The Ministry of Social Services - v. -, 2020 SKPC 2

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2020 SKPC 2 Date: January 10, 2020 File #: 43/17 Location: Yorkton _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: The Ministry of Social Services - and - P .L. and R.S. and C.G. Appearing: Michelle McCrea For the Ministry of Social Services Self-Represented For the mother R.S. and the father P.L. Lea Lapointe For the Child P.S.-G. Kim Stinson For the father C.G. Note: The parents, children and relatives are identified by initials in order to protect their identities. WRITTEN DECISION AFTER HEARING UNDER THE CFSA GREEN , J I INTRODUCTION

[ 1 ] The Ministry of Social Services [Ministry] apprehended five children on March 23, 2019. These were P.S.-G. (aged 15 years), T.S.-L. (aged 8), S.S.-L. (aged 6 years), J.S. (aged 4 years) and I.S.-L. (aged 3 years). R.S. is the mother of all the children. C.G. is the natural father of P. S.-G. and P.L. is the natural father of the four youngest children. The Ministry seeks a long term order under s. 37(3) of The Child and Family Services Act , SS 1989-90, c C-72 [ CFSA ] for the child P.S.-G., and a six month temporary order, under s. 37(1)(

c) of the CFSA , for the remainder of the children, with both orders being subject to appropriate conditions. Two older children of the family, E.S.-G. and C.G. Jr., turned 16 years of age before the commencement of this proceeding, and as a result do not form part of the Ministry’s application. [ 2 ] The issues I must determine are: (1) whether the children are in need of protection under s. 11 of the CFSA ; and (2) if so, what order is appropriate under s. 37 of the CFSA . [ 3 ] The evidence at this hearing was extensive.

The Ministry called five witnesses to testify; four were Ministry employees Jessica Prybylski, Mackenzie Guliak, Jenna Gellert and Angela Money, and the other witness was Jennifer Matychuk, an employee of the Society for the Involvement of Good Neighbours (SIGN). The parents R.S. and P.L. called five witnesses to testify, in addition to themselves. These were family friends William Wood, Carolyne Nemetchek, Lawrence Diduck, Loretta Nicholson and Ross St. John.

The Ministry, as well, filed eighteen exhibits, and the parents P.L. and R.S. filed twenty-two exhibits. [ 4 ] The hearing was, in my view, complicated by the decision of the parents P.L. and R.S. to discharge their lawyer at the start of the hearing. Ms. Harris, director of the Yorkton Legal Aid office, had prepared the parents’ case for the hearing, and was ready to proceed. I advised the parents that I thought it was unwise to discharge such an effective advocate, who in my experience is always prepared, and articulate. The parents were undeterred. Ms.

Harris, in addressing the court before being given leave to withdraw, said that, from her perspective and without getting into specific words spoken by the parents, she was being instructed by them to ask questions of some of the witnesses she could not ethically ask. [ 5 ] The father C.G. did not attend this hearing, but his lawyer Mr. Stinson confirmed his consent to an order under s. 37(3) of the CFSA , regarding the child P.S-G. [ 6 ] For the reasons that follow, I am satisfied that all five children are in need of protection as, pursuant to s. 11(

b) of the CFSA , there is no adult person who is able or willing to provide for the needs of these children, and physical or emotional harm to these children has occurred or is likely to occur. Further, I am satisfied pursuant to s. 37 of the CFSA , that a long term order under s. 37(3) is appropriate for the child P.S-G,, and that a six month temporary order, pursuant to s. 37(1)(

c) of the CFSA , is appropriate for the remainder of the children, both orders to be subject to appropriate conditions. II HISTORY OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE MINISTRY WITH THESE CHILDREN AND THE PARENTS R.S. AND P.L. [ 7 ] The key witness for the Ministry regarding the history of involvement by the Ministry of Social Services of Alberta and of Saskatchewan, regarding these children and the parents R.S. and P.L., was Jessica Prybylski. She prepared a document entitled Child and Family Services History (Exhibit P-1).

She, as well, confirmed as accurate her affidavit sworn April 8, 2019, under her previous name of Jessica Teichroeb, and previously filed in this application by the Ministry. [ 8 ] These parents have a lengthy involvement with the Ministry of Social Services in both provinces. Most significant is that this history evidences the same issues that were, and are, of concern to the Ministry in this application. The history from Alberta is broken down into a

summary of that Ministry’s involvement with each parent. History of father P.L. with the Alberta Ministry [ 9 ] Regarding P.L., the history contains summaries of the Alberta Ministry’s involvement in response to concerns about the welfare of children in his care from 2004, 2007, 2009, 2011 and 2012. This history includes a reference to P.L.’s previous wife A.T. and to two other now older children of that relationship, named K.T. and S.T. The entry from July 11, 2007 is as follows: The caller is concerned because P.L. was not only abusive to A.T, but was also abusive to the children.

The caller reported that on one occasion P.L. hit one of the children (S.T.) with a crow-bar and he has been known to shake the children to stop whatever behavior they

were engaged in. The caller provided the following information. The couple have been married for the past three years. It is reported that in the past P.L. has hit, kicked, and restrained A.T. He has also threatened to kill her, to cut her up into pieces, and then to scatter the pieces on some farmland. The reporter stated that A.T. is going back to P.L. because they are grieving the loss of their baby, and she now feels she can control him better because she is able to stand up to him. The children disclosed physical abuse as well as domestic abuse and A.T. confirmed it.

Later that year, after re-united after the death of their infant son, investigation completed and there was nothing done to address the domestic violence and P.L.’s anger. P.L. continued to be aggressive and controlling and would not take responsibility for his issues. [ 10 ] On May 3, 2011 the notation reads: Screening on A.T. and P.L. concerning allegations that P.L. abducted his own children T.S.-L. (2011/05/03) and C.T. (date of birth 07/30/2005) and one of A.T.’s children S.T. (2003/04/09). The children were apprehended in Saskatchewan and brought back to A.T. in Alberta.

In this screening, it states CYIM and collateral information determined that an ex-partner of A.T. had allegedly sexually abused C.T. (date of birth: 01/21/1995) his name was E.G. and that charges had been laid in November 2006. Concerns with A.T. at the time involved her leaving C.T. in E.G.’s care for extended periods of time. In the notes there is a notation that P.L. should not be alone with the children. He was physically and emotionally abusive. [ 11 ] The

summary of P.L.’s involvement with the Ministry of Social Services in Alberta reads: There is a significant CYIM history involving these children including an alert from 2009 stating that the children should not be alone with the father due to past physical and emotional abuse. Previous concerns have been domestic violence between P.L. and A.T., P.L. physically and emotionally abusing the children, behavioral issues with C.T., the children being sexually abused after A.T. left their children with an inappropriate caregiver, reference was made that P.

L. had been charged with sexually assaulting C.T. and there was an additional notation that A.T. is bi-polar. Interestingly, the CYIM history states that previously A.T. left the children in care of a person in BC and obtained a custody order on them. It has also been noted that several years ago, P.L. called Child and Family Services stating that A.T. left the children while he was away at work and did not tell them that she was leaving.

Note: there was a history in some of the reports of CYIM regarding P.L. that he has two other children in Fort Saskatchewan named U-K (and that he has been verbally and physically abusive to the children and calls them names like “stupid cunt” “fat lazy pig” and “cow”). He is also described as a controlling man who used verbal and physical abuse to run the household. History of mother R. S. with the Alberta Ministry [ 12 ] The history of R.S. with the Ministry of Social Services in Alberta contains a number of entries. The entry from 2007 reads: There were concerns that the family was living in a tent.

