad at my parents and complained about them, repeatedly, due to family issues unrelated to sexual abuse.” Respondent C.G. wrote at paragraphs 11 and 12 of her Affidavit (Exhibit 31): With my anger at my parents at the time, with L.G. likely having heard about accusations of sexual abuse against … by …’s children, and because they seemed to deny “them” being inappropriately touched on September 12 th , 2013 (only 8 months after the December 8, 2011) interviews), and their later forgetfulness about the December 8, 2011, disclosures, and with the hundreds of subsequent appropriate (supervised) interactions between my parents and my children between 2014 (when I began to invite them back into my life) up to January 10, 2017; I believe it is improbable that my parents abused …(L.G.sic) or … (S.G. sic).

However, I know there were other accusations against my parents, and those involving my own children cannot be disproven 100%; having attended counseling with Bernadette Poirier, Michael MacInnis, and Valorie Rule, and then doing the Safe Plan with Ms. Rule, I understand that the risk existing is real…and I have to deal with it by accepting more limitations on my children’s contact with my parents, to better protect my children. [72] The Mi’kmaw Agency took matters before the Court in Port Hawkesbury by protection application of August 11 th , 2016 and

Ms. McDonald represented the Agency. In September 2016, C.G. moved with the children from […] to a rental home in […]. C.G. was cooperative with the case worker visits and observations of the children and home were positive In October 2016, the Agency received confirmation that C.G. had referred the children L.G., S.G. and CO.G. to individual counselling through the school system.

It was agreed that in the new circumstances and subject to C.G. agreeing not to allow her children to be unsupervised with the maternal grandparents, the presenting protection concerns were addressed sufficiently to seek termination of the matter. On November 7 th , 2016, the day of the scheduled Protection Hearing, the proceeding was terminated. [73] In the Affidavit of Trish LaPorte sworn November 4 th , 2016 (Exhibit 3), Ms.

LaPorte writes at paragraph 17: THAT none of the Respondent Fathers has taken a position with the Applicant Agency or sought particular involvement.” It was further noted in the case note of November 3,2016 that “…(C.G.) continues to assist her father with daily care while the children are in school but does not take the children to the home….Due to (C.G.)’s actions on taking steps to alleviate protection concerns we have decided to terminate our involvement. However, …(C.G.) must not allow her children to be in the care of … without proper supervision i.e..

Mother or oldest son …. [74] The Respondent, C.G. wrote at paragraph 27 of her Affidavit (Exhibit 31) “That Court proceedings ended in November 2016, and I understood that I could not live with my parents again and that all their contact with my children had to be supervised.” [75] The Respondent fathers, C.P., B.F. and L.S, did not attend any of the appearances in this second protection matter. Ms. Fraser- Hill was present on the last date for independent legal advice for the children CO.G. and L.G.

Current proceeding [76] The current child protection investigation began with an anonymous referral received on or about January 6 th , 2017, by Mi’kmaw Family and Children Services.

The Respondent C.G. refers to this referral at paragraph 28 of her affidavit (Exhibit 31) as “the most ridiculous referral of all…making outlandish anonymous accusations about bestiality, fecalphilia, belief in aliens within the family (me), … as a “King”, sodomy, death threats, collusion, etc. and: that I had sent my children back to my parents’ place; although it was anonymous, bizarre, and not “well written” like the 2014 referral, the Agency took it seriously and set for a Plan of Action.” [77] Mr.

Shea noted in his affidavit that the team decided that as there was opportunity for the children to disclose sexual abuse at the investigative interviews that were conducted in June 2016 and that no disclosures were made, they would not re-interview the children regarding the sexual abuse allegation.

A decision was made to interview one of the children to determine if the children were residing with the maternal grandparents and/or having unsupervised contact with their grandparents which would place them at risk of sexual abuse. [78] Constable Stacy MacRae and Dan Shea met with the child A.G. and A.G. stated that she lives at her Grammy’s house. She stated that she shares a bedroom with N.G., M.A.G. and her other brothers and sisters, and that they all sleep together. She stated that her grandparents have their own room in the house and that her uncle and aunt also stay there.

A.G. stated that “uh uh” to the question if there were times she stayed just with Papa and Grammy. She stated, “yeah” to if sometimes her brothers and sisters and she are ever alone with Grammy and Grandpa. She stated that her mom goes shopping and her brother D.G. is sometimes there. [79] C.G. was interviewed and felt that the allegations were constantly being made by two of her siblings who were causing problems for her parents and her other siblings.

