Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.U., 2011 ONCJ 634

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file: This is a case under

Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to one or more of subsections 48(7), 45(8) and 45(9) of the Act. These subsections and subsection 85(3) of the Child and Family Services Act , which deals with the consequences of failure to comply, read as follows: 45.—

(7) Order excluding media representatives or prohibiting publication. — The court may make an order, . . . (

c) prohibiting the publication of a report of the hearing or a specified part of the hearing, where the court is of the opinion that . . . publication of the report, . . ., would cause emotional harm to a child who is a witness at or a participant in the hearing or is the subject of the proceeding.

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

(9) Idem: order re adult. — The court may make an order prohibiting the publication of information that has the effect of identifying a person charged with an offence under this Part. . . . 85.—

(3) Idem. — A person who contravenes subsection 45(8) or 76(11) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(

c) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both. Toronto Registry No. C 45139/08 DATE: 08·IV·2011 CITATION: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.U. , 2011 ONCJ 634 IN THE ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF the Child and Family Services Act , R.S.O. 1990, c.C.11 as amended AND IN THE MATTER of the child: S.M.S., born […], 2002 BETWEEN: CATHOLIC CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO APPLICANT

- and - A.U. and M.S. RESPONDENTS Before Justice Marvin A. Zuker Heard on November 15, 17, 18, 19, 25, 26, 2010; December 21, 2010; January 5, 6, 7, 14, 21, 26, 31, 2011; and February 1, 2, 3, 4, 11, 15, 2011. Reasons for Judgment released on April 8, 2011 Fatima Husain ............................................................................... for the applicant society Corinne A. Muccilli .................................................................. for the respondent mother M.S. ....................................................................... the respondent father on his own behalf Lynda S.

Ross .......................................................... for the Office of the Children ’ s Lawyer ZUKER, J.: [ 1 ] Exhibit #1 is a Statement of Agreed Facts filed November 15, 2010. [ 2 ] This is a protection application. It’s an amended Amended Protection Application and filed in the trial record at Tab one. The amended Amended Protection Application is dated August 31, 2010. That corrected a minor defect in the previous amended application. The Society seeks Crown wardship, no access for the purpose of adoption. That is the Society’s position. The finding and disposition are both at issue.

Mother wishes the return of her daughter. Father supports her. [ 3 ] S. was apprehended on June 27, 2008 in the Region of Peel. Her file was transferred to the CCAS. S. was born […], 2002. She was six years of age when she was apprehended. She turned nine on […], 2011. [ 4 ] She has been in the continuous care of the Society for almost three years, since the date of her apprehension. The Society's involvement started as a result of a complaint by the father, M.S., who advised of concerns regarding his daughter, S. [ 5 ] His concerns were that S. was being neglected by her mother. He was concerned about Mr.

RR who, he had stated, was residing in the mother’s home and who had a criminal record. He was concerned that S. was being improperly supervised, about her living conditions and her mother’s, Ms. U.'s, use of drugs, particularly marijuana. [ 6 ] The Society investigated these concerns. Ms. U. admitted to use of marijuana. She admitted she was the surety and resided with Mr. RR. Mr. RR had a history of mental health issues, substance abuse and a criminal record that included violent crimes. He was on probation. He had been on probation for bank robbery. He had violated conditions of his release.

He was on bail for breach of probation and assault. Ms. U. was the surety for Mr. RR in terms of those charges. [ 7 ] The Society first became involved in May 2008. The Society remained involved until the apprehension of June 27, 2008, at which time the Society made this decision to apprehend S. The Society workers located S. at the home of her aunt, M.O[1], after Mr. S. advised that S. was staying there. The Society workers went out to try to seize S. after finding out that Mr. RR had stopped by the home where S. and her mother were staying.

When the Society workers went to the O. home on June the 27th, S. made statements about her living conditions and about her contact with Mr. RR, and the Society then apprehended. [ 8 ] The family services supervisor also testified in part as to the decisions that were made by the Society. In addition she testified as to some of her direct involvement with Ms. U. The children services worker and the children services supervisor testified about the services that were provided to S., meetings with her and also about some of the statements S. made to them. Ms.

MacNally, the adoption worker, testified at length about her plan for S., should S. be free for adoption. She also testified about the meetings she had with S. [ 9 ] As time went on, access opened up a little bit. Ms. U. was at Saturday access, two hours supervised there as well as one hour after school for S. at the office, supervised. It then became semi-supervised in the office by about November, December. Then Saturday access became semi-supervised as well. [ 10 ] In 2009 it became a little longer, check-in, check-out. The Society was trying to assess how Ms. U. was responding to the

child and her needs, and how they could see some of her parenting. [ 11 ] When the child was placed with her aunt and uncle, the father would pick her up on a Friday night and maybe take her out for supper, and then had another visit with her after work on a Saturday evening or else on the Sunday for a few hours. And that was pick-up at his sister’s home and then return her there. [ 12 ] The O.s presented a plan for S. They were approved as an in-care placement.

By late July 2008, S. was placed with them on an extended access visit and by August 2008, S. was placed in the society’s care but essentially in the care of the O.s. She did very well in that placement and she remained there for approximately a year. She left that placement in late summer 2009. [ 13 ] The Society initially sought an order of Society wardship with respect to S. but by November of 2008 had amended its application to seek an order of Crown wardship with access and the intent to maintain S. long term in the O. home. [ 14 ] The placement with the O.s broke down in August of 2009.

The Society was hopeful, that if Ms. U. was able to address the protection concerns a reunification would have been possible. S. was placed in a foster placement in September 2009. [ 15 ] Shortly after that placement in November of 2009, the Society again amended its application to seek an order of Crown wardship no order as to access for the purpose of adoption planning. [ 16 ] Statutory findings were made on the first day of the trial and those are the findings as set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts.

The Society submits that there is ample evidence that at the time of commencement of these proceedings S. was in need of protection and the applicant Society seeks findings under subsections 37(2)(b),(

f) and (

g) of the Child and Family Services Act . [ 17 ] The Society is seeking that S., after being found to be a child in need of protection, that she be made a ward of the Crown, and that an order as to access be made for the purpose of adoption. The Society's position is that there is no less disruptive alternative available to the court under the circumstances of this case than an order of Crown wardship. [ 18 ] The only plan is the mother’s plan to have S. returned to her care and custody with or without an order of supervision. [ 19 ] The father is supporting the mother’s plan and is seeking access to S.

The Society’s position is that it is not appropriate. There should be a no access order or no order as to access so that she may be free for adoption. [ 20 ] The Society submits that, should S. be found to be in need of protection, there are only three options available to the court: an order that she be made a ward of the Crown, an order that S. be returned to the care of her mother with or without an order of supervision or a custody order under s.57.1. [ 21 ] The options are set out under s.57 of the Child and Family Services Act .

Section 56 of the Act requires that the court consider, obtain and consider a plan for the child's care prepared by the Society. That plan has been filed in the trial record.

The Society submits that s.50 of the CFSA provides that despite anything in the Evidence Act, the court may consider past conduct or any oral, written statement or report that the court considers relevant to the proceeding. [ 22 ] Section 57(2) requires that the court inquire what efforts have been made to assist the person before intervention, or assist the child before intervention and s. 57(3) provides that the court shall not make an order removing the child from the care of the person who had charge of him, in this case Ms.

U., unless the court is satisfied that alternatives that are less disruptive to the child would be inadequate to protect the child. [ 23 ] The child’s name is S., born […], 2002. [ 24 ] The statement of agreed facts sets out the circumstances in which S. came into the Society’s care. [ 25 ] The Society was also concerned about neglect issues by her mother. S. had missed significant amounts of school. Her appearance when she did come to school was dirty and disheveled. [ 26 ] The mother continued to reside with Mr.