Investigation completed and the family was fixing their home, it was full of black mold, piles of clothing and paper everywhere. The surfaces were covered with a variety of things. The home was heated with space heaters which posed a safety risk due to the amount of clutter in the home. [ 13 ] The

summary from 2008 reads: Concern that there was no food in the home and the home was full of garbage and feces. The initial allegation was that R.S.’s ex had a grow op in the home, which was unsubstantiated. [ 14 ] The

summary regarding R.S.’s involvement with the Ministry in Alberta reads: There have been three screenings, two investigations, one extended assessment and one safety assessment with this family. The first screening was due to allegations of inadequate housing for the children. The second screening was due to allegations of drug use by the

father and lack of food for the children. Following the screening, the file was opened to investigation but closed with the community referral after it was determined that the allegations were unsubstantiated. The third screening resulted from concerns of domestic violence. The file was opened to safety phase investigation. The concerns were substantiated however, the mother agreed to work with the Westlock Women’s Association in order to ensure that the children’s father, C.G., did not return to their lives. The file was closed with a referral to the community.

Summary of the involvement of the Saskatchewan Ministry with the parents and children [ 15 ] Ms. Prybylski’s 18 page affidavit, sworn by on April 8, 2019, contains a

summary of the Ministry’s involvement with this family, and these children, in Saskatchewan from 2011 until April of 2019. This involvement is extensive and I will attempt to highlight the salient facts from 2011, 2013, 2014, 2017 and 2019. 2011 [ 16 ] Regarding the involvement of the Ministry in 2011, an intake was received from a public health nurse with respect to the child T.S.-L. She reported that the house was filthy with dirty dishes and rotten food in the kitchen, bags full of garbage in the living room and soiled underwear and used sanitary napkins on the floor in the bathroom.

The children were interviewed and disclosed that P.L. and R.S. used physical discipline on them. As a result, the children were apprehended and all required medical attention and were put on antibiotics and nebulizers.

T.S.-L. had a severe diaper rash and thrush. [ 17 ] As a result of this involvement, a six month supervision order was granted by the Provincial Court in Yorkton in 2011, with conditions that the parents work with a family support worker, maintain a safe and sanitary home environment suitable for the children, ensure the children receive medical treatment as required, and work cooperatively with their family services worker. 2013 [ 18 ] In 2013, further concerns were reported to the Ministry about the conditions of the family home, the home having no heat or power and reports of the children going to school unwashed and in dirty clothes.

By April 2013 the condition of the home was beginning to deteriorate, and R.S. and P.L. said they did not wish to work with any further home supports from the Ministry. The Ministry applied for a further six month supervision order but this was withdrawn in August of 2013. 2017 [ 19 ] In 2017, the Ministry received an intake from the RCMP, who advised they had received a complaint about a couple driving a bus with a baby laying on a woman’s lap in the front passenger seat. The police located the bus and pulled it over. P.L. was driving, with R.S. sitting in the passenger seat with I.S.-L. on her lap.

The children T.S.-L., J.S. and S.S.L. were also in the bus, and there were no car seats. Cst. Kondratoff told P.L. that because the vehicle is registered as a van, car seats are required. P.L. had no driver licence. The RCMP noted that the children’s health was very bad, and that I.S.-L.’s face was caked in dirt. The police officer then attended at the family’s residence at Mikado, which did not have a roof. [ 20 ] As a result of this intake from the RCMP, the Ministry investigated and discovered that the family was living in an RV with no running water or power and were using candles for light.

The family home in Kamsack was very dirty and cluttered. The toilet was covered in feces, the mattresses were falling apart and dirty and the children slept on couch cushions. The children were apprehended on September 15, 2017. The parents signed a safety plan and the children were returned on September 21, 2017 (Exhibit P-14). 2019 [ 21 ] On January 17, 2019 a further intake was received from the RCMP, that P.L. had punched his stepson C.G. Jr. in the face. As a result, P.L. was charged with assault and released on conditions not to go back to the home and not to have any communication with C.G. Jr.

The RCMP officer involved had concerns about the condition of the home, saying there were no working lights and the family

was using flashlights in the evening when he brough P.L. back to pick up his things. The officer, as well, said there was no heat and only a wood burning stove that was barely going and all the children were in jackets, and he further said it appeared to him that car batteries were being used as the source of power and that the kitchen was dirty. [ 22 ] On January 31, 2019, Ministry employee Christi Fallows attended to Canora Composite School and interviewed C.G. Jr.

The boy said that P.L. hit him with a stick and that he told P.L. to stop doing that, and that P.L. did not like him saying that and they started fighting. After this meeting, Mr. Fallows and Ms. Prybylski attended to the family home in Mikado. R.S. and P.L. were there, and both Ministry workers noted that the home was extremely cold. There was wood scattered inside the home and there was a hatchet and two saws on a wood pile. Ms. Prybylski saw several car batteries in a corner of the home with cords running on the floor from them as the source of power.

There were empty food containers and leftover food scattered throughout the house. There was a big wood burning stove in the middle of the room with couches around one side of it, and R.S. was putting a pot on the stove. Ms. Fallows asked R.S. if she wanted some supports from the Ministry, and R.S. said that all counselling and supports are connected to the Ministry and she would not say anything to them because they would report it to the Ministry. [ 23 ] On a subsequent date, Ms. Fallows and Ms. Prybylski attended unannounced at the family’s home in Kamsack.

The house was very cold, and there was one small space heater plugged in in the living room. The house was very dirty and there were pieces of garbage, paper and clothing all over the floor. In the kitchen, the counters, stove top and sink were covered with very dirty dishes and there were full garbage bags on the floor, close to overflowing. The children were downstairs, on two uncovered mattresses at the foot of the stairs. I.S.-L. was wearing only a diaper and was covered in dirt from head to toe. Ms. Prybylski noted that the children’s feet were black on the bottom and their hair was dirty and matted. Ms.

Prybylski noticed that S.S.-L. was physically cold and was shaking and rubbing her hands together and putting them between her legs. The pellet stove was open to the children and was not closed off in any way. [ 24 ] On a later date, Ms. Prybylski inquired of P.L. why T.S.-L. was not in school that day and P.L. said the boy gets home schooled. Ms. Fallows asked T.S.-L. if he was able to read yet and he said no. She then asked him if he was able to spell his name, and he said “no”.

Both Ministry workers formed the view that the homes in Kamsack and Mikado were too cold and dirty for the children to stay in, and a hotel was booked for the family. The workers further advised that a safety plan would have to be signed or the children would be apprehended. P.L. agreed to sign the safety plan (Exhibit P-15). [ 25 ] On February 1, 2019, Ms. Prybylski attended at the Mikado home with family preservation workers Jennifer Matychuk and Kendra Morphy.

They discussed with R.S. their expectations regarding the cleanliness of the home and that R S. must insure that there was nothing dangerous around for the children, such as the car batteries, which were still there being used for power. They also asked about T.S.-L. attending school, and R.S. said she had no say in this as it was P.L.’s decision. The workers were concerned about this, as T.S.-L. was eight years old at that point and could not read or write. [ 26 ] After being in Mikado, Ms. Prybylski and the family preservation workers went to the Kamsack hotel to meet with P.L. and the children.

P.L. maintained that the whole incident with C.G. Jr., as reported to the police, was the child’s fault and not his. Ms. Prybylski made it clear to P.L. that the homes in Kamsack and Mikado would have to be clean and safe for the children before the family was allowed to return to either house. That discussion was, in part, because R.S. had advised that the family used an outhouse for a washroom, and that they heated up water for baths and bathed the children once a week. [ 27 ] On February 1, 2019, Ms. Prybylski received a message from Ms.