Regarding risk of sexual abuse around the maternal grandparents, C.G. stated, she did not believe a lot of this and that it was her sister who had forced her to say she was abused but this was not true. She stated she and the children are staying at her parents’ home as is her brother and sister in law.

She further explained that the heating water pipe had broken and was leaking into the house, so the house was cold and wet; rent was expensive as was the cost of heating. [80] At a risk conference it was determined that based on the interviews with the child, A.G. and the conversations with C.G. it was agreed that the major presenting problem of substantial risk of sexual abuse was substantiated and a court application would be commenced. Mr.

Shea stated during cross-examination that there is significant risk for the children to be living in the maternal grandparents home as it is impossible to supervise 24 hours per day. [81] The Court has heard a lot of evidence in this proceeding.

[82] In addition to concerns about C.G.’s ability to keep the children safe from her parents, the Court has heard other complaints made throughout this proceeding. In particular there were complaints from some of the children of L.S. about ears being pulled, or being hit, or being pushed. Those complaints were investigated by the Agency and they were not substantiated.

In addition, the Respondent Mother C.G. has expressed her dissatisfaction with the Agency, certain case aides, her concerns about L.G.’s self harming, lice and how the biological fathers have been dealing with the issues; concerns about L.S.’s older children and her concerns about her parenting time (telephone calls). Minister’s evidence [83] Exhibits 1 and 2 were Agency Court documents containing the pleadings filed by the Minister. It included copies of all affidavits submitted by the child protection workers including Dan Shea, Meghan Graham, Laura Kennedy, and Erin Warner (the child in care worker).

The Court also heard from 14 witnesses on behalf of the Minister. C.G.’s evidence [84] The Respondent Mother C.G. filed three affidavits in this matter entered as Exhibits 29, 30 and 31. In her affidavit evidence, C.G. stated that she was always the one who provided for her children and took care of their needs.

She states at paragraph 30 of her Affidavit sworn October 30, 2017 that C.P., L.S and B.F. have not been there for their children for years of her children’s lives and she is happy that now her children are finally becoming acquainted with their fathers. [85] The Respondent Mother C.G. stated that she has a very close bond with all her children and they identify with her as their lifelong parent, protector and provider. [86] The Respondent Mother, C.G. stated that she never received any regular child support but left it to the dads to step up if they felt inclined to do so.

She noted that C.P. would be helpful once in a while when she requested money assistance from him. He paid a few hundred for oil once late in 2016 when she was at […] and there have been other occasional times he gave $200.00 to help with household expenses. [87] In her Affidavit, sworn June 11, 2018 (Exhibit 30), she says that after her separation from L.S. in 2012, L.S. had little to do with his children. He was always welcome to spend time with them but chose not to do so.

He never paid any child support and rarely had any contact with them until January of 2017. [88] The Respondent Mother C.G. further states at paragraph 8e) of her Affidavit sworn June 11, 2018 that B.F. has been very distant from S.G since her birth. [89] The Respondent Mother C.G. states that C.P. has been a distant father since separation over a dozen years ago. CO.G. and L.G. only saw him a few times per year during the last decade.

She states at paragraph 12d, (Exhibit 30) that when she and C.P. separated in 2005, there was no contact for 6 months thereafter and then there was basically no contact from him until 2009. In 2009, she told him to come see children anytime.

Between 2009 to 2016 C.P. saw them several times per year; C.P. only once visited them since she and children moved to […] and that was when he came to take all three children to the movies. [90] At the commencement of her testimony, the Respondent Mother corrected paragraph 13 of her first affidavit sworn October 2017 and acknowledged that she was staying at her parents’ house this past winter but not living there.

At paragraphs 39 to 49 of her Affidavit sworn June 11, 2018 (Exhibit 31), the Respondent Mother outlined the living arrangements for her children and herself from early January until the apprehension and indicated at paragraph 46 that Mr. Shea misunderstood some of her answers when he interviewed her. The Respondent Mother stated that after they moved to […] in August 2015 from her parents’ home, she continued visiting her parents and their contact was always supervised.

When her pipe burst in early January 2016, they visited more often to do laundry and eat meals and they stayed overnight at her parents’ place on January 4, January 5, January 9 and January 11 on an emergency basis. She corrected her affidavit in her oral evidence that she moved to […] in August 2016 and that the issue with the pipes was January 2017 and not 2016. She stated that she had asked L.S. to help out to fix the pipes.