RR. [ 27 ] S. remained in foster care, in the home of the paternal aunt, from the end of July 2008 until August of 2009, as set out in the statement of agreed facts. [ 28 ] Prior to S. coming into care she made a number of concerning statements to the Society worker, as set out in paragraph 13 of the statement of agreed facts. The parties agreed, with respect to the child hearsay issue as contained within the affidavits tendered by various witnesses, that the statements are admissible on a threshold admissibility basis.

There is no argument as to the necessity argument. [ 29 ] The Society submits that, in terms of the reliability and weight to be accorded S.'s statements, they have for the most part been corroborated by the parents’ evidence. They were made to professionals and they were documented under a duty to accurately record the statements. S.'s statements are consistent. [ 30 ] The Society submits that, as far as the evidence of S.'s statements goes, they should be accorded a high amount of weight as they are credible and the Society submits, reliable.

In terms of the witnesses of the Society and the evidence of the Society, there were two family services workers that dealt with this case. Each of them gave evidence as to the efforts they made and the referrals they made for Ms. U. in terms of assisting with a possible reunification plan. [ 31 ] Paragraph 13 of the Agreed Statement of Facts contains some of the statements S. made at the time she was brought into care, issues with the mother’s income and hydro at her home. She stated that she hadn’t seen her father for some time.

[ 32 ] S. stated that she did not like Mr. RR. He was taking pills from a white container. The Society later discovered that Mr. RR was on medication for his mental health issues and there was a fairly serious medication regime. [ 33 ] S. stated that her parents fought whenever they interacted and that her mother sent her to her room or spanked her when she misbehaved. [ 34 ] The Society submits that she demonstrated upon coming to care several behavioural concerns including incontinence and some oppositional behaviour. [ 35 ] S. struggled at school.

A psycho-educational assessment was conducted in December of 2008 and prior to that a psychological assessment focusing on emotional issues was also conducted, just after she came into care. [ 36 ] The first assessment, conducted by Dr. Vallance, focused on emotional functioning. The psycho-educational assessment was conducted by Dr. Vincent Murphy. Dr. Murphy’s assessment is included in the

summary judgment motion record at Tab 21, and that assessment was admitted on consent of the parties. [ 37 ] Dr. Murphy’s assessment found that S. is a bright child who struggled in some academic areas but had caught up in others. She was diagnosed at that time with ADHD. There were recommendations made with respect to assisting her at school. [ 38 ] During this period of time S. was in care, the mother continued to plan for S. The Society learned that the mother had mental health issues. She was diagnosed with depression and was prescribed medication.

The Society had concerns about her management of her mental health condition and her compliance with medication. [ 39 ] The Society was also concerned about the mother’s use of marijuana. The mother has admitted to the use of marijuana and has undergone several hair strand and urine screens, all of which were positive for marijuana. As recently as August 2010, the mother admitted that she was using marijuana weekly. [ 40 ] She advised the Society in early September of 2010 that she had ceased using marijuana.

The Society was concerned about her use of marijuana, particularly as it affected her mental health condition. [ 41 ] The Society had been concerned about the mother’s ability to follow through with various programs and recommendations made to her. [ 42 ] Some of these programs are found in the statement of agreed facts. Paragraph 63 in particular outlines some of the programs that she was involved in. She took a parenting program in November of 2008. She completed a program of anger management and assertiveness in January of 2009. She was involved with the Jean Tweed Centre where she took a parenting program.

She was referred to an attachment program. She is involved in addictions counselling through the Jean Tweed Centre. [ 43 ] She is involved with the Rexdale Women’s Centre which offers her individual counselling to deal with her personal issues.

She is involved with the Etobicoke Children’s Centre where she completed an intensive child and family therapy program with S. [ 44 ] The Society submits that, until about July of 2010, her attendance and participation in services, and cooperation and compliance with those services was sporadic and not consistent. [ 45 ] In April 2010 she completed an Interface assessment through the Thistletown Regional Services. That assessment made several recommendations.

The recommendations were somewhat positive, indicating that the assessors felt that the mother was able to understand the information presented and implement it with supports. However, she also required a great deal of support. [ 46 ] As a result of that assessment a service plan was put in place which resulted in several of the services that the mother has been involved with since April of 2010. [ 47 ] S. did well in the placement with her aunt, but she felt the loss of that placement.

She was bonded to her paternal aunt and her aunt’s family. [ 48 ] The placement broke down as a result of marital issues between her paternal aunt and uncle and because of S.’s behaviour issues. [ 49 ] S. has some indications of oppositional defiant disorder. She is a very anxious, demanding child. The aunt reported a number of concerns in ability to manage her behaviour. The school reported concerns.

She is not currently on any medication. [ 50 ] Following the placement breakdown there was some weekend access that also, from the evidence the Society submits, broke down as a result of that conflict in terms of S.'s presence in the home. This was in December 2010. The Society workers spoke to both M.O[1] and M.O[2], and based on their information, and information from an anonymous letter received by the Society, the Society decided that the weekend access to them could not continue. [ 51 ] S. has separate, unsupervised access with both her parents. [ 52 ] Initially father’s access was twice weekly.

It is now weekly on Sundays where the father takes S. out essentially for the day. Given his criminal history, specifically charges in 2001 regarding assault against a minor child, the Society has not permitted him to take S. to his home. Access must occur only in the community. [ 53 ] The mother has access on Wednesday. That access is also unsupervised. There are no restrictions on her access. The mother also has access on Saturdays.

[ 54 ] S. has reported, upon returning from access, that on one or two occasions in July and August of 2010 her mother screamed at her after screaming at a baby. [ 55 ] The Society has concerns, given S.’s reports and the Society’s own observations and interactions with her mother, as to the mother’s ability to manage her anger. [ 56 ] The Society feels that in an adoptive home S. would do very well, and that an adoptive home affords her the best chance of permanency. [ 57 ] S. has indicated that, until very recently (the fall of 2010), that she would like to live with her paternal aunt.

That is not an option. [ 58 ] S. has indicated consistently a wish to see the O.s as much as possible. The persons and home she calls the most is the O. home in terms of telephone access. When asked what adoptive family she would prefer by the adoption worker, S. spoke of wanting an Italian family with two parents, possibly a younger child and extended family, essentially a re-creation of the family life she enjoyed when placed with the O.s. [ 59 ] Until late summer of 2010, S.’s wish was not to return to her mother.

Her wish now is to go home. [ 60 ] S.'s wishes changed from the summer of 2010 until the beginning of the trial. S. has changed her position. There was evidence that S. spoke of the promise to her children services worker as well as to Ms. D., her foster parent, that she was promised a laptop and that her mother would no longer scream at her if S. were to agree to return to her care. This is denied. [ 61 ] The Society’s evidence in terms of the adoptive plan is that the Society would endeavour to look for a home that would permit some contact between S. and her relatives.

The relatives she wants to see are her aunt and uncle and others as indicated. [ 62 ] Her second choice was to live with her father. The third option was to stay in her group home placement. And her last option was to live with her mother. She has been demonstrating a great deal of anxiety about her placement situation. [ 63 ] It has always been the mother’s position that S. be returned to her. [ 64 ] Mother submits that she has done a considerable amount of work to address the Society concerns.

Mother’s counsel submits that the work is sufficient to permit S. to be returned home to her mother. [ 65 ] One of the significant concerns that the Society had raised as a basis of the apprehension was mother’s relationship with RR. That is addressed in the agreed statement of facts. That relationship no longer exists. It has been terminated for a considerable length of time. [ 66 ] Mother submits that she ceased living with Mr. RR in approximately May of 2008. Her relationship with him terminated shortly thereafter. [ 67 ] Mother has been cooperative with the Society.

She has been working with the Society. [ 68 ] Counsel for mother submits that Ms. U.’s cannabis use has been admitted. [ 69 ] There has been a struggle in terms of dealing with the cannabis use but Ms. A.U. is dealing with it. She has addressed it. She has gone to drug counselling. She’s moved from reducing use to abstinence entirely. [ 70 ] She is supported through Ontario Works. Her rent is paid. [ 71 ] Mother’s counsel submits that, in terms of mental health concerns, Ms. U. has taken steps to address that as well. [ 72 ] She is taking Remeron. She has been taking it since shortly after the assessment in 2009.