Matychuk, saying that the children were not up to date on their immunizations, and that P.L. was opposed to the children being inoculated. P.L. said he would not take the children to get medical treatment, and said that he would give stitches to them himself if they needed them. Ms. Matychuk said that, in her opinion, P.L. is very controlling and he was consistently cutting her off when she was trying to speak.

She was, as well, concerned because T.S.-L. did not know colours, could not count to 15, and had not been attending school. [ 28 ] On February 27, 2019, R.S., and P.L. met with the family preservation workers and their supervisor Ms. Zoerb. Ms. Prybylski was also at the meeting, and asked P.L. if he would work with a counsellor named Sydney McGillicky. P.L. did not want to, as he wanted to wait until things settled down. Mr. Prybylski told him that Mr. McGillicky would work with him regarding parenting and safety concerns, and P.L. replied that there were no safety concerns. Ms.

Prybylski then advised that the Ministry was involved, because there were safety concerns, and Ms. Zoerb told P.L. that the family preservation program had worked with his family for five years and the concerns that day were the same as they had been previously. In her view, nothing had changed. P.L. then said he would attend counselling. [ 29 ] On March 22, 2019, Ms. Matychuk, the child family preservation worker, reported an intake to the Ministry, and said that the child E.S.-G. was making disclosures about abuse in the home. She had disclosed that she was raped by P.L.’s son S.L., a few years back.

S.L. lives in Alberta, and had come to visit their family in Saskatchewan. Ms. Matychuk called R.S. to advise her that she was

taking E.S.-G. to the RCMP to report the sexual assault, and R.S. became upset about this. P.L. then called E.S.-G., and told her not to say anything to the police. P.L., as well, called Ms. Matychuk and told her not to take E.S.-G. to the RCMP. Ms. Prybylski’s affidavit (at paragraph 34) sets out what then happened: After receiving this phone call, I contacted the RCMP, and it was arranged for E.S.-G. to be interviewed by an RCMP member. The interview was conducted by Cst. Manley with Ms. Matychuk in the room, and I observed from another room.

E.S.-G. disclosed that around three years ago, S.L., P.L.’s son from anther relationship, was staying with the family in Kamsack. She said that, one day, she was inside doing her homework, R.S. and P. L. were downtown, and P. S.-G. and C.G. Jr. were outside. She said that S.L. came into her room, threw her on the bed and took her pants off. E.S.-G. said that she tried to kick him off but he was too strong. She said he tried once and then she got away and ran upstairs. When asked what he tried she said he tried to put his penis in her bum. She then went outside and she told her dad, P.L.

P.L. told her that he would deal with it. [ 30 ] On the same day, March 22, 2019, child protection worker Jenna Gellert met with P.S.-G. This child described an argument days before in their household, which as well involved his brother T.S.-L. He said that he got mad at his parents for not taking responsibility for their children, and then P.L. pushed him down. He said that P.L. will call the children idiots, retards and refer to the three oldest children as “dumb, dumber and dumbest”. He further said that P.L. will “muzzle” his brother T.S.-L.

By that, he meant that P.L. will hold the boy down with his hand, a pillow or a blanket and will put whatever he is using over the mouth or head of the child, to quiet the child down. When he does this, he as well shakes the child, and threatens to kick the child out until he or she calms down. P.S.-G. also said that his teachers have told him that he should see an eye doctor as he likely needs glasses, but his parents do not believe in doctors. He said the last time he saw a doctor was last summer, because he was at a friend’s family and needed stitches.

He said, a couple of weeks later, his mom cut the stitches off with nail clippers, because his parents were mad at him for getting stitches. [ 31 ] What then transpired, over that day and the next day, which formally led to the decision taken by the Ministry to apprehend these children, was set out in Ms. Prybylski’s affidavit (at paragraphs 36 – 38) : After E.S.-G. was interviewed by the RCMP, I contacted R.S. by telephone. I told her that I would like to talk to her and P.L. about what the children have told us. I asked R.S. where she was as I would like to meet with her.

R.S. told me that she is gone and when I asked for clarification she said she is leaving the province. I asked her where the youngest children are, and she said the kids are with her. She told me “you can have those three [older] kids but you can’t have these [younger] four”, and hung up. I told the RCMP that the parents were leaving the province and Cst. Beiersdorfer went to the family home in her RCMP cruiser. As we were driving up to the home, I saw P.L. and R.S.’s family vehicle, a yellow bus leave the driveway and start driving out of town. Cst.

Beiersdorfer followed the bus and received instruction to pull them over. She came up from behind the bus with lights and sirens on and the bus did not pull over. At this point another cruiser joined the pursuit and pulled in front of the bus and slowed down to try to make the bus stop. The RCMP member saw that R.S. was driving with P.L. and the four little children in the bus. The bus swerved around the cruiser and sped up down the highway. The RCMP followed the bus into Manitoba, and it was heading towards Roblin, Manitoba.

After a few kilometers, the bus took a grid road and the RCMP were advised that they could no longer pursue. On March 23, 2019, I received a phone call from the Roblin RCMP, advising that they found the family at a family cabin in the woods. They said they are waiting for Manitoba Child and Family Services to attend to pick up the children. This phone was received at 12:45 a.m. and at 3:00 a.m., I received a phone call advising that Child and Family Services have the children, and they would meet an emergency worker at the border.

Emergency worker Tara McCombs picked up the children and brought them back to Yorkton. III THE OTHER WITNESSES PRESENTED BY THE MINISTRY [ 32 ] In my view, all the other witnesses for the Ministry corroborated the evidence of Ms. Prybylski, regarding what Ms. Prybylski said these witnesses did and observed and the concerns each held, and hold, regarding whether these children are in need of protection and, as well, what order should be made under s. 37 of the CFSA . Jennifer Matychuk [ 33 ] Jennifer Matychuk works for SIGN in the Family Preservation Program.

In January 2019, she received a referral from the Ministry (Exhibit P-17). In general terms, this referral listed the areas of concern as: (1) conditions of the parents’ house; (2) hygiene concerns regarding the children; and (3) detailed concerns about the unsanitary conditions the children were living in. [ 34 ] On February 1, 2019, Ms. Matychuk went with a Ministry child protection worker to meet with R.S. at the parents’ home in

Mikado. She found the home to be cold, cluttered and with garbage and food scattered throughout the house. She said the heat source appeared to be from a wood stove, and there were wood chips and garbage on the floor. The power source in the home was from car batteries in one corner, with wires leading out from the batteries. In all, she said there were 10 car batteries. As well, she said there were no bathroom facilities in the house. [ 35 ] From the home in Mikado, she went to a motel in Kamsack, where the Ministry had placed P.L. and the four youngest children.

She then went to the parents’ other home, in Kamsack. She said that this house had a source of power from the public utility, but was heated by a wood furnace and otherwise had lots of clutter. Over her involvement, which lasted until April 5, 2019, she said she was at the Kamsack home six times, and noted no improvement in the cleanliness of that home. [ 36 ] Ms. Matychuk attempted to discuss her concerns regarding access to clean water for the children to bathe and proper heat in the houses, together with concerns about having clean clothing for the children, with the parents.

She was concerned that P.L. did not want to take his children to a medical doctor, as he told her he would take care of this himself. As well she had concerns that the youngest child, T.S.-L., was not in school, and was told by P.L. that he would do it on his own. She was as well concerned that the child J.S. had been wearing the same outfit for four days, and had a strong smell of smoke on him.