He declined. [91] At paragraph 44 of her affidavit, she indicated that she did keep an “especially close eye on my parents and on my children during those three overnights, and asked … (her son, sic) to do so as well, and during lunch time and laundry visits over the weekend of

January 7-8”. She further noted at paragraph 45 that “My dad was nearly bed-bound at that time due to the stroke he had suffered not long beforehand; with the Agency having made it clear just a couple of months beforehand that I was not to “live” with my parents, I did not consider a few overnights until the pipes got fixed to be “living there.” [92] In her evidence, the Respondent C.G. stated that the maternal grandparents are both victims of residential schools. Her mother is 69.

Her father is going to be 75 and has been in poor health having suffered a heart attack, stroke, and mini strokes. [93] In her evidence, the Respondent Mother, C.G. acknowledged that she made mistakes by staying with her parents in 2017. At paragraph 43 of her affidavit sworn June 11, 2018 (Exhibit 31), she stated: I know now that I should have either put-up with the leaky, cold mess (by coping with the woodstove) or crowded into …Jr’s place or ….

Place and/or to seek emergency assistance from MCS for hotel accommodation (which I felt was unlikely), rather than spending a few nights at my parents’ place. [94] In her oral evidence she stated: A. It's a pride thing. I have a pride thing meaning I have been a single mother for so many frigging years I hate relying on people. I always have relied on myself or my kids. And I was -- I felt ashamed if I were to ask for help. That's no fault of anybody else. That's my fault. I made a mistake living with my parents and staying at my parents on January 4, 5, 9 and 11 of 2017 January. That was a big mistake.

I'm paying the price right now. My kids are not with me. I'm paying the price. Not any of you guys here. I am. I raised my kids since the day they were born. I have never abandoned them. I have never left them. And I'm kicking myself in the ass for that. I have never left my kids and I tried to make it -- every point, Tuesdays and Thursdays to see my children as much as I can. The fathers abandoned their children and I wish, I wish that they would help me out like they said throughout the years no matter what I'll always help you out, C.G.

Trying to look for help I was declined by your client by the father of my kids. And I didn't want Mi'Kmaw Family Services coming in. I'm so sick of them. [95] Respondent C.G. further acknowledged her mistake in living with her parents in 2016.

She stated at paragraph 26 of her affidavit (Exhibit 31): Although I am certain that my parents did nothing inappropriate toward any of my children for those early months in 2016 when we lived with my parents, and although they were always supervised by myself or another adult (I felt I was following the exactness of the 2014 Letter of understanding), I realize now that it was a mistake to live with my parents, and should not have done so; it was too much of a risk. [96] In her surrebuttal evidence, the Respondent Mother C.G. acknowledged that she was not correct when she stated in her evidence that she had not found out about her daughters allegations in 2011 until some eight months later.

After hearing the evidence of Sgt. Thomas in rebuttal, the Respondent Mother C.G. testified in surrebuttal as follows: A . Oh yeah it did surprise me a great deal. I -- it's -- when I read it I didn't think that I would be calling in on my father like that the way I did and took it very seriously. And I did state when I was on here that if I did hear or see any child being abused or exploited any way or any form I would notify the authorities and it just shows that I did notify the authorities when I found out my kids were being possibly maybe being molested by my father.

So I did -- when I read that it did shock me to the point of I took action on that. So -- and if I did not -- and I apologize to the Court that if I did -- if I forgot about it it's the fact that I got sidetracked that year due to dealing with 13 kids. Dealing with L.S.'s five other children and it took me a point where I was trying to get L.S's children to counselling and when L.S.'s children disclosed to me where -- where L.S.'s children disclosed to me that they were sexually abused by their mother that they witnessed their mother murdering their child -- or L.S's child and I took that very seriously.

So my side trackness [sic] from working on helping and working on L.S.'s children is -- it sidetracked me from you know dealing with my kids and what they were telling me. But I took -- but I remember you know talking to Thomas about what my kids disclosed to me. But I also was focusing on L.S.'s children and the murder of his daughter. That's what I was focusing on so I understand where I totally got sidetracked to the point where I took L.S.'s children to Dr.

Conn and I took them to the -- I remember talking to an RCMP about what I was disclosed by what his children disclosed that they saw their mother murdering their infant sister, their baby sister. So that's the part where I'm -- I can't -- I'm not going to say I'm traumatized, I'm hurt by it because when I spoke up against it, it seems like the Agency and people did not listen to me. ….

It's not the fact that -- I totally forgot it. I'm glad that you guys brought that up. I'm glad that I got to see Thomas. When Thomas was -- Sergeant Thomas was out there I couldn't even recognize her. I just -- I had -- it was more concentrated on this here with my children. But when I seen Thomas I was very pleased to see her. She became a really great friend, not just her being a Sergeant in the RCMP, I rarely admire women but I do admire Thomas because of what she represents. She's the actually the one that I wanted to become an RCMP, she was the one that was pushing me to become an RCMP…. … Q.