Since she saw Dr. Dwyer in March 2009. [ 73 ] There was a short span in August 2010 where she didn’t have her prescription, but had it filled and she went back on the medication. [ 74 ] She has secured stable housing. She has lived in the same two-bedroom apartment since September 1, 2008. There is a school about a 10-minute walk from her apartment. The second bedroom has been prepared and is ready for S. whenever she returns home. [ 75 ] Mother was not in the best financial situation when the apprehension occurred but she has been working to address that.

She participated in several programs and one in particular called Completing the Circle, to assist her in finding work. She had employment for a time although she was ultimately laid off. She decided in April of 2010 not to return to work so that she could focus her energies in addressing the concerns that the Society had raised, attending the programs which the Society had been recommending and focusing her energies on S.’s return home.

That is addressed in the agreed statement of facts, the history of her work efforts is summarized. [ 76 ] S. has had continued and consistent access with her mother throughout the Society’s involvement. [ 77 ] The fact that the father has altered his position speaks to mother’s ability to address the issues and ensure a safe and stable environment for S. [ 78 ] S. is now nine years old. That may not be conducive to a quick adoption and thus the possibility exists that S. will again

be left in limbo while that is being sorted out. [ 79 ] Mother’s counsel submits that the best alternative would be for S. to return to her mother’s care. There are numerous programs and supports available to Ms. A.U. She’s gone through this process and has learned. She can take this information that she’s learned, particularly about S.’s overall needs and her educational issues, and apply them.

That would be the best situation and in the best interests of S. [ 80 ] If the court is not prepared to return S. to her mother, then access should be permitted, and if the court were to make S. a Crown ward, the facts would support continued access. [ 81 ] S. has had consistent and frequent access with both her parents and with her extended family. [ 82 ] Ms. Lynda Ross was appointed child’s counsel pursuant to an order of Justice Brownstone in March 2009. [ 83 ] Ms. D., S.'s current foster parent, testified about S.'s current behaviours and current functioning in her home.

She testified about access visits and S.'s behaviour after access visits. [ 84 ] Dr. Anita Vohra testified on November 16, 2010, that she saw Ms. U. in March of 2009. She was depressed. She had one interaction with Ms. U. It was for a consultation from Jean Tweed. The referral came through a therapist named Gosha Wisniowska. Gosha worked for Toronto Western Hospital. It was collaborative, Dr. Vohra was at CAMH and she was at Toronto Western. [ 85 ] Dr. Paul Matthews, who was called by mother, was Ms. U.’s family doctor. [ 86 ] Dr. Vohra talked about Ms. U.’s depression, which was moderate to severe.

When you cannot take care of yourself, it becomes much more severe. Her affect was congruent with her mood, meaning she probably looked sad, and she reports she’s sad, so mood is sad. [ 87 ] She discussed with her the facts of marijuana use. She indicated that she was well aware of the effects that marijuana had. They talked about its effect on sleep, on mood, but she continued to use marijuana. [ 88 ] Ms. U. reported that her marijuana use had been heavy, 7.5 grams a day.

Before, she was using 3.5 grams every two days. [ 89 ] Mother reported to the doctor that she was anti-hedonic, that she gets no pleasure from anything. There’s no enjoyment, no pleasure. [ 90 ] If you look at depression related to marijuana use, DSM will tell you that it’s probably more of a milder depression. There was an underlying mood disorder here that was independent of the marijuana effect. Dr. Vohra recommended Remeron. [ 91 ] Remeron or Mertazapine is a medication that works on the epinephrine system in the brain. Two of its common side effects are weight gain and sedation.

It is also a very effective antidepressant. She prescribed the medication to start at a dose of 15 milligrams titrate up to 45 milligrams at bedtime as needed. [ 92 ] The recommendation gets sent to the family doctor and the responsibility of the family doctor is to see the patient on a regular basis, have more contact with them then [than?] just a 45-minute meeting that they have with her, and they are better able to know how the patient is doing, how much the medication needs to be increased. [ 93 ] During cross-examination of Dr. Vohra by Ms. Muccilli, she was asked and stated: [ 94 ] Q.

You’ve stated, “Things have recently come to a head when her daughter was apprehended by CAS.” What were you, how would you say the apprehension had affected Ms. U.? [ 95 ] A. I, you know, it was really clear, when I read through my note, that this lady loves her child, was devastated by the loss of her child, and wanted to do, you know, when I spoke to her in, in this consult session, that she wanted to do whatever she needed to do to get her daughter back, that it was important for her… [ 96 ] Q. Did she ever identify abstinence as a, as a goal, or.... [ 97 ] A.

She, my understanding, from what she had told me, was that that was her goal, abstinence. She said not, she wasn’t using, there were times when she wasn’t using at all. [ 98 ] Diana Dickie from Jean Tweed testified about her concerns and the reasons she suggested a referral be made to the Thistletown Interface program. The Thistletown assessment did occur in April 2010. And Ms. Catherine Borland-Kerr, one of the assessors of that assessment, testified as to the concerns coming out of that assessment and the many recommendations made by the assessors in terms of a possible reunification plan. [ 99 ] Ms.

Long testified, the child's play therapist at Etobicoke Children's Centre. The child's former school teacher testified, Ms. Tenuta, and Dr. Vallance testified all with respect to how S. was doing at various points in time. [ 100 ] Ms. Wisniowska, the current family services worker, her supervisor, Patti Rose-Vellucci, the family services supervisor throughout, Ms. Sam DaSilva, the children’s services worker throughout, and Cindy MacNally, the adoption worker, all gave evidence. [ 101 ] Ms. Tenuta was the teacher at the time of the apprehension.

[ 102 ] The assessment of Dr. Murphy was filed on consent. Dr. Vallance, as indicated, testified. [ 103 ] The two assessors from Thistletown, Ms. Catherine Borland-Kerr as well as Tara Noble, gave evidence. [ 104 ] Marietta Nuyens was called by mother. She works for the Etobicoke Children’s Centre as a Child and Family Therapist. [ 105 ] The program she is working on at Etobicoke Children’s Centre is the Intensive Child and Family Service. The Intensive Child and Family Service is different from another service in that the intensive

part is that they meet with the family either once or twice a week. It’s a time-limited service, for 10 or 12 weeks. It often involves home visits, so to the family’s home. They ask for a commitment from the family to really engage in the service. [ 106 ] A lot of counselling is done once, every two weeks, so a therapist will see a family every two weeks. This, the minimum is once a week, often it’s twice a week. So, that’s the more intensive part. [ 107 ] From her agency, it was Nancy Long who was working with the family, her supervisor and herself.

The Society suggested a more intensive service would benefit the family. They explained what the service was and Ms. U. was agreeable to start the service, so they did. [ 108 ] That particular meeting with Children’s Aid was July 16, 2010. [ 109 ] They set a first appointment, the first home visit, was on July 28, 2010. The meetings were on Wednesdays because S. was having her access visits on Wednesdays. [ 110 ] The goal for Ms.

U. was to communicate with her daughter using less swearing and less yelling; so, reducing yelling and reducing swearing, reducing door slamming, but that was dropped at one point because it wasn’t an issue anymore, so that wasn’t mentioned after that. [ 111 ] The whole focus of the Intensive Child and Family Service was to enhance the mother-daughter relationship. [ 112 ] S.’s goal was to for her to articulate how she was feeling. In the relationship, Ms.