Taken together, her comments on working with both parents were that she thought R.S. made some effort towards working with her, but that P.L. had no interest in engaging with her or in working with her or other employees of the Ministry. [ 37 ] On March 21, 2019, Ms. Matychuk went to Canora with Ministry employees to interview the older children, C.G. Jr., E.S.-G. and P.S.G. She said that all three children reported, when interviewed, that they were brain washed by R.S. and P.L. so as not to trust workers from the Ministry or the RCMP.

They, further, reported neglect or abuse in the care provided by their parents, poor medical care provided by them – for example P.L. took stitches out of one child that had been given by a doctor – and, as well, reported that the child P.S.-G. needed glasses, but his parents would not take him to an optometrist. [ 38 ] Ms. Matychuk then spoke to the child C.G. Jr., who reported both that P.S.-G. had been angry with his parents and was as a result locked outside of the home with no shoes on, and that after he was let back into his house the parents were both apologetic to the child. C.G.

Jr. as well said that P.L. engaged in a part of discipline, called “muzzling”, to T.S.-L., where he would cover the boy’s mouth with his hand or a pillow until the child was quiet. [ 39 ] On the next day, March 22, 2019, Ms. Matychuk was advised by Ministry staff that E.S.-G. had disclosed that she had been that she had been sexually assaulted by P.L.’s oldest son. As a result, she took

part in taking the child E.S.-G. to the RCMP. Ms. Matychuk called R.S. to indicate what was happening, and R.S.’s response was that if E.S.-G. reported this to the police she could go ahead and live with her brother C.G. Jr. She then spoke to P.L. on the phone, who told her not to take the child to the RCMP. [ 40 ] After working with this family, Ms. Matychuk wrote a report to the Ministry (Exhibit P- 18).

In this report, under the heading of Family Safety, she summarized her involvement as follows: - Reported incidents of physical abuse by P.L. towards youth; - P.L. continues to deny incident and places blame on youth, services or society; - family reports P.L. struggles with managing his anger during difficult conversations with youth; - neither R.S. nor youth have participated in counselling to heal effects of trauma; - E.S.-G. reports having been sexually assaulted twice as a child; - youth identified ongoing safety concerns of the younger children by parents ie. brainwashing, neglect, physical abuse - youth report P.L.’s eldest son has provided them the opportunity to use alcohol and drugs and sexual abuse charges have been reported against him; - parents do not acknowledge present concerns regarding the childrens’ basic needs of shelter and healthy living environment; - youth report caregivers have consistently denied children’s medical needs; and - P.L. resists interventions and supports being offered by formal agencies.

Mackenzie Guliak [ 41 ] Mackenzie Guliak is a child protection worker for the Ministry. She took carriage of this family’s file from Ms. Prybylski on September 11, 2019. Because this application had already been set for a hearing, in July, and had been adjourned for the purposes of a parenting assessment (which both parents then reneged on, even after the person hired to do the assessment had travelled from Vancouver to Saskatchewan) her involvement was not nearly as extensive as Ms. Prybylski’s.

She attempted to speak with the parents on a number of occasions to do case planning, but said that this did not happen, as the parents did not follow through in meeting with her. This lack of cooperation by the parents was a major concern to her, as she wanted to see more engagement from them as the matter went forward.

She continued to arrange visits between the four youngest children and the parents, once a week in Yorkton at the public library. [ 42 ] Given her review of the file and her involvement to the date of the hearing, she said that the Ministry’s position was for a six month temporary order, on appropriate conditions. She said her concerns, if the children were returned to the parents by the Court, on conditions, were that: 1. There would be lack of follow through by the parents, despite any promises they might make, as they have in the past not followed through with making changes in the areas of concern; 2.

The parents would neglect and would not provide proper medical care for these children; 3. Whether or not there was some short term change in the conditions of the home, these changes would not be long term and that the children would again be in need of protection because of those conditions; and 4. The likelihood of further domestic violence in the home, given the history disclosed in the records of the Ministry with this family. Jenna Gellert [ 43 ] Jenna Gellert is a childcare worker with the Ministry. Her involvement in this case was largely working with the three oldest children, C.G.

Jr., E.S.-G. and P.S.-G. C.G. Jr. and E.S.-G. are currently the subject a s. 10 agreement under the CFSA , as each are now over the age of 16 years. Ms. Gellert arranges services for these children, and will do so until their 18 birthday. She is, as well, the ward worker for P.S.-G., given the long term order s. 37(3) of the CFSA , that I am making regarding that child. [ 44 ] On March 22, 2019, she met and interviewed the child P.S.-G. in depth, at his school in Canora. Other Ministry workers were there and interviewed C.G. Jr. and E.S.-G. P.S.-G. told her that P.L. gets physically aggressive with him.

He also described physical and verbal abuse at the hands of P.L., and said that P.L. refers to him as a “cocksucker” and an “idiot”, and, further, refers to three oldest children as “dumb, dumber and dumbest”. P.S.-G., as well, said that other children are physically abused by P.L., and that the younger children are “muzzled” by him, by putting a pillow over their mouth, as a form of discipline. P.S.-G. said that, just two days before, P.L. did this to the child T.S.-L. P.S.-G. had an audio recording with him that he had made at the time of that incident, and played this for Ms. Gellert.

She listened to it, and testified, in court at he hearing, that she heard T.S.-L. crying and heard P. L. telling him to be quiet and that he is mentally ill. She as well heard yelling back and forth, in the recording. [ 45 ] Further, in Ms. Gellert’s interview with P.S.-G., he said his mother R.S. is not protective and is subservient to P.L. Further, he described one occasion when he was staying with his mother, when there was no heat or food in the house and when, as a result, the children went to a neighbour’s place to get food.

As well, he said the older children were placed in the position of having to supervise their four younger siblings. When asked what needs of his were not being met, P.S.-G. said that the children had no food, no heat, no regular school and that their parents treated the Ministry as a bank account, but then did not follow through with long term changes after the involvement of the Ministry stopped.

P.S.-G., as well, said he was concerned that his brother T.S.-L. was eight years of age and was not going to school. [ 46 ] Regarding the medical needs of the children, P.S.-G. said his needs were not being met, as he needed and wanted glasses but his parents would not take him to an optometrist. He said that his parents do not believe in medical professionals to provide care, and that he had scabies on his leg and it spread to up his body before he could see a doctor. He, as well, said he received stiches in his hand from a doctor, and his parents cut them out rather than take him back to the doctor.

[ 47 ] Ms. Gellert said she had further discussions with all three children, at a later time. All three have no interest of having any access to their parents. All three are doing well at school in Canora. They are concerned, that if the younger children are returned to the parents: (1) they will not get a chance to meet with their younger siblings; (2) that nothing will change with their parents without the three older children there to protect the younger ones; and (3) that their parents will leave the province, to avoid involvement with the Ministry.

Angela Money [ 48 ] Angela Money is an employee of the Ministry, who provides child protection services. Her role in this case was to supervise visits between the parents and the youngest four children, which happened at the Yorkton Public Library. She is a certified teacher, and has worked in school divisions for over 20 years. These visits began on September 25, 2019 and have extended to the present. Having supervised the visits, she had some concerns about the ability of the parents to supervise their children.

She, as well, was concerned that there was some inconsistency in disciplining, although she seemed to acknowledge that the supervised visits were not a natural forum to assess the parents in. She acknowledged that the parents were pleasant and respectful to her, but did say that she thought the visits would have improved in quality if P.L. had left his cell phone in his pocket, as he liked to show the children pictures on his phone. IV THE WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED ON BEHALF OF THE PARENTS [ 49 ] R.S. and P.L. called five witnesses to testify. Each were friends of their family.