After you made the initial call to Constable Munro and then you did a follow up call on the 18th to Constable Thomas what if any other follow up did you do after November the 18th? A. I put through -- I put my kids in through counselling. Like I'm all for counselling so to me that was very important because I wanted to know the truth, that's all I wanted. If there was my kids were molested or they were not molested I still -- I don't -- we all don't even know. I don't even know to this day but if my kids tell me something I'm going to believe them.

I've been believing them from the time that they disclosed that to me up until the time they've been disclosing other things. I still believe them. But for me to be -- I'm not going to argue with that. I'm just glad it's brought up. I appreciated that they brought that up because it triggered a lot of memories that I pretty much -- wasn't ignoring -- I just really did block it out to a point because of what I was going through all that time. But I know my kids now because they're older and if they tell me hey Mom some boy molested me or some boy did this I'm going to believe them.

But if my kids tell me hey Mom yeah I -- nobody touched me, I'm going to believe them. They're -- they -- it's my children I have to believe what they say. [97] In response to question by Mr. MacKinlay regarding what she said to Constable Thomas about her own abuse, the following was stated: Q. What did you say to Constable Thomas about having suffered at your parents' hands? What did you mean by that? A.

Oh, I was in my parents' house -- well of course I was -- you know my parents were taking care of me through -- but anyways … and …, this has to go right back to … and … when I was living in my parents' house and how … and … fondled me and how … and … beat the crap out of me when I was a teenager. And to dealing with that, traumatized like I was traumatized throughout my whole life by that. And the control and -- I mean you want to talk about manipulation.

I've been put through it and so I talked to -- I'm going to cry about it so excuse me -- so me talking to my therapist about the traumatizing, the -- where I was traumatized by … and … and it bothered me. It still bothers me today obviously, I'm tearing up a little bit. But it's the fact that my parents did not know what was going on. My parents did not -- wasn't aware of anything that was happening.

So me being -- I was -- there's a word for that what she -- with the suffering part of not telling my parents about what … and … did to me until one day I just got up and I got sick of them because -- not my parents but … and … and started attacking them back verbally and standing up for my -- I even told my -- I remember telling … that I told -- I remember telling … that I told … and … one day I'm going to grow up and I'm going to be a woman and you'll never hurt me again the way you guys did. So that there is traumatizing enough what I had to go through.

And I never hid that, I never hid the fact that I was fondled even my partners knew all about it. I never hid the fact that my family was indeed perfect because they weren't. I mean I never hid -- I don't hide anything but if I do forget it please forgive me, I'm not -- my mind and my memory because of everything that I've been going through and on top of that my kids are not with me it does a number on the emotion side and the mental part. So --- [98] In response to cross-examination by Ms. Sumbu: … A. --- see -- again I didn't see my father or anybody else molest my children.

The only time that I saw my kids get molested was by L.S's children where they were sticking their hands down my twins' pampers and M.G's pampers. So I -- therefore I called -- you know I told the Social Workers about that because I needed help and nobody was helping me out with that. And no I did not -- and if I -- if I did catch my father which I did not I would have contacted the authorities right away.

But when my kids disclosed to me downstairs in my room in the basement I made sure I called the authorities which was Munro and then Thomas, Sergeant Thomas. [99] The Respondent Mother C.G. gave evidence that she understands the risk posed by her father. On cross-examination by Ms. Sumbu, Respondent Mother C.G. acknowledged that she has been aware for some time of allegations against her father since “26/25 years”. She acknowledged “There is some risk yes”. [100] In cross-examination, the Respondent Mother C.G. stated:

Q . But you said that at this time moment you also have no choice. A. Because of the allegations. Because of all the six of my nieces and my nephew -- mostly the nieces were -- made those allegations. Of course I have to take it serious. Of course I have to be awake. Maybe many years ago I wasn't awake. But taken from -- taking my kids pretty much damaged me and woken me up to a lot of things. I had to learn a lot of things. Again please forgive me for my strong emotions. I'm going to keep on saying that because --- [101] On redirect the Respondent Mother C.G. stated: A.

Yeah like when I meant to say maybe I don’t know if my kids been molested or they haven't been molested. So it's either they have been or they haven't been. So for me to sit there -- I'm not going to say no, they have never been molested. I'm not saying that and I'm not going to say with certainty they were molested. I don't -- as a Mom I don’t even know to this day but I still believe my kids, whatever they tell me, I take it greatly what my kids tell me. So when it comes to them disclosing that what are the -- there's a possibility.