U. often had to guess how S. was feeling and they felt their relationship would have been stronger, if instead of guessing how S. was feeling, if S. could express herself. So, her goal was to express how she was feeling, to her mother. [ 113 ] According to Ms. Nuyens, Ms. U. was always very cooperative and collaborative, and very open to adopting some of these new strategies. She seemed to immediately understand what it was that they were trying to explain and understand that changing little things could have a dramatic impact on your parenting. [ 114 ] Ms.

Nuyens was asked about mother’s responses to her: [ 115 ] Q. Could you provide the court with examples of the things that she was doing right? [ 116 ] A. Well, one of the examples I gave before is, is, you know, we had done a craft, and S. had wanted to put it here and Ms. U. said, no, no, it would be better if you put it there, because... . And she explained why, you know, the door is open, the air will dry it, you know, she gave her two or three different reasons why. And the child just complied. Just ’cause it wasn’t a battle of wit, you know, wills anymore.

There was a logical reason and the child immediately, within seconds, complied. So, you know, this is just one example. Another great strength of Ms. U. is her reading ability. She is a very strong reader. And we discussed this one day and she said how much she loves to read to her child. So, you know, this is a strength that she has, so we’re building on that strength. There’s, you know, what better thing to enhance a mother-daughter relationship than to, you know, to have the mother and daughter read together.

So, I, kind of, tried to facilitate that and to encourage that, you know, mother-daughter reading together. [ 117 ] Helen Dietz was the family services worker from July 23, 2008 until February 22 or 23, 2010. [ 118 ] She gave evidence that the presenting concerns when she inherited the file on July 23, 2008 from the intake worker were the fact that the child had been exposed to mother’s partner who was someone who had a criminal, a violent criminal background, and mom had ended up being the surety for him.

There were a lot of concerns about him. [ 119 ] There was also the fact that mother was transient and not living in her own home. She was living in the basement of a friend’s house. [ 120 ] S. had missed quite a bit of school, and her mother was not getting her to school. [ 121 ] Ms. U. had substance-abuse problems with her use of marijuana and Mr. RR also had substance abuse issues. Ms. U. had not followed through to go out to Milton where he was in jail and revoke her surety of him. The Society didn't want him in her life if she was to be around her child. [ 122 ] According to Ms. Dietz, Ms.

U. was not compliant with her antidepressant medication. There were times when Ms. U. was saying that she had not been taking her medication regularly. At one point she told her that her prescription had run out and she didn’t have money to get the prescription renewed. She wasn’t following through 100 percent in making sure that she was consistently on the medication. [ 123 ] She stated that in January 2010, she cut back access visits. Ms. U. was having day visits on Saturdays, unsupervised at her home. They got the reports from S. and the foster mom that there had been conflict between Ms.

U. and her brother and Candace, the brother’s partner. [ 124 ] Visits were suspended until the third week of January of 2010 and then the week after that, Ms. D., the foster mother,

agreed to supervise a two-hour visit at the foster home. That continued until Ms. Dietz transferred the file. [ 125 ] The Society’s position was that Ms. U. was aware that the use of marijuana would impact on her mental health issues and her mental health treatment. She had been told by the court since September of 2009 that she should obtain a clean hair-strand analysis screen prior to bringing a motion for the return of her child. She was aware that that was a requirement for having her child returned to her care.

She did not do so. [ 126 ] Justice Brownstone’s endorsement of August 3, 2010, indicates that: “Mother is urged to comply with my December 10, 2009 order to obtain a hair drug screen and psychiatrist’s psychological assessment.” [ 127 ] During the times Ms. U. was having access at her home on a Saturday, there were times when she would take S. for a visit to her cousins or to birthday parties, and at the kinship home, the father’s sister’s home, and with Mr. S. They were often taking her to family birthday parties, family get-togethers, and celebrations like Christmas.

S. was having contact with her cousins on both sides of the family. [ 128 ] In September 2009, mom had started a Strengthening Families course at Jean Tweed which was a parenting course involving the mother and the child. Every Tuesday from 5:00 until 8:00 they arranged to make sure that S., for 16 weeks, was meeting with her mom at Jean Tweed.

She had that period of time with her mom as well as 10:00 in the morning until the afternoon at her mother’s on Saturdays. [ 129 ] At the time of the transfer of the file, in February 2010, the outstanding concerns at that time were that mom was still having difficulty following through with some structure during visits. [ 130 ] Her use of marijuana was ongoing. She wasn’t denying that. She was working with her counselors at Jean Tweed but as far as her medication was concerned, she ran out of money at one point and supposedly wasn’t filling her prescription again. [ 131 ] Dr.

Matthews acknowledged in cross-examination that he never knew Ms. U. was using marijuana until July 22, 2009. He got Dr. Vohra’s report (Tab 17), dated March 30, 2009. Nothing was done between these dates. [ 132 ] Diana Dickie gave evidence relating to her involvement with Ms. U. Her work is quite diverse at the Jean Tweed Centre. She runs the Mom and Kids, Too parenting program, which is a substance use and parenting intensive treatment for women who are either pregnant parenting or are looking to re-establish custody of their children between the ages of zero to six.

She runs the therapeutic piece. [ 133 ] Their mandate for Pathways to Healthy Families is zero to six but she has worked with children over six if they are referred to her from Jean Tweed, the main agency. [ 134 ] One of the counsellors that she works with, Chantal Desgranges, had done some work with the family. They were introduced to her in terms of what support she might be able to provide sometime in January, February of 2009. [ 135 ] The Jean Tweed Centre is for women only and it serves women from the ages of 16 and onward.

They offer intensive day and residential treatment for women struggling with substance and gambling addictions. They have a 21-day residential treatment program and a day treatment program and as well as the Mom and Kids program. Jean Tweed offers family counselling, trauma counselling, justice, addiction and mental health, for women who are having difficulty and are struggling with the legal system or are incarcerated. They run a number of partnerships with CAMH, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and run programs such as Strengthening Families, which is one of the programs that Ms.

U. participated in and that’s in partnership. [ 136 ] The parenting component is through Pathways to Healthy Families, a program of Jean Tweed. [ 137 ] In August 2009, it was determined that Ms. U. could benefit from the attachment series with her daughter and to help sort of rebuild and improve their relationship. Her first session for the attachment work was August 12, 2009. [ 138 ] Ms. U. participated in every session, except for the second one. That was as a result of her being called to the centre as a result of her father, a health issue with her father. [ 139 ] There were times Ms.

U. seemed to be impatient with her daughter and needed some verbal support to change her tone or her expectations, and her daughter needed considerable direction and support to respect another’s physical boundaries. [ 140 ] Throughout the program, mother presented as open to feedback. She seemed to be able to redirect her frustration away from her daughter when sort of, spoken about it or when, sort of, when that was addressed. [ 141 ] Home visits started between 5:30 and 7 p.m.

The visit was planned to provide support to A.U. starting her work at the Etobicoke Children’s Centre. [ 142 ] She observed that A.U. and her daughter getting along well as far as there didn’t seem to be any conflict. She observed mom redirecting S.’s behaviour at one point. [ 143 ] Over the course of five sessions, she was able to see that there’s a lot more eye contact. [ 144 ] Ms. Ross asked Ms. Dickie whether there was anything available at Jean Tweed that might be suitable to someone such as Ms. A.U., who lives in Etobicoke, if S. were back living with her. [ 145 ] According to Ms.

Dickie, they have a family counsellor who does work with young children, not as young as S. They might collaborate with her to some extent. It could be a social worker, family therapist, who may do a bit of art, a variety of things. One of the things about Jean Tweed and the programs and services is that it is very individualized.

[ 146 ] Strengthening Families is available to parents who have their children in their care as well as for people whose child is in the care of the Society, so long as they have contact. [ 147 ] When she starts a patient on medication, she reviews what medication will do for them and what problems they might run into. She then brings them back in. She will start them at the low dose and then I bring them back in the next week, see how they’re doing, see what kind of side effects they are dealing with, etc. [ 148 ] Jolanta Wisniowska, the family service worker (see Tab five of the

summary judgment brief, filed as Exhibit 31), became involved on February 18, 2009. [ 149 ] Her concerns, when she received the file, continued regarding Ms.