Each witness believed that R.S. and P.L. were good and caring parents who treated their children well. Each, as well, apparently had no appreciation of The Child and Family Services Act , nor the obligation of the Ministry to ensure that children are not in need of protection. As well, remarkable as it may seem, each appeared to believe that the Ministry set out to destroy this family, but none of the five witnesses had any appreciation or understanding of the concerns held by the employees of the Ministry, nor had any of them spoken to Ministry staff about the children.

William Wood [ 50 ] William Wood has known the family for about ten years. Two of the letters he wrote were filed as Exhibit D-1. He says, during his time in knowing the family, that he has seen nothing but love and affection by both parents, and that he feels that what the Ministry of Social Services is doing to this family is nothing short of criminal.

He says that the parents have done many things to help their children, but that what the Ministry staff is doing is “their best to break up this family”. [ 51 ] In his cross-examination, it became clear that he lives in Lemburg, 150 kilometers from Kamsack,and that he has had little contact with the family over the last few years. He did recall seeing T.S.-L., then aged three years, riding a power lawn mower. When asked whether he had discussed with any employee of the Ministry what their concerns were, he admitted that he had not, but that he had never seen the “kids in danger”.

While he acknowledged that the younger children were not in school, in his opinion the problems in the family stemmed largely from the older children picking on the younger children. He as well acknowledged that he would not describe the family home as a clean house. Carolyne Nemetchek [ 52 ] Carolyne Nemetchek is 78 years of age and resides in Boggy Creek, Manitoba, about 90 miles from Kamsack. She read from her letter, filed as Exhibit D-2. At the start of her evidence, she warned that, given her age, her memory was not good.

While she believes that these parents are good parents to their children, she referred to the incident in March of 2019 - when the children were apprehended at her place in Manitoba by the RCMP and the Child Protection staff from Swan River, Manitoba – as when the authorities were “confiscating” the children. In her letter at page five, she refers to her understanding of the apprehension of the children by the Ministry in 2017, after speaking with R.S., that the children had been “abducted”.

It became clear, through her evidence, that she largely knew this family from seeing them at church. [ 53 ] When cross-examined about the incident on March 23, 2019, at her place in Manitoba, she acknowledged that R.S. and P.L. brought the younger children there. When asked why they came to her place she listed two reasons: (1) the police were after them (to take the kids from them); and (2) to bury the ashes of an unborn child. When asked whether R.S. and P.L. mentioned the police behind them, she responded “yes”.

[ 54 ] When asked whether she thought a family home should have water and hydro power, Ms. Nemetchek responded that this was something a family should have, but she thought these parents could not afford it. She as well acknowledged that the family homes at Mikado and at Kamsack were messy. She, as well, acknowledged that the older child C. G. Jr. is an honest young man. Lawrence Diduck [ 55 ] Lawrence Diduck said he has known this family for 10 years, and has never seen any abuse by the parents. He said he was a reverend and a minister, and has acted as a counsellor to the family.

He, as well, referred to an “undercover operation” by the Ministry, which in cross-examination he explained by referring to the permanent apprehension of his children. Further, in his cross-examination, it became apparent that he has mental health issues, that he has been taken to the Mental Health Centre in Yorkton on several occasions, and that he had, and has, a psychiatrist at the Yorkton Regional Hospital. Loretta Nicholson [ 56 ] Loretta Nicholson read from her letter, which was filed as Exhibit D-3. She, as well, met this family through her church in Kamsack.

She lives in Santa Clara, Manitoba, and has seen family at church and, as well, has visited them on occasion after church. To summarize her evidence, she believes that the family had taken good care of their children. When asked whether she was aware of any concerns of the Ministry, she claimed she was as Ms. Nemetchek had explained these to her. It was clear that she had never talked to an employee of the Ministry. Ross St. John [ 57 ] Ross St. John said that he had known the family since 2012. He is from Kamsack, and said he met P.L. when he started working at his store downtown.

He said he has been at this family’s house for meals a number of times. He said the house was a little untidy, but claimed there was no garbage other than “kids dropping stuff”. He denied ever seeing bruises on the children. He, as well, claimed that the older children, now in Canora, were not doing well in school, although there was no suggestion about how he would know this, other than being told of it by their parents. In describing the children, in cross-examination, he said he had not seen the children since they were “seized” by the Ministry.

On further cross-examination, it was clear that much of his contact with the family was outside of his home, when he was walking his dog, or when he saw the family downtown. V THE EVIDENCE OF THE PARENTS, R.S. AND P.L . The mother, R.S. [ 58 ] R.S. began her evidence by tendering a series of certificates, ranging in date from 1998 to 2001.

These were: her high school diploma; a certificate from a learning language seminar; an educational assistant year one certificate and a similar certificate for year two from Portage College; a certificate from attending a two day workshop on children’s speech, language and listening skills; a certificate of completion for meeting the requirements of medical administration for the para-professional from Downie/Hazlett Consulting; a certificate from completing the St.

John’s Ambulance Safety Oriented First Aid course; and a letter from Portage College for completing first year studies in Child Health (Exhibits D-4 to D-11). [ 59 ] Coming closer to the present, she filed a Certificate of Completion from the Kamsack Family Resource Centre for the program “Growing Great Families Curriculum” from January 19, 2019 (Exhibit D-12). She, as well, filed a letter from mental health therapist Mike Gunn dated December 6, 2019 in Kamsack (Exhibit D-13), where he says he has held counselling sessions with R.S. and P.L. for six months.

He says, in his opinion that the couple is competent to parent, and that they do not pose a risk to their children. He says that the couple poses unique ideas about how life should be lived, but in his view, these do not threaten the safety of the children.

[ 60 ] R.S. as well filed a letter (Exhibit D-14) from a person at the Duck Mountain Hotel. In effect, the person says that P.L. and his family stayed at their establishment for one month, and through the contact she had the children seemed to be happy and she heard them laughing. [ 61 ] R.S. as well filed a letter from the child E.S.-G. (Exhibit D-15) which was entitled “what social services had made me feel in past and present”.

While I think it was inappropriate for R.S. to file this letter, to, in effect, try to get into evidence indirectly what she likely could not directly, R.S. was at that point of the hearing unrepresented by counsel. Regardless, I place little weight on this exhibit. While the undated and unsigned letter claims a series of complaints and concerns about the Ministry’s staff and their dealings with this family, it is remarkable considering that, according to Ms. Gellert, this same child now wants no contact with either parent. [ 62 ] R.S. as well filed an email from Ms.

Prybylski (whose last name at that time was then Teichroeb) which she claimed showed that she were being encouraged to apply for the Social Assistance Program (SAP) to obtain power and heat for the family house (Exhibit D-16). She said she, later, discovered that SAP did not cover this, and, as a result, she closed her SAP file (Exhibit D-17). [ 63 ] In cross-examination, R.S. was asked about P.L.’s practice of “muzzling” the children. Regarding the child T.S.-L., she said that the child had an emotional upset and that P.L. would put his hand over T.S.-L.’s mouth.

When asked whether she agreed with this practice, she said she thought there was “other ways it could be handled”, and it might be better to take a pillow and let the child scream into it rather than muzzling. It was clear that she did not agree with the practice. In her words, she said that she “did not totally agree with it”. [ 64 ] Regarding the child E.S.-G.’s complaint of being sexually assaulted by P.L.’s eldest son S.L., R.S. said she had no concerns about S. L. being in their family’s house.

She acknowledged that when she spoke to E.S.-G. by telephone, when the child was on her way to the RCMP station on March 22, 2019, she discouraged her from reporting this to the police. In her view, the family had dealt with it internally, and had spoken to both children. Further, as, in her words, there was “no penetration”, she did not think it should be reported. She did acknowledge that what was being alleged was, in her view, inappropriate contact, considering that E.S.-G. was between 14 and 15 years of age at the time of the incident.