So if there's a possibility, there a big maybe or not a big maybe I got to -- as a parent I got to take into great consideration to keep my kids protected at all costs especially everything that I've been through, especially everything that I've been aware of and with Mike McInnis helping me out and this here, having this being shown to me it opens up my mind and a lot of other things what I need to look at the safety of my kids. That I have to be aware, that I have to be more of an out -- I can love my parents but I can disown them at the same time.

I could sit there and I don't have to be a part of my parents lives. It's about my kids and what's -- their safety, what they need and right now they need me. [102] In response to questions by Ms. Fraser-Hill, the Respondent Mother C.G. stated: Q. And C.G. would you agree with me that in order to truly protect your children 100 percent from a risk of sexual abuse that you have to have a significant belief that it's happened, that there's a risk there? A. It's a risk, yes. Q. You have to believe it yourself? A. I have -- yeah well I came a long way. I had to, this is about my kids.

It isn't about me, it's about my children. Q. You didn't believe it when these proceedings first started --- A. Well of course --- Q. --- did you? A. --- because it's -- you go back. You're struggling in the back of your mind could this happen. Not once have it -- has it ever left my brain. Not once has it ever left. So it's always there. Q. So -- but you've been aware of the allegations you said yourself for 25 years? A. Twenty-five years due to … and … yes. Q. The Agency came forward in 2011 and ---

A. Oh they've been around. Q. --- expressed their concerns A. Yeah. They've been around. Q. About the risk of abuse by your parents, correct? A. Yeah. Q. Your children have made allegations? A. They made allegations, yeah.

It was substantiated and it was not substantiated. [103] She stated at Exhibit #29, affidavit sworn October 30, 2017, at paragraph 28: …I never had my children taken from me before, I never did counseling to develop a detailed SAFE plan before, and I never did intensive counseling and psychotherapy before this year; I understand more clearly than before the need to restrict my parents’ time with my children to only supervised time with my children, always, and that any supervisor other than myself must know and accept my SAFE plan (attached) [104] In response to the question how the Court can believe her now that she accepts the risk posed by her parents, she stated in cross- examination by Ms.

Fraser-Hill: A . I said this and I'm going to say it when it comes to my parents and my children I will keep -- my kids come first more than anybody. They come first. Q. So you --- A. Not my parents. This is not about my -- like really it's not about anybody else but me and my children and how I been and always have been and will be protecting my kids from any predators. It doesn't matter. Any risk factor, any history that they have. There's no greater -- there's no greater --- Q. So C.G. --- A. --- waking up call than having my seven kids apprehended. That was -- that's a wake up call. Q. So C.G.

I just want to talk a minute about the sexual abuse risk. A. Yeah. … Q. So it's extremely important you agree with me that however slight the risk that there must be 100 percent protection for your children?

A. Yeah that's why I mentioned here about a year ago the 100 percent protection. Q. Okay. A. It's right here parents -- I can keep my kids away from my parents and that would be 100 -- whether it's my parents or anybody else that has that risk --- Q. Yes. A. --- factor within their life I've always been like that. … Q. So do you now -- you're now saying you accept that this is a significant risk to your children? A. Oh yeah lessons learned. You know my kids are not with me. Q. So you say lesson learned, your kids aren't with you. A. Um-hmm. Q. And we heard Mr.

McInnis testify that you were very resistant from the time he started seeing you in August of 2017 --- A. Yes. Q. --- right up until two or three months ago in that he said you were not acknowledging the risk of abuse by your parents? A. Yeah we were -- like we got into deep conversations with that. … Q. So in light of that without it being substantiated, without you seeing it, do you believe that the risk is real? A. It's real yeah because the one thing I wanted to see because it was Christina McCarthy said that oh there was video evidence of L.G. and C.O.G.'s interview.

I've been asking for that eight months after of November of 2011 eight months after when Christy [sic] McCarthy said that to me I wanted to see the video myself. … Q. --- McInnis testify, he said in the last couple of months there's been a change in you. He saw a change in you as far as your resistance to believing the allegations. Can you tell us what change occurred and how you're different now. How you see things differently now as far as your parents are concerned? A. Well I don't have my kids with me so it put a lot of deep thought into protecting my kids, more so than ever, ever before.

When you're alone boy it's a lot that you think about. And the one thing that taught me a lot of things is that I felt like I failed as a parent in that

area. And I needed to grasp it, I needed to get back up and say hey this is a possibility. There's a chance that the risks can real regardless of the timeframes with my daughters. But I think about my nieces and my nephews and the possibilities are there that what if. So as difficult as it was it seemed at the time to accept the fact that my father might be a predator although I never -- like I said I never seen it with my own eyes but hearing it and hearing it from other people it's eye wakener because I always believed that I had protected my kids. I've always -- because I always have.