U.’s mental health issues, her depression, whether she had been consistent with the medication, as well as her marijuana use and possible effects of marijuana use and the use of anti- depressants and effects on her mental health status, her parenting, her anger management, consistency with follow-through with the service providers with the programs, and recent serious concern regarding anger management - some arguments during her access visit with other people that S. witnessed and has been affected by. [ 150 ] S. had access with her father and this was unsupervised access in the community, Sundays, 12 to 5.

He was picking her up from the foster home, mostly time in the community, coming to visit with his family members, and his partner and her daughter. [ 151 ] When Ms.

Wisniowska received the file, it was the Society’s position, crown wardship, no access, but they were still hopeful, they had the Thistletown assessment going on, and they had restructured the mother’s access. [ 152 ] Until the three-day assessment at Thistletown with the consultation with the Thistletown assessors, the Society changed mother’s access to two hours’ semi-supervised access during the week through the Society office and, on Saturdays, through Saturday access. [ 153 ] After the assessment access was changed to unsupervised access in mom’s home, three hours Wednesdays after school and five hours on Saturdays. [ 154 ] The recommendation after the Thistletown assessment was that Ms.

U. have the access alone with S. to work on rebuilding her relationship, to practice gains that were made during the assessment. This was the expectation and the recommendation. She took S. to see her nephews. She asked to have visit when her stepfather, when S.’s step-grandfather came to Toronto. [ 155 ] There were discussions regarding individual counselling at the Rexdale’s Women’s Centre, how the counsellor helped her deal with the death of her mother. [ 156 ] According to Ms. Wisniowska, Ms. A.U. became more consistent with attending on services.

She became very consistent in attending Jean Tweed programs, phase one, and meeting with her counsellor, Stacy Keenan. They had positive reports from her about her attendance. In September, she reported that she stopped using marijuana. She connected with Rexdale Women’s Centre for individual counselling. She had attended, as far as she knew, as of October 2010, five sessions of individual counseling. [ 157 ] Regarding her mental health issues, Ms. U. reported to her that she was regularly taking anti-depressant and doing well.

Her mood improved and she was considering having her medication reduced. [ 158 ] It was suggested in cross-examination to Ms. Wisniowska that Ms. A.U. had completed the ten-week course at Homestead to address anger management, attended weekly counselling at Jean Tweed, several sessions with her parent support worker through the Society, participated in services with Diana Dickie, attended Strengthening Families. Six programs she participated in. She agreed that is follow-up. [ 159 ] Ms. Ross reinforced the issue with the Family Services Worker that Ms.

A.U. attended at Jean Tweed for the Strengthening Families program from April to December 2009. She attended 14 out of 15 of the Strengthening Family evenings. [ 160 ] A five-week program, on consecutive weeks, was conducted by Diana Dickie with Ms. A.U. and S. They attended the first two sessions and then S. was moved from kin. [ 161 ] She identified anger as an ongoing issue. “What if any other program to address anger management have you referred Ms.

U. to directly during the months of February 2010 to date?” [ 162 ] In conversations with S., S. never complained that while she’s on unsupervised contact with her mom, her mother appears to be drunk or something that in a child’s word would give her concern that the mother was under the influence of anything. [ 163 ] Ms. U. reported use of marijuana at least weekly. She reported that she stopped in September.

If she continues to use drugs and has S. in her care 24/7, this would be a concern. [ 164 ] Mary Tenuta, a teacher at Santa Maria school, Early Learning (kindergarten) Program, gave evidence that S. attended at Santa Maria from October 15 th until June 26 th , for one year, for senior kindergarten. [ 165 ] She was a normal five-year-old, very headstrong. She knew what she wanted, quite strong personality. See

summary judgment brief, tab 26, as to her report card dated June 25, 2008. Academically, she was fine. She was at level. She was meeting the expectation in language, math, science, art and health. At times, her hair was not quite combed or things like that. [ 166 ] Dr. Denise Vallance is a psychological consultant for the Catholic Children's Aid Society, as well as the Durham Children's Aid Society, as well as York Region Children's Aid Society. She met S. on two occasions (see

summary judgment motion brief, at tabs 20 and 24). Her first report was dated September 23, 2008, the second report, April 13, 2010. Typically, there’s a referral

and specific questions are asked by the worker. Dr. Vallance then interviews the worker, the foster parent, sees the child and, depending on the nature of the questions, she administers psychological tests. [ 167 ] In terms of the first report, S. was demonstrating a number of behaviours, having a lot of difficulties regulating herself, regulating her emotions, her behaviours and functional behaviours, for example, wetting. [ 168 ] She was with her aunt. She was struggling with a lot of anxiety at that time. That was just one manifestation of several behaviours.

Her aunt indicated that she was clingy towards her and that she was having some difficulties interacting socially with other children. [ 169 ] Clinginess typically suggests feelings of insecurity. She was wanting to feel close to her aunt. Her social difficulties fit with the rest of her broad difficulties in all aspects of functioning at that time. [ 170 ] S. met the criteria for a diagnosis for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, but she was quite young. There was no similar finding of those types of behaviours in another setting, such as in a school setting. [ 171 ] Dr.

Vince Murphy subsequently diagnosed her with this disorder. S. seemed to have significant feelings of sadness associated with the loss of her mother, feeling separated from her mother. She worried that she would never see her again or she would not be able to go home. She was confused about why she was not allowed to go home. There were themes of domestic disputes or violence between adults in some of the stories, as well as some themes of violence between mother figures, not necessarily her mother, and towards children. [ 172 ] She did a second assessment in 2010.

On April 13 th when she saw S., she had been away from her aunt for some time. She was still very preoccupied with her aunt and her aunt’s home. [ 173 ] S. felt that was going to be her permanent placement and home. She again suffered another loss. S. was still exhibiting behavioural difficulties. A lot of her sadness had changed to anger. [ 174 ] In both reports she made a recommendation for stability. “Permanency,” not “stability.” [ 175 ] All children need to have a permanent placement as soon as possible.

S. was so longing for nurturance and care, it really was important for her to know that this was going to be the person that she could put all of her trust in and begin to try to establish an attachment, a more secure attachment relationship with this person. [ 176 ] In her first report, she mentioned that S. didn’t understand why she couldn’t go home. [ 177 ] In the first report she was demonstrating a lot of sad feelings related to loss around her mother and anxious behaviours.

However, in the second report, in the second assessment, her behaviours had become more defiant and oppositional, which fit with a lot of anger that she was demonstrating regarding not having her needs, emotional needs met, that she has been longing to have met, basically. [ 178 ] R.D. is a foster parent for the Catholic Children’s Aid Society. [ 179 ] She described her role as making sure that the children are physically taken care of as well as emotionally, mentally; providing a safe environment; helping them attain their potential; moving forward, dealing with any counseling issues or therapy issues that are required; helping them with school; making sure that they meet the milestones that are appropriate for their age levels and their academic levels. [ 180 ] Her foster home is a six-bed home.

It is run on the parent model, family home setting. So that while it is actually a group home, it is actually run as a foster home as much as possible. The staff that come through the house have all been trained C.Y.W.s as well, Child and Youth Workers as well. They have experience and training to do counseling. There are now five in the house including S. All girls, from eight to 16. [ 181 ] S. came to her on September 3, 2009. She was very upset. She was crying and teary. She didn’t understand why she was being moved from her aunt and uncle’s. She was in a strange home.

It took her two or three days to settle down. The first night, there was a lot of crying at bedtime, a lot of extra attention in terms of spending time with her, story time, cuddling, music, singing. She was eventually able to settle. [ 182 ] There were a number of difficulties initially. For the first three or four months especially, S. was being physically aggressive with the children, intimidating, pushing in the playground, hitting them, slapping, yelling at them.