She appeared to be aware that a child could not consent to sexual contact under the age of 16, and, further, was aware that she had a duty to report such an allegation under the CFSA , which she did not. [ 65 ] R.S. acknowledged that P.L. makes the financial decisions in their relationship, and said that, in her view, a male should do this.

She said the family’s income comes from the sale of vehicles, the Child Tax Credit and the GST rebate. [ 66 ] Regarding the source of power for her home with car batteries, she acknowledged that initially the wires were exposed, but she did not feel this was of danger to the children. Regarding the wood stove at the house, she said that her son C.G. Jr. (at 17 years of age) installed the stove with the help of a neighbor. She acknowledged that there was no gate around the stove, but claimed there was a protective piece.

Regarding sleeping arrangements, she acknowledged the youngest four children slept in one bed. [ 67 ] R.S. said she now lives in Kamsack, and is no longer in the Mikado home. She claimed she would take the children to a doctor if they needed medical treatment. She acknowledged that P.L. told the family preservation worker that he did not believe in medical treatment, and further said she “did not agree 100 percent with this”. [ 68 ] When it was suggested that she had not taken the programming that had been suggested by the Ministry staff, she said that she had worked with the family preservation worker.

She claimed that they had made arrangements with the Good Spirit School Division to school T.S.-L, but acknowledged that at the time of apprehension the boy could not spell his name.

While she said that they were seeking to teach him mathematics, his ABC’s and letter recognition, she did not know what grade the child should have been in at the time of apprehension. [ 69 ] While she acknowledged that one of the concerns of the Ministry was that she is too passive and does not speak out against P.L., remarkably, she still appeared to have no understanding of the reasons for the apprehension of her children, nor of the concerns that were held and are still held by the Ministry staff.

While she claimed that she would take programming as directed by the Ministry staff, she acknowledged that she did not proceed with the parenting assessment that she agreed to last summer, even after the woman tasked with completing the study flew from Vancouver to Saskatchewan to complete the assessment. She said she was not able to complete the parenting assessment because of post-traumatic stress disorder. When further asked whether she would participate in such assessment if the Court ordered it, she said would, on the condition that Mike Gunn did it.

The father, P.L. [ 70 ] P.L., as well, provided a number of exhibits for the Court. He filed (Exhibit D-18) an educational plan for home based education with the Good Spirit School Division for the child T.S.-L. The date of commencement of the program is stated to be March 6, 2019, when T.S.-L. was eight years of age. The reason for filing a plan is said to be: “we as parents feel that at this time it is safer to home school. We feel that a home spiritual environment is best at this point”.

The proposal included goals in mathematics, language, language arts, science and social studies. [ 71 ] P.L., as well, filed a letter from Mike Gunn at the New Beginnings Outreach Centre in Kamsack. The letter says that these parents have been seeing him constantly for two months they have been doing couples therapy, anger management and focusing on better parenting skills. [ 72 ] P.L. then filed a certificate of completion from the Kamsack Family Resource Centre (Exhibit D-21) which was similar to that filed by R.S.

He, as well, filed Exhibit D-22, a picture from the Kamsack newspaper showing these parents and their younger four children downtown in Kamsack. [ 73 ] Lastly, he filed a series of photographs (Exhibit D-20), of which he acknowledged most had been taken over the last few days before the hearing. He said that these pictures were being filed in response to the “political” apprehension of his children by the Ministry.

He said the pictures showed appropriate heat in the Kamsack home, together with a clean and uncluttered environment, the wood stove they use, and books that were used in the home schooling of the children. The pictures as well show food in a cupboard and a picture of one of their younger children who has a cast on his leg (which he said happened after the child was apprehended). [ 74 ] Regarding his discipline, and the claim of “muzzling”, towards the child T.S.-L., P.L. said he did this to calm the boy down.

He said he touched him by hand to the child’s mouth as a caressing thing, in his view as a way of showing affection. Regarding the recording that P.S.-G. played to Ms. Matychuk, he denied it was him yelling at his son in the recording, and said he had never heard this. He as well said that the child P.S.-G. may have created this on his own, off of the Internet. In cross-examination, he again denied that, as heard in the recording by Ms.

Matychuk, he was yelling at P.S.-G. and telling him to be quiet, and said, while he did not recall it, it was not possible it happened. [ 75 ] P.L., as well, said that the house in Kamsack now has power and water. He denied that the Ministry ever had any legitimate concerns when the children were apprehended. When asked whether he would follow any direction from the court for programming to be taken as directed by the Ministry, he said he would not necessarily do this, but would rather find someone he was satisfied in providing these programs.

Regarding the date of apprehension of the children in Manitoba, he, like R.S., said he could not see the RCMP, that they were not running from the police, and that he was going away on a vacation. [ 76 ] Remarkably, P.L. says that he does not have a Saskatchewan driver’s licence, that he had an Alberta driver’s licence long ago, but that he now has no idea if he now has a driver’s licence. He denied that his children have ever had to go to the next-door neighbour’s place to get food, but, as well, said he did not recall anything like this.

In referring to the older children, he says that the older children are resentful because of abuse they suffered at the hands of their natural father C.G., and that as a result of this the older children now resent himself and R.S. Despite this comment, he claimed that he supported ongoing contact between the older children and the younger children. [ 77 ] P.L. repeated that he could not recall any concerns the Ministry had raised with him at the time the children were apprehended, especially regarding heat at the house.

While he acknowledged that the wood stove in the basement had no barrier in front of it, he said that he had told all of the younger children – who were aged 8, 6, 4 and 3 - not to go close to it. While he initially said that the children were upstairs when the Minister staff attended at their house, he acknowledged that the mattress for the children was downstairs, about 10 feet from the stove. When asked whether he told Ms. Matychuk that he did not believe in medical treatment, he said he could not recall.

He then said that he was having a hard time remembering things at the hearing, as it had been a long day. [ 78 ] When asked about an incident where his daughter S.S.-L. was hit by a vehicle, he said that he moved the vehicle, and then could not recall whether he sought medical treatment. When asked whether he told Ms. Matychuk that he would give stitches to the children, he said this was a joke.

[79] On further cross-examination P.L. was asked a number of questions about what Court-ordered conditions he would follow. Regarding an order by the Court to do a mental health assessment and counselling, if he needed it, he said this was harassment in hisview. While he was prepared to follow some of the other conditions suggested by the Ministry, when asked by Mrs. McCrea whether hewould do domestic violence counselling, he said that he did not feel it was needed, and could not be sure if he would do this.

Whenasked whether he would do a parenting assessment, Court-ordered, he said he did not feel comfortable doing this. In effect, his positionwas that he would only follow conditions ordered by the Court if he agreed with them. Remarkably, he still had no appreciation of whythe children were apprehended or what the concerns of the Ministry staff were about the safety of these children. Lastly, regarding E.S.-G.’s disclosure of being sexually assaulted, he acknowledged that he did not report this, as this had, in his view, been dealt with inside thefamily. VI ANALYSIS [80] Ms.

Guliak, in her sworn evidence, stated the position of the Ministry, which was that a long term order under s. 37(3) of theCFSA be made regarding the child P.S.-G., and that a six month temporary order, under s. 37(1)(

c) of the CFSA, be made regarding thefour younger children, on appropriate conditions. [81] At the conclusion of the evidence, I asked the Ministry, counsel for the child P.S.-G. and the parents to make writtenargument submissions by January 3, 2020, on three questions:

(1) What relevant evidence heard at this hearing should I consider in deciding this case?