If I only had help with the fathers throughout the years but I didn't. … Q. C.G. you agree with me that prior to January of 2017 that you really didn't take the risk, the sexual abuse risk by your mother and father as seriously as you should have? A. I've learned throughout the years, I had to. This whole -- in 2017 I -- when I was there --- Q. But we're not --- A. --- are you talking about when I was there? Q. No, I'm saying prior to 2017 when the children were apprehended --- A. Yeah. Q. --- from 2011 right up until they were apprehended would you agree with me that you really believe the allegations.

You didn't take the risk seriously enough? A. At the time yeah I made a mistake. I should have never moved back there -- not moved back but stayed there on the temporary basis of when my -- the water -- I made a mistake. That was a failure in my life. Q. Okay. So in 2016 which would be five years after the Agency came to you in 2011 about the concerns --- A. Um-hmm. Q. --- about the children being left alone with your parents you allowed them to on a trip down to the States with your parents and five other adults? A. I did. There was six other adults and they all knew the risks. They all knew. Q.

Hindsight and looking at the devastation that can be caused by sexual abuse --- A. Yeah see I didn't know --- THE COURT: Okay listen to --- --- BY MS. FRASER-HILL: Q. --- did you think that was a good idea.

THE COURT: --- the question C.G.. Repeat the question Ms. Fraser-Hill. --- BY MS. FRASER-HILL: Q. In hindsight knowing what you know now going through the counselling with Mr. McInnis when you look back and see that you allowed your children to go to the States with your parents for an extended period of time do you think that was a poor decision on your part? A. Oh, yeah I'm not a perfect mother. I make mistakes just like every other parent around here. Q. So even though there were other adults with them you acknowledge that they should not have gone with your parents? A. I do. Yeah it was my mistake.

I made a big mistake on that part. Q. Okay. And then in January, 2017 you were living in […] correct and you were having problems with the heating and plumbing. You were living in […]? A. Oh yeah. Yeah I was. THE COURT: Answer the question C.G.. Is it possible to supervise fully when you're sleeping? --- BY THE WITNESS: A. No it's not. It's impossible. You just can't. … Q. But today now C.G. realizing the impact of --- A. Yes. Q. --- the risk of sexual abuse --- A. Yes I do. Q. --- on behalf of your children --- A.

Oh 100 percent because --- Q. --- do you now see that your actions back in January really did even if it was slight in your mind --- A. Um-hmm.

Q. --- place your children at risk? A. Oh yeah. Q. Going to your parents? A. I regret it now. Like I said this whole year you know it's a lesson, it's a lesson to be learned and you know and I learned it.

And I -- and if I have to learn something really fast I'll do it and I'll keep by it. [105] In terms of her safety plan, in her affidavit sworn October 30, 2017 paragraph 37 (Exhibit 29) she stated “I am willing to cooperate with the Agency and will respect my restrictions put on my custody and in particular restrictions regarding my parents’ interaction with my children.” She further states at paragraph 17 of her affidavit sworn June 11, 2018 (Exhibit 30) that her parents both have excellent relationships with all her children but given the multiplicity of the accusations against them, she agrees and accepts that their contact should have more limitations than before the apprehension.

She states at paragraph 18: I propose that there be no more contact between my children and my parents at their place or my place, and that the only direct contact they would have would be scheduled supervised visits at the Healing Centre, with a Healing Centre staff person present. [106] The Respondent Mother was cross-examined about her safety plan both in her affidavit and in her oral evidence especially in cross-examination by Ms. Sumbu, Ms. Morrow and Ms. Fraser-Hill. In response to Ms. Sumbu, she stated: Q. Do you think anything in this plan needs to be updated? A. Oh, yeah probably.

This is my first time ever making a safe plan. Q. Sure. A. Things could be -- I told Val Rule that it could be -- anything could be added. Whether the Agency wants to add more stuff or my lawyer wants to add more stuff, I don't have a problem with that. Q. Well the first thing I would say is that it is your safe plan. A. It is. It’s the first time and I’m new at that. Q. Absolutely I am not trying to criticize you. this point in time looking at this safe plan right now can you think of anything that needs to be updated or changed about your safe plan? A. Needs to be updated I know that.