If S. wanted something that they had, she would either take it or, when they didn’t give it to her, she would do something back in terms of a physical retaliation to them. [ 183 ] For the most part, the last half of the school year was much better. There was one incident with one boy who was new to the school. She ended up knocking him down in the schoolyard and took markers from him. But that was in February. The parents made a formal complaint. It was dealt with. [ 184 ] Academically she’s an average student. She’s maintaining her grade level. [ 185 ] According to Ms.

D., S. needs to know what is going to happen. She needs to have predictability and stability of the same thing happening every day. [ 186 ] The bulk of S.’s absences were due to going away to Myrtle Beach in March Break for two weeks.

[ 187 ] Four of the days of S.’s school absences were for the Interface assessment, one day for the intake assessment and then three days for the actual assessment, which is the live-in assessment that’s done at Interface. [ 188 ] S. was frequently late because she walks to school with another girl who goes to the same school. There are times when S. has difficulties in the morning. Some of those difficulties may simply be a lack of sleep, but some of them may be from incidents that have happened the night before.

Walking to school becomes difficult because she intentionally will lag behind, or she will just simply begin yelling and screaming, and the child who walks her will say, “This is not okay. You need to come back.” So they’ll end up coming back to the house because S.’s not able to walk appropriately to school. [ 189 ] The lateness comes in unfortunately because she [Ms. D.] has another child who goes by school bus and the school bus picks her up sometime between 9:00 and 9:15. She can’t leave to take S. to school until after the other child is picked up.

She ends up going to school somewhere between 9:15 and 9:30 because there is not anyone to take her to school on those days. [ 190 ] There is no limitation on the telephone contact. She speaks to her mother pretty much regularly, daily. With her father, it is more sporadic, two or three times a week. [ 191 ] Her mother’s calls are initiated by her mom for the most part. Occasionally S. will call. Her dad’s calls are usually initiated by S. and calls to her aunt are mostly initiated by S.. [ 192 ] S. is always happy to go on access visits with her dad.

When she comes back from access visits with him, she, a fair number of times she’s sad. She had a great time. She had a great visit. But on those nights are the more night that we end up, she needs more nurturing on those nights. Those are the nights that you might see tears. When she talks about it it’s because she, part of her would like to be able to live at dad’s and she knows she can’t live at dad’s. And so there is a sense of sadness that she goes there, and sees they’re there and Jacob there, and would really like to be able to live there, but understands that she can’t. [ 193 ] She has a good time.

She sees family when she goes with dad. They go to Nona’s place a fair number of times, and she’s really happy to be able to see that. [ 194 ] For the first year she’s had a very clear statement of where she would like to live. Her first preference has always been aunt’s. She understands she can’t live there.

Loving someone doesn’t mean you can live with someone and the difficulty between behaviour management versus love. [ 195 ] Her second choice is dad but she knows that that’s also not possible, there isn’t space, there is another family. [ 196 ] Her third choice has always been her foster home and her fourth choice has always been her mother’s. She now would like to live at her mother’s. [ 197 ] Part of living with aunt and uncle is that she did have a bond with I., their daughter, and so she missed I. quite a bit. And they’re close in age. [ 198 ] With Mr. S., there’s S., P.’s daughter.

It would be nice to have a sister, and she is fascinated by the baby, just so much love and so much tenderness, and wanting to do everything for that baby, and help that baby grow up nicely, and so there is such an attachment to the baby. [ 199 ] She feels safe at her foster house and she knows that they love her. [ 200 ] “The difficulty she says with mom is that, ‘Mom is not going to be able,’ she loves mom; there’s never been a question of loving either parent, but that mom, there’s a lot of yelling and screaming and swearing, and mom’s not able to help her with her homework and so she doesn’t know if she’ll do as well at school as she’s been doing at school.” [ 201 ] According to S.’s foster mother, she loves her family.

It came across very clear at the communion that they love her. It also came across very clear that they understand her. They know her behaviours. They know what she’s really and truly like. She is a handful. S. is part of their family. They miss her when she’s not at social occasions. They miss her when she’s not at the birthday parties and celebrations. [ 202 ] Ms. D. talked about S.’s behaviour at school that has regressed significantly. She no longer has any friends. She’s involved in a number of physical altercations. She freely takes responsibility for them.

She admits to hitting and kicking children, to using her foot to kick with or her hand to hit with, but also things like her ruler and whatever just happens to be around at the time. She talks about name calling. She has very little tolerance for anyone else. In terms of demands in the classroom she’s much more demanding of the teacher, much less able to focus on her work. The school describes her as, her behaviour as having decreased significantly and that she just appears sad, for the most part, and not able to focus on what she’s doing.

So her grades are just, are beginning to slide backwards as well. [ 203 ] They moved her to a different play therapist in the spring and the consistency’s been much better. The consistency is every Monday at this point. She loves going. [ 204 ] Ms. A.U. has been consistent in exercising access and has regularly visited with S. on schedule. There’s never been an issue about Ms. U. not showing up for a visit. [ 205 ] There have been a few issues about the driver arriving with S. and mom not being available and having to wait, but not to the same degree that they were at home.

They would be exceptions as opposed to regularities. [ 206 ] S. has tremendous amount of potential and having her in a stable setting that could provide her with a lot of opportunities in life, she has the potential to turn into one dynamic adult. She has the potential for any number of careers opening up to her and in that

sense adoption does hold possibilities. [ 207 ] Ms. D. was asked if S. were returned to her mother, on what is called a “graduated basis,” so that she went to her mother’s, stayed for a weekend and slept there but then came back for school and so on, would Ms. D. be committed to helping her with that arrangement. [ 208 ] If a court makes a decision she said she would abide by that decision. Her questions: How does she help S. through the process of doing it and how does she make it as minimally traumatic and as smooth a transition as possible?

She would want to make sure S. definitely understood that this was not a rejection. [ 209 ] Catherine Borland-Kerr provided an assessment prepared at Thistletown, filed at Tab 22 of the Society’s

Summary Judgment brief, and filed as an expert report in the Society’s trial record, at Tab 18. Her current position at the assessment facility is Intake Coordinator and Senior Child and Youth Therapist. [ 210 ] She works at Thistletown Regional Center in the Interface Program in a division called IFCR, the Intensive Family and Community Resource Program. She was qualified as an expert in child development and parent and child interaction. [ 211 ] Thistletown Regional Center is a children’s mental health facility. It has encompassed four programs. The final one is Interface.

Interface is a community based program that offers in-home community services to families living in York Region, as well as, provincial services for developmental evaluations for children across the province. [ 212 ] They provide an intensive family three-day assessment program. She does the intake for that program.

She offers consultation regarding steps that could be taken immediately to help begin addressing the assessment questions or parenting concerns or concerns regarding a presentation of a child. [ 213 ] If they deem it an appropriate referral, they will plan with the Society regarding either therapeutic access or the steps it would take for the family to then be seen in the three-day assessment. [ 214 ] Once they have met with the Society and other collaterals that would be involved with the family and determine the clinical concerns presented by Society or children’s mental health, then they meet with the parents to understand what their understanding of the services are. [ 215 ] The report was prepared with her colleague, Tara Noble. [ 216 ] Helen Dietz, who was the family service worker on A.U.’s case, called her in October 2009.

They had their systems meeting in December of 2009. Present were herself, Tara Noble and Helen Dietz, Diana Dickie from Jean Tweed and Stacey Keenan possibly. [ 217 ] They discussed some of the case history, some of the concerns regarding the history of adult conflict in the family; the history of domestic violence that S. had witnessed and experienced; the history of substance misuse by A.U.; Jean Tweed’s interventions regarding substance abuse; and the parent-child relationship so far. Also Ms.

U’s presentation with S. during some of the sessions aimed at improving and changing parent-child relationships. [ 218 ] They set a meeting in January 2010 to meet with Ms. U. and other members of the clinical team.