(2) Considering that evidence, are the children in need of protection under s. 11 of the CFSA; and

(3) If the children are in need of protection, what order should be made under s. 37 of the CFSA? [82] Written briefs were received by the Court from Mrs. McCrea, Ms. Lapointe and the parents. These have been read andconsidered, and attached to the Court file. [83] Mrs. McCrea’s written argument, on behalf of the Ministry, set out the evidence which in her view supported a finding that allof these children were in need of protection, and that a long term order under s. 37(3) of the CFSA be made regarding the child P.S.-G.

Iaccept her submissions on these two points. [84] Remarkably, and despite the position taken by the Ministry (outlined above) at the hearing by Ministry employee MackenzieGuliak, and indeed the position taken by the Ministry throughout this entire application - that a six-month temporary order on conditionswas the appropriate order for the four youngest children - Mrs. McCrea argued in her written brief that a permanent order is nowappropriate.

She said this change resulted from what she viewed, in effect, as the obstructive, resistant and recalcitrant position taken bythe parents in their testimony, regarding whether they would follow orders of the Court and directions about required programming fromthe Ministry. [85] While I accept that a Court is not bound by the position taken by the Ministry (as set out by McIntyre J, in Saskatchewan(MSS) v S. (E.K.) (1996), (SK KB), 146 Sask R 46 (QB) (S. [E.K.]) at para 44), I do not think such a position is fairto the parents in this case, as they have been put in a position of not knowing what the Ministry’s ultimate position is.

In effect, theMinistry’s argument is that I reject the recommendation given in evidence by the Ministry employee with carriage of this file, and theposition taken throughout this application by the Ministry. I will not do this, but for the reasons set out below, I am satisfied that theposition taken by the Ministry in evidence – a six month temporary order on appropriate conditions – is the proper order to be madeunder s. 37(1)(

c) of the CFSA. Even considering the position taken by the parents, I view a permanent order under s. 37(2) aspremature. Hopefully, the parents will reconsider their position, and follow the directions in the Court order I will make today. [86] In Ms. Lapointe’s written argument, on behalf of the child P.S.-G. she summarizes her position that the evidence supports afinding that P.S.-G. is in need of protection, and that that a long term order under s. 37(3) of the CFSA is appropriate. I accept hersubmissions on this. She, as well, supports the Ministry’s position testified to at the hearing, that there be a six month temporary orderunder s. 37(1)(

c) of the CFSA, which she submits should, as well, include a condition that the three older children have contact and visitswith the four younger children, as arranged by the Ministry and for so long as the visits remain in the best interests of the children. Given the evidence of Ms. Gellert regarding her contact with the three older children, I find such a condition to be appropriate.

[ 87 ] The parents R.S. and P.L. delivered their written argument in person to the Court. The position they take throughout the argument is that they have been discriminated against and mistreated by the Ministry throughout their dealing with the Ministry. They argue that the younger four children should be returned to them, without further involvement by the Ministry.

Apparently referring to their treatment by the Ministry, and in particular to the disclosure of a sexual assault by the child E.S.-G. on March 22, 2019, they say they feel that they are being “discriminated, harassed, and mentally, physically, emotionally and spiritually abused, all over a he said, she said ”.

Towards the end of the argument, the parents say: “There needs to be some retribution for all the unnecessary harm done to our family”. [ 88 ] Despite my direction that the argument was to summarize, and refer to, the evidence that was heard and received in Court at the hearing in Yorkton on December 17 and 18, 2019, much of the parents’ written argument was comprised of a stating of new evidence, and in some cases a restating of evidence from their testimony at the trial.

Attached to their argument was further documentation, and a flash drive in an unmarked envelope, which I understand the parents told the Court clerk (when they attended at the court to drop off their argument) had “videos from court on it”. [ 89 ] The documents attached to the parents’ written argument were: (1) a reference letter from R.S. dated December 27, 2019 but apparently referring to her discussions with Ms.

Prybylski on March 14, 2019; (2) an unsigned letter from Soul Harmony Counselling in Prince George, B.C., dated July 8, 2013 in which the writer of the letter responds to recommendations of the Ministry; (3) a letter dated July 19, 2019 from Megan Peters, Early Years Facilitator at the Kamsack Family Resource Centre, where she sets out a variety of parenting program topics the parents have completed at the Resource Centre since May 12, 2019; (4) an Emergency Protection Order Intake Sheet from Alberta, dated September 24, 2009 when I gather R.S. was residing with C.G.; and (5) a letter dated January 10, 2012 from C.G. to the Canadian Revenue Agency.

The flash drive contains numerous and apparently undated pictures, and audio and video clips, which are not explained in the parents’ written argument - except for one comment that “we have pics” regarding a lump on E.S.G.’s ear while she was apprehended by the Ministry in September 2017 - but which would appear to be comprised of pictures and discussions involving the parents and their children, and involving the parents and authorities under the CFSA , either from the Ministry or the RCMP. [ 90 ] All of this subsequent evidence, which the parents have attempted to put before me after they were asked at the conclusion of the evidence portion of the hearing whether there was any further evidence they wished to put forward, has been attached to the parents’ written argument, and has been made a part of the Court file.

I have done so for these unrepresented parents, even though I do not think, as a general rule, that it is proper to receive further evidence from any of the parties to the hearing at this late juncture of argument.

Nor am I satisfied that any of this evidence, even if it had been properly introduced and explained, would have changed my conclusion about the validity of the concerns held by the Ministry, which in my view are substantial, and supported by the evidence received under oath at the hearing. [ 91 ] The standard for determining whether children are in need of protection was affirmed by McIntrye J. in S. (E.K.) , at para 41 ; that the issue is “whether the children concerned are receiving a level of parenting care that is below the minimal standard that will be tolerated in our society”.

Given the totality of the evidence presented at the hearing in this case, and for the reasons that follow, I am so satisfied. [ 92 ] Summarizing the evidence from the hearing, the concerns of the Ministry, if the children are returned to the parents R.S. and P.L. on a supervision order - which were substantially outlined by employee Mackenzie Guliak - are: 1. That there would be a lack of follow through by the parents, despite any promises they might make, as they have in the past not followed through with making changes in the areas of concern; 2.

That the parents would neglect and would not provide proper medical care for these children; 3. Whether or not there was some short term change in the conditions of the home, that these changes would not be long term and that the children would again be in need of protection because of those conditions; 4. That the likelihood of domestic violence in the home, given the history disclosed in the records of the Ministry with this family; and 5.

That these parents would leave the jurisdiction, so as not to be subject to the control of the Ministry. [ 93 ] These concerns were similar to those voiced by the older children P.S.-G, E.S.-G. and C.G. Jr., when they spoke to Ms. Gellert. Amongst other concerns, the older children worried that: (1) the parents will cut off contact between the older children and the younger children – in their view doing away with the important monitoring and assistance function they provide regarding the care of

those children; (2) the parents, as they have done in the past, will make only short term improvements in the living conditions for the younger children, but will not sustain these; and (3) the parents will flee the jurisdiction with the younger children to subvert or avoid the orders of this court. [ 94 ] Remarkably, at the hearing neither parent seemed aware of the reasons their children were apprehended, or even what concerns the Ministry employees now hold about the safety of their children if they are returned.

That is even more notable, considering they were provided with full disclosure of the Ministry’s case, and, as well, that they sat through the evidence presented by the Ministry, both of which I am satisfied provided a full statement of these reasons and concerns. [ 95 ] The parents, together with the witnesses they presented at the hearing, appear to be of the view that the Ministry set out to destroy their family, through the series of intervention they have had with the Ministry in Saskatchewan since 2011, and with the Minister of Social Services in Alberta before that.