The one thing that I told the Agency and Val Rule I could keep the kids away from my parents and that would be 100 percent protection. See when you go through a lot in your life you can disconnect yourself from families. And I did it many times. Hell I haven't even talked to my brother in almost 20 years. I haven't talked to my sister in 15 years so disconnection from family. I prefer to be with my kids than anybody else in this world. Also …, … and … no I could -- they don't even have to -- I was just -- it was just me, D.G. and his girlfriend …, that's it which it had always been like that. …

A. Like it's my first time doing this. So if I'm going to add people that I trust of course and it has to be with L.S and C.P. and forget about B.F. because he's not even around, that could be added to that. B.F. is not around. He's not -- he hasn't even been here. But to add - - if you wanted to add -- we could add L.S and C.P. on there. That's not a problem. You want to add C.P's mother, …, add her on there. People that I do trust with my kids when they're alone.

As long as there's no alcohol involved, no smoking around my kids, no doing drugs, no selling drugs, not being violent, not hitting my children then I'm okay with all that. As long as it doesn't show any sorts of abuse in any way or any form then I don't have a problem with any of that. So yes it does need to be updated and if you have ideas, Ms. Sumbu please help me out with it. If the Agency has any ideas please help me out with it. Add more -- help me to add more stuff on this. If L.S and C.P. needs to add something on this please do it, I'll be happy. I'll be happy to abide by it. … Q.

Is it your expectation that if the children are returned to you that they're going to have very regular and frequent supervised contact with your parents? A. Well that's where the Healing Centre comes in am I right? That's going to be up to the --- Q. Well no I'm just asking --- … A. That's where the Healing Centre comes in they're the ones who's going to help provide the visitations and all that stuff that needs to be taking place. But when it comes to my kids come -- being with me and living with me I can guarantee you nobody's going to be come walking in that house.

I don't even allow druggies or anybody who even smokes around my children. What makes you think with the risk of my parents and all those accusations what makes you think that I'm going to have them come into my house and all of a sudden my kids get apprehended again. No it -- no. Q. No my question is, do you expect that your children are going to have regular and frequent contact with your parents? A. Do I expect it? Q. Yes. A. No. Q. So --- A. Because that's where I'm stopping it. I said it right here. I could keep the kids away from my parents. Q. So is that what you plan to do then is to keep them away? A.

Oh yeah if I have to I will. I will do it. There is no doubt in that -- like I said I could --- … Q. So you're -- this is in the future, you have all of your children, you're saying you're going to take them with you all the time, do you plan to spend time with your parents? A. No. Q. So they're not going to see your parents at all?

A. No, for me. For my decision, if it was my decision I would make sure they don't see my kids at all. But if the Healing Centre is going to get involved which is Mi’kmaw Family Services then that's their -- that's what they're going to be taking care of. I don't have anything like -- I don't want nothing -- no decisions making in that sense. I just want my kids home with me. So for me, are you expecting me to spend time with my parents with my children? Q. Yes. A. No I could sever that. That's easy to sever. … Q. Okay.

So you would agree with me then that part of your plan is you're not going to take your kids to your parents' house? You'd agree with that? A. Oh I'll agree with that yes. Q. So never? No holidays, never? … A. And just because I get along with them now believe me I told my parents to back off, don't come around. How I talk to my parents is nobody's concern but I'll tell you right now because this is what I told my parents if my kids come back don't be part of -- don't come over, don't come over to my house. Do not call me, do not message me. That's what I told them. And they agreed. Simple as that.

I said if you do come over I'm going to have to call the cops on you but I still love them. Q. Um-hmm. So you're going -- your plan now is to actually cut them out of your life if they are returned to you? A. Why not? They're my kids, they're my children. I gave birth to them. Of course I will cut anybody off because of the allegations, because of the risks. Now what if -- since you're bringing that up -- I'm just thinking here. ….. A. If the kids want to see their grandparents that's going to be up to the Healing Centre and Mi’kmaw Family Services.

But if it was up to me I would not want them to be part of -- I would not want them to be around. It's easy. It may not be easy for you guys but I could -- I have a brother, … who did horrible stuff to a lot of people. I could still love him but I still don't trust him. … said the same thing. …… Q. But you understand that the Healing Centre is not going to be responsible for booking time? A. Yeah I know that. Q. And they don't arrange supervisors? A. Yeah. And that's where Mike McInnis comes in. He's going to be able to help me out to guide me through all this. Q.

So your intention is to rely on Mike McInnes to facilitate ---

A. Not rely. There's L.S, there's C.P. Q. I'm talking about specifically access between your parents and the children, that's what I'm talking about specifically. A. Yeah but that's the thing you guys -- you -- if it was up to me I wouldn't want my mother and father around my kids. Plain and simple, if it was up to me. I would take that to great -- after the shit that I've been going through I would take it into great consideration. Now to have the access -- so what if my kids turn around and say hey Mom we want to see our grandparents, okay I'm going to have to call Bernadette Poirier right.