They discussed with her her understanding of why the Society was involved in her life, what her understanding of the protection concerns were and discussed the risks and benefits of participating in a program like the IFCR program that would be making recommendations about their relationship and long-term planning. [ 219 ] They began assessing her ability to engage in discussion that would involve having some understanding of what the protection concerns were and her role in those protection concerns, her understanding of mothering and what experiences might inhibit some parenting behaviour that they would want to promote, and what experiences would promote parenting that we would want to see that would promote a secure attachment for S. [ 220 ] Mother agreed to move forward and do the interview.

She identified that she had had struggles with substance misuse and that at times S. had had experiences that would have been confusing for her as far as who was looking after her and whether or not she was going to school. She was more focused on some of the conflict that had happened with S.’s biological father at that time and raised concerns about him. [ 221 ] The most significant outcome of the January meeting was that she decided to work with their program and felt the program was something she wanted to become a part of. [ 222 ] Ms. U. presented as cooperative and agreeable to the interview.

She was emotional when recalling some of the more difficult experiences in her growing up. She had some insight into the idea that she had had different caregiving then her siblings who had had more struggles in their caregiving with her mother. She had some understanding as to how some of her own difficult behaviours with substance misuse were connected to the loss of her mother and those experiences. [ 223 ] They look for what they call a “parenting model.” Essentially, how a parent thinks about their mom, their job as a mom or a dad. What do they understand that job to be? And Ms.

U. basically described an accurate parenting model. She understood that as a mother it would be her job to take care of S.’s instrumental care needs, food, shelter, clothing, routine and structure. She had the idea about being a mother who was available to her daughter, who spent time with her daughter. She wanted her daughter to feel loved and connected to her. She identified she did not want to be harsh or rejecting, which would be identified parenting concerns.

However, she had difficulty connecting how some of that harsh and rejecting parenting that had been identified in the past would impact S. at that time.

[ 224 ] She had a very difficult time understanding the impact of some of what was happening for S. in that interview.

There was a vacation coming up to Myrtle Beach with the foster home and she was understandably very upset that she was going to miss S.’s birthday and became what we call “elevated.” She was crying and she, she, her voice started to get louder because of her own feelings about that experience and what it would mean for her. [ 225 ] They did not have any worries about her instrumental care, her ability to structure, implement routine, duplicate what was happening in the foster home, with an understanding that that would be the most beneficial to S., e.g., all her meals were prepared, sitting and eating with her, giving her appropriate, sort of, preparation for transition times in all skills that A.U. had strengths in. [ 226 ] Their main concerns regarding A.U.’s parenting were… one the experiences of S. in domestic and adult conflict that we understand those experiences to be exceptionally problematic for children, for their brain development, for understanding their impulse control, for understanding their feelings of safety and security.

They knew that S. had had a lot of experiences of adult conflict and one of their initial concerns was Ms. U.’s minimization, or not initially recognizing how problematic those experiences were for her daughter, in seeing her as a safe and protective caregiver. [ 227 ] Ms. Borland-Kerr’s assessment report was produced and marked as Exhibit #39. [ 228 ] Positive predictors are number one, insight. The parent is able to identify and understand their child's experience of them as a caregiver and why that experience would have been problematic.

The parent’s able to identify other experiences where a child is separate from their own experiences in a situation and see them as problematic and understand that they have a role in reducing that stress or had a role in not protecting the child at the time. [ 229 ] Another positive predictor for change is a parent is able to receive feedback regarding difficult topics around parenting behaviours that are problematic and is able to continue to hear that feedback and receive direction and support, and reflect on how they can parent or do something differently once given that direction and support. [ 230 ] Those predictors are the insight, the ability to reflect on the past and understand its impacts on a child.

The ability to reflect on their own behaviour in the present and make changes with direction or support, and the ability to understand that their experience of a situation is different than their child's and receive direction and support from a service provider. [ 231 ] The first recommendation, the dyadic treatment, refers to treatment aimed at a dyad, the dyad being two people, mother and child, in this case Ms. U. and S.. [ 232 ] The goal in that form of treatment is to build on the type of interventions we had already begun in the assessment house.

They would envision the treatment would involve someone trained in, specifically in attachment theory and parent/child relationship work, to be working directly with Ms. U. and S. in an environment where Ms. U. would have the opportunity to provide care for her daughter. [ 233 ] The Etobicoke Children's Centre had indicated they would be able to do the work at the feedback session at the assessment house. They had been doing some individual work with S. and they offered a program they said that would match what they were looking for.

They offered to consult to that program if needed as far as understanding if there was more input required or if there was anything we could be helpful in understanding once the work progressed. [ 234 ] The second recommendation was individual counselling for Ms. U. to address several issues. The type of counselling suggested would be counselling that would help Ms. U. address issues that affected her as a woman but also affected her as a parent. The third recommendation said, “A.U. to continue to actively manage her mental health issues.” [ 235 ] Ms.

U. was to continue to follow up with a psychiatrist as well as a counselor in order to better understand her depression, whether the medication was managing her depression appropriately or not as well as to continue to work on some of the anger issues that had been present in the past. Ms. U. to continue to actively work with Jean Tweed. [ 236 ] There had been some difficulty implementing the treatment plan as Etobicoke Children's Centre had decided they could not do the work because S. was not in her mother's care. [ 237 ] There were concerns identified around the consistency of Ms.

U. following through with the appointments that were scheduled as well as some of the recommendations.

There were also concerns regarding what treatment provider would actually step forward to provide the service that we recommended. [ 238 ] They also talked about the importance of continuing to manage substance. “When people use marijuana they become less available to their children and people around them and inevitably substance misuse leads to contact with people who are not always operating on the, socially in a way that we think would be safe for children because you have to contact with people who are selling substances, you have to find a way to obtain those substances, you put yourself at risk in obtaining substances.

So generally that puts parents in a position that makes them unsafe of bringing them into a circle of unsafe people around their children… .” [ 239 ] Ms. Boland-Kerr acknowledged that there were predictors that Ms. U. would be able to engage in a process that would change and grow her relationship with her daughter. Ms. U. was able to do difficult work regarding parenting issues.

She was able to engage in the process and was able to allow them to be helpful to her when her own defence strategies got in the way of her engaging in the process and attending to S. in a way that was accurate and appropriate and would help repair the relationship. [ 240 ] Ms. U. allowed them to be helpful to her as opposed to becoming oppositional with them which was one of the identified concerns in the past. She was able to alter her presentation with S. in that environment. [ 241 ] Their plan would have involved a therapist working in the home over an extended period of time.

They would have seen either continued growth and development and the insight become more cemented, and the relationship would have continued to change.

S. would have continued to settle and see her mother as safe and protective, or the therapist would have said with the external issues present, be it housing, work, finances, adult conflict... [ 242 ] Ms. U. presented as hopeless and felt that she might not be able to have her daughter back in her care. She never presented that she would give up on her daughter.

She attended on the first day to commence her three day in-house assessment she came with a goal to commit in writing. “She hoped the assessment would assist her in developing ideas to control her emotions and to have S. feel safe and loved in her care.” She also reiterated her “desire to have a secure open and supportive relationship with S..” [ 243 ] Under the heading “Consistency,” Ms.

A.U. had in fact completed the 14-session program at Jean Tweed, the “Strengthening Families.” [ 244 ] She was able to identify the risk factors that have led to child protection involvement, however, the conversation revealed concerns regarding her insight and ability to take responsibility for parenting that had negatively impacted S.. [ 245 ] It was one of Ms. U.’s strengths that she was able to obtain the information she needed from the foster environment and ensure she knew what S.’s routine was, what she was eating, what she liked, what she didn’t like, what activities were appropriate.

Developmentally, one of her strengths was understanding what her daughter needed routine-wise and activity-wise. That was where she was a strong parent in that domain. [ 246 ] Nancy Long is a child and family therapist with the Etobicoke Children’s Centre. The Etobicoke Children’s Centre is a children’s mental health centre that services children and their families in terms of their mental health, behaviour and emotional social needs.