To be clear, that involvement with the Ministry in Saskatchewan over eight years has included: five Parental Service Agreements (Exhibits P-6. P-7. P-10. P-11 and P-12), a six month supervision order under s. 37(1)(

a) of the CFSA (Exhibit P-8), four Safety Plans (Exhibits P-9, P-13, P-14 and P-15) and a Family Service Agreement (Exhibit P-16).

In my view, the position taken by the parents shows a complete lack of understanding and appreciation about the role and responsibility assigned to the Ministry by the legislature of Saskatchewan under The Child and Family Services Act ; to ensure that children are not in need of protection, and, if so, to take appropriate actions under the CFSA and to seek appropriate orders from the Court. [ 96 ] The evidence at the hearing satisfies me that, if the younger children were to be returned to the parents, they would likely leave the jurisdiction, to avoid both the conditions imposed by the Court and supervision by the Ministry.

In particular, I do not accept the parents’ version of the incident with the police on March 23, 2019, in effect that they were only going on a vacation and going to bury the ashes of an unborn child. I accept that, upon a request for assistance from the Ministry, the RCMP pursued the parents, and made repeated attempts to stop them. I further accept that the parents were running from the police, whom they knew were about to apprehend their children, which is what Ms.

Nemetchek’s understanding appears to have been, based on her discussion with the parents. [ 97 ] The history set out at this hearing by the Ministry shows that the parents have not followed through with reasonable requests of the Ministry staff, nor are they prepared to take whatever programming the Court orders as directed by the Ministry.

Rather, I am satisfied that, with a very few exceptions, they will only participate in programming if they agree with it and if they can chose who provides it. [ 98 ] The concerns voiced by the Ministry about the living conditions and other care provided by these parents to these children are in my view substantial and credible. After hearing from the parents at the hearing, I am not satisfied that long term changes will be made by them without significant intervention by the Ministry.

Taken together, the many parenting concerns raised at this hearing make a parenting capacity assessment for these parents appropriate, to determine what further interventions are required under the CFSA before the children are returned.

In my view, credible evidence which included: (1) a house without central or sufficient heat and electricity being provided only from automobile batteries; (2) the home schooling of an eight year old who could not spell his own name; (3) the parents fleeing from the police and Ministry staff who are trying to apprehend their children; (4) discipline by “muzzling”; and (5) advising their daughter not to report a sexual assault to the police, make such an assessment proper, if not a necessity. [ 99 ] Like any application under the CFSA , this is not a simplistic case, nor is it anything other than a difficult and challenging process for all the parties.

I do not doubt that these parents care for and miss their children. Nor do I doubt: (1) that there has been positive contact between the parents and their children; or (2) that the parents have recently made some improvements in the living conditions in their Kamsack home, have found a doctor in Kamsack, and have sought some counselling services on their own.

While I appreciate that the purpose of the CFSA , in s. 3, is the offering of services designed to maintain, support and preserve the family in the least disruptive manner, nevertheless, I am not satisfied by the evidence of the parents that they have taken sufficient steps to satisfy the legitimate concerns raised by the Ministry.

Nor am I satisfied, given the poor attitude of the parents towards accepting direction from the Ministry, as evidenced at the hearing, that the children could be safely returned to the parents today. [ 100 ] Taken together, I am satisfied, from the substantial evidence presented by the Ministry at this hearing (outlined above) and applying the standard set out by McIntyre J in S.(E.K.) , that all the children are in need of protection under s. 11(

b) of the CFSA. Further, I am satisfied that a long term order is appropriate for the child P.S.-G., and, given what I view to be the credible concerns of the Ministry if the younger children are returned to the parents on a supervision order (which are similar to the concerns being voiced by the older children), that the appropriate order regarding the four younger children is that stated by the Ministry at the hearing – a six month temporary order under s. 37(1)(

c) on appropriate conditions, albeit (as I have explained above) it is not the order which the Ministry’s lawyer argued for in her written argument.

[ 101 ] The conditions on the six month temporary order will substantially be those outlined by Ms. Guliak in her testimony, reflecting a number of conditions suggested in Ms. Prybylski’s affidavit. I am not including a condition regarding medical treatment of the children, given that the children will be in care on a temporary order. There will be additional conditions providing for reasonable supervised access to the children by the parents and contact between the three older children and the four younger children who are subject to this application.

I am satisfied that all the conditions I will impose under s. 37(5) of the CFSA are appropriate, given the totality of the evidence at this hearing. [ 102 ] It is unfortunate that this application and hearing has taken this long to complete. That said, in my view the major delay, after finding dates that were available for the lawyers, was that this hearing was adjourned from when it was set in July because the parents had agreed to a parenting assessment, which they then reneged on after the assessor hired by the Ministry travelled from Vancouver to Saskatchewan.

Taken together with the decision of the parents to discharge a lawyer, who is in my view highly qualified and an excellent advocate, it is clear to me that the parents bear a significant responsibility in how long, and the manner in which, this case has progressed to conclusion. VII CONCLUSION [ 103 ] Given my finding that all the children apprehended are in need of protection under s. 11(

b) of the CFSA , I order that: 1. The child P.S.-G. is placed in the custody of the Minister until the child is 18 years of age, under s. 37(3) of the CFSA , subject to the condition that R.S., P.L. and C.G. shall have access to the child P. S.-G., to be arranged in consultation with the Ministry, for as long as such access remains in the best interests of the child; and 2. The children T.S.-L., S.S-L., J.S. and I.S.-L. will remain in the custody of the Minister for six months, under s. 37(1)(

c) of the CFSA , subject to the conditions that: a. R.S. and P.L. shall attend parenting classes as directed by their family services worker, and shall consent to the release of information regarding the same to the Ministry; b. P.L. shall attend for anger management counselling as directed by his family services worker and shall consent to the release of information from the counsellor regarding the same to the Ministry; c.

R.S. and P.L. shall attend for domestic violence counselling as directed by their family services worker, and shall consent to the release of information from the counsellor regarding the same to the Ministry; d. R.S. and P.L. shall attend for a mental health assessment as directed by their family services worker and shall consent to the release of information from the counsellor regarding the same to the Ministry; e.

R.S. and P.L. shall ensure that their residence is a safe and suitable environment for the children, including but not limited to, ensuring there are utilities connected to the home and the parents shall allow the family services worker into their home(

s) for the purpose of inspection; f. R.S. and P.L. shall ensure to work co-operatively with their family services worker by remaining in contact with their worker and attending scheduled meetings; g. R.S. and P.L. shall utilize the services of a Family Support worker or Family Preservation worker as directed by their family services worker, and shall consent to the release of information regarding the same to the Ministry; h.

R.S. and P.L. shall attend for an assessment with respect to their ability to parent as directed by their family services worker and shall consent to the release of information from the assessor regarding the same to the Ministry; i. R.S. and P.L. shall have reasonable access to the children, as arranged by the Ministry, in a manner regarding supervision deemed appropriate by the Ministry; and j. The children shall have contact with and shall be allowed to visit with their older siblings P.S.-G., E.S.-G. and C.G.

Jr., as arranged by the Ministry. [ 104 ] In my view - given the position being taken by the parents, where they appear to be opposed to a parenting assessment and to following other Court-ordered conditions to take programming as directed by the Ministry, if they disagree with that order or direction - this will be a final opportunity for the parents to avoid a more intrusive order under the CFSA . If they are prepared to rethink their position, and to participate actively and co-operatively with the parenting

assessment and other programming, this would be a positive step by them that would hopefully lead to a safe return of their children. If they maintain their position, as communicated at the hearing, a different and longer term order may be unavoidable. ___________________________ Green, J