Maybe L.S could be part of that. Maybe C.P. could be part of that. And I could be able to arrange it then take off. Like just a call away. Then Bernadette Poirier will have to -- whoever could facilitate, whoever – L.S or C.P could decide to --- Q. So you're saying that access to the parents is the children’s' decision and not yours? A. If it was up to me yes. But my kids love my parents so much they have a really great bond. But over all the allegations and the risks, I have to take that into precaution. [107] In response to Ms. Morrow, she stated: Q. The -- I'm almost finished my questions for you.

If I understand your plan if the children are returned to your care that you wouldn't be the supervisor -- you would not supervise visits with your parents? A. No I wouldn't. No. Q. Okay. And in fact you're not going to have any more contact with your parents of any shape whatsoever? A. I won't. I don't -- like I say I could sever the ties between my kids and my parents easily. Q. And yourself and your parents, you're not going to see them anymore or help them or talk to them or --- A. If I have to I will do it. It's my kids. Are you going to put a restraining order on me. Q. No, I'm asking you about your plan.

A. Oh, that's what it was. You want to add more, it's whatever the family safety plan is and if you feel -- if L.S. feels the need or C.P. feels the need to add more onto the safety plan then do it. Q. I'm asking you is that your plan --- A. I can keep the kids away from my parents. Q. --- that you're going to stay away from -- are you ---

A. And that would be 100 percent protection. Q. Are you staying away from your parents? A. I can yes. Q. Okay is that your plan? That's -- is that your plan, I don't understand your plan. I'm asking you to clarify. I'm giving you an opportunity --- A. Okay that's my plan. That's my plan. It's my plan if I -- it -- this is all about my children. It's all about my kids and if I have to keep that plan in order and what I'm saying and I'll say it again if I have to keep -- if my plan has to consist of me staying away from my parents I will do it. Q.

The -- but if your children want to see your grandparents then you'll turn to some other people to look after that? A. Well that's where Bernadette Poirier comes in right, when it comes to the Healing Centre which they're the ones who have access visits. Supervised access visits at the Healing Centre. [108] In cross-examination by Ms. Fraser-Hill on grandparent access to the children, there was the following exchange: Q.--- So did you have a chance to think about that when Mr. McInnes was testifying about the impact access might have on the children? A.

I did and when it came down to it with family safe plan that's the one thing that -- and we're going back last year, 2017 -- when did I see her -- June -- June and July I said I can keep the kids away from my parents and that would be 100 percent protection. Q. And is that what you want to do? Do you --- A. It's what I would do, I would want to do because since Mike McInnes brought that up I've already thought about that since last year. Q. Um-hmm. So if they were placed in your custody would your position be that you're going to terminate all contact between the children and your parents? A.

I would have to because it's about my children's -- like their -- like I said it's about their -- the impact if -- it's like a big if, if they were molested, if they're not. What's the -- they're still at risk. I still have to make that decision as a mother. Q.

And then you did testify earlier under Cross-examination you were saying you would keep them away completely and there would be no access but then you said after the proceeding is over if the children came to you and said they wanted access because they loved and missed their grandparents then you indicated that it would be up to the Healing Centre and that the access would have to be arranged through them. A. Yes, I did say that. Q. And that would be up to them. But if they're returned to you and you have custody of them you're the mother, you're the adult ---

A. I make the final decision --- Q. --- and the caretaker. A. --- with my kids yes. Q. Okay. So my question is, are you at this point able to say what your final decision is as to whether or not you would abide by the children’s' wishes to have access at the Healing Centre? A. As a mother my first priority is my kids. And as a mother I don’t make that decision for my kids. I mean my kids do not make the decisions for themselves. I make the decision for what, to protect my kids. And damn right I will if I have to eliminate people that I love out my kids' lives damn rights I would do it.

I did it before and I could do it again. [109] In cross-examination by Ms. Fraser-Hill, the Respondent Mother, C.G. further agreed that her brother who has recently been charged with child pornography is not to be part of her plan. [110] In terms of her plan for the children, she states at paragraph 6 of her affidavit June 11, 2018: that she moved to […] in a large house with six bedrooms and a large yard. Their school is just down the road within walking distance. The school has a playground.

They are […] from the […] Centre where some community activities are hosted; there is a nearby ball field and they are 5 minutes from […]. She states at p

[…]