S. was referred to her by the Society for individual therapy by another worker in her department. [ 247 ] S. was transferred to her because she is full-time and could see her on a regular Monday at 4:00 time slot every week. [ 248 ] The original referral was made in February or March 2010. [ 249 ] It was suggested that she provide play therapy and specifically around issues of defiance, of poor boundaries, of, of low self-esteem. There were other, a variety of issues including wetting her pants and general anxiety about her future. [ 250 ] She saw her once before an Interface meeting.

The recommendation was that S. continue play therapy on a weekly basis. [ 251 ] S. uses the therapy well. She may not make a lot of progress until her life is settled and she knows where she’s going. It’s more like a holding pattern and she comes to therapy to, to explore her feelings. Therapy is very important for her, to have that outlet. She needs to know where she’s going in order to go much further in therapy, to be able to make gains in therapy. She needs to know where she’s going to be living to begin to process that and prepare for it.

She is in limbo right now. [ 252 ] She needs to have the play therapy and she would advocate for her for as long as she thinks she needs to be in play therapy. [ 253 ] Sameiro DaSilva is a children service worker, currently assigned to S. S. [ 254 ] She met with her on January 4, 2011, to get an update on how access over Christmas went. [ 255 ] Access went well, but she asked about why she didn't get more access with her aunt, her paternal aunt. [ 256 ] The Society had tried to make access between both parents and the aunt.

She was very clear about the type of family she'd want when the adoption process was mentioned to her. Number one was that she wanted an Italian family. [ 257 ] S.’s first choice is to go to her mother and she does not want to lose touch. See Exhibit #41. “It's my belief that it’s to do with her fear of losing contact with her paternal aunt and the family and the paternal family… . I have a child who[m] I’ve worked with for almost two years who’s been clearly, until September of 2010, telling me that her first choice would be the paternal aunt or someone else… .” [ 258 ] “…S. needs stability.

It's been very clearly documented in the assessments that this child needs stability and permanency, and giving her those contacts would not allow her to do that because she is very vested and connected with the paternal family and that does not allow her to have permanency or stability at this point… .” [ 259 ] Her (Ms. DaSilva’

s) understanding of the process that happens with adoption is that the worker goes out to talk to the child, S., to explain the process and to get some feedback, ask some general questions. [ 260 ] She was asked by Ms. Ross why she discussed the process knowing S.’s view that she wanted to see all of her relatives, and her mom and her dad, her grandma and paternal grandma who lives down the road from M.O[1] and M.O[2], her cousin I.. And other relatives on the mother’s side. Candace and her kids.

She talked about them during their visits. [ 261 ] On June 4, 2009, she completed the intake referral for S. to Etobicoke Children’s Centre so that she could attend individual play therapy, which was recommended in the psych assessment, to assist with facilitating her attachment with them. [ 262 ] Ms. DaSilva saw S. September 28, 2010. She did not see her from June 24 until September 28, 2010. [ 263 ] She met with her at school. They discussed the fact that she had changed her mind and now wanted to go live with her mom.

S. talked about a promise that her mother had made her, that her mom had changed and now wouldn’t break her promises. [ 264 ] They talked about her dad’s access. She talked about I. and wanting to see I., her cousin. She talked about wanting to attend a cousin’s birthday party. She talked about her visits with mom, her school and how she was doing in the home with the other girls and how she was walking to school now with one of the other girls.

[ 265 ] She explained to S. on January 4, 2011 why she had not arranged for her to sleep at her aunt’s on Christmas Eve. They talked about her going to visit with her mom the next morning and that she was going to have breakfast with R.D., the family, and the girls at the foster home. That’s when they were going to open their gifts. [ 266 ] With respect to pick-up and drop-off from the foster home, her mother is on Wednesdays when she has visits. There are drives in place. On Saturdays her mother does her own pick-up and drop-off. Her dad does the same thing on his visit day, every Sunday.

Her contact with her dad is consistent and regular and unsupervised. [ 267 ] Neither parent has ever presented any statement or caused any concerns that they were not going to return their child. [ 268 ] She acknowledged that she has never been to the mother’s home. [ 269 ] Patti Rose-Vellucci is a family service supervisor at the Catholic Children’s Aid Society in the Etobicoke branch. She is responsible for supervising both the family service workers that have been assigned to work with this family, the first one being Ms. Helen Dietz and the second one being Ms. Jolanta Wisniowska.

She has been involved with the family since 2008. See Exhibit #42 , Ms. Rose-Vellucci’s affidavit, produced and marked. [ 270 ] At the time the Society received the file, S. had been apprehended and was placed in a Society foster home as a result of concerns resulting from the investigation of Ms. U. residing with RR. Ms. A.U. had been given the opportunity to have Mr. RR leave the residence and ensure he didn’t have contact with S. However, that had not been followed up. [ 271 ] A further amendment application was filed in November 2009.

December 10 was the first appearance, amending to crown wardship, no access, Crown wardship with no order being sought as to access. [ 272 ] Throughout the last year of involvement, the Society continued to work with Ms. A.U. to address the child protection concerns that had resulted in S.’s coming into care and remaining in care. Mental health concerns related to depression, anger management and substance abuse concerns continued to be protection concerns in that there had been very little progress. The kinship placement had broken down. S. had been placed in a Society foster home.

The Society reviewed whether or not S. would be a candidate for an adoption home. It felt that S. would be a candidate for adoption, and so the decision was made to amend the application. [ 273 ] They increased the access. They enlisted the service of Diana Dickie, the child program supervisor at Jean Tweed Centre, to do a further attachment assessment with Ms. A.U. and S. The Society was hoping that, instead of S.’s being placed in a foster home, they would be able to return her to her mother on a supervision order. However, Ms. A.U. was still using marijuana.

She hadn’t followed through with filling her prescription for her anti-depressants. There continued to be issues on the access visits. Ms. Dickie continued to have concerns about S. and A.U.’s interactions and, based on that information, the Society felt they could not return S. at that time and a decision was made to place her in foster care. [ 274 ] The application was recommending crown wardship without any order of access at the time the Thistletown assessment was done subsequent to that recommendation. [ 275 ] There were several recommendations. There needed to be further work and assessment of Ms.

A.U. and S.’s relationship and whether Ms. U. could make the changes required to repair the ruptures in that relationship. There were recommendations that Ms. U. needed to follow-up on the mental health concerns on the substance abuse concerns. That S. should continue to attend for individual therapy. [ 276 ] Ms. A.U. hadn’t made enough progress for them to be able to consider a plan to return the child to her care. S. has been in care for two and a half years and they needed to move forward with a plan for permanency.

Some of these issues have been outstanding for the two-and-a-half years that S. has been in care and to date they are still not completed or addressed to a point where they would be able to ensure the child could safely return home. [ 277 ] Ms. U. continued to smoke marijuana, which impacted on her depression. She was spending her money to buy marijuana. She had run out of her medication which would negatively impact her depression which would impact her availability to meet S.’s needs.

She missed a plan of care meeting because she said she slept in and possibly she slept in because the depression had already started to resurface. [ 278 ] In her direct testimony she said that S. “craves a family.” Her wishes are that she would continue to have contact with her family. [ 279 ] The evidence of everyone, unrefuted, is that S. continues to express her desire to see her mother, her father, her aunt, uncle, I., Candace, that is, the people on her mother’s side. [ 280 ] Ines Pelechaty is a supervisor of the children service workers for the Etobicoke branch.

She knows of the family through her work with Ms. DaSilva and Jolanta, Helen Dietz and Patti, who are the workers involved with this particular case. [ 281 ] In the summer of 2010, Ms. DaSilva was on a medical leave and there was a plan of care due for S. She completed the plan of care on July 29, 2010. It was done at the foster

[…]