The Director v. C.D.S. Date:, 2011 BCPC 467

Citation: The Director v. C.D.S. Date: 20111031 2011 BCPC 0467 File No: 111996 Registry: Sechelt IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT , R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 46 AND THE CHILD: L.C.R.S. , born [DOB] BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE APPLICANT AND: C.D.S. PARENT EXCERPTS FROM PROCEEDINGS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE J. CHALLENGER

Counsel for the Director: A. R. Lunny Counsel for the Mother : A. A. Sawyer Place of Hearing: Sechelt , B.C. Date of Judgment: October 31, 2011 [ 1 ] THE COURT: These are my reasons in the matter of Baby Boy L.C.R.S. His mother is the parent entitled to custody. Her name is C.D.S. She is currently 28 years of age. The baby was born on [DOB], and is now seven months of age. We can all be thankful that he is a healthy child with no apparent issues arising from prenatal care.

He was removed at birth and has been in the care of the Director since then. [ 2 ] The Director has applied for an immediate continuing custody order. Under s. 41(2) there is a slightly higher bar, and in particular, Mr. Lunny for the Director points to s. 41(2)(

c) which states that the Court must not make a continuing custody order unless "the nature and extent of the harm the child has suffered or the likelihood that the child will suffer harm is such that there is little prospect it would be in the child's best interests to be returned to the parent." [ 3 ] Sadly, in this case, I find the Director has made that out. [ 4 ] Mother suffers from significant mental health issues. She has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and paranoid delusional disorder. She also has a substance abuse problem.

She has suffered from this illness for most of her adult life. Her mother also has schizophrenia. [ 5 ] I have heard from Doris Rank, who is a support worker in the community, as well as from the social worker involved. I have also heard from Mother. She testified before me. In her testimony, Mother evidenced good intentions. She has, as everyone has, a desire to raise her own child. She clearly loves her child and wants a relationship with her child. She has already lost one child to care when she was 22 years old. That child had significant challenges. It was a Downs baby.

So unfortunately Mother has been through this process before. She has known since the birth of the child that the Director was seeking to have the child taken into care and adopted. Nothing is binding at this point, but some mention was made that the same family that adopted her first child may be able to adopt this second child. Of course, that may or may not be the case at the end of the day. [ 6 ] When Mother testified, she evidenced a simplistic understanding of the responsibilities required to parent a child. She was unrealistic in terms of what the day-to-day raising of a child involved.

It is apparent that at this stage Mother is barely able to take care of herself in an assisted living situation. She is, for example, unable to get up on time to shower and eat before she is required to leave her residence. She does not make appointments. She forgets about appointments. She has to rely on others to remind her. She is not medication compliant on her own. She now has that by injection. She binge abuses street drugs approximately every 10 days.

She was very forthright about that in Court and also forthright about the fact that she so far has been unsuccessful in dealing with her abuse of alcohol and street drugs. [ 7 ] Clearly, this conduct would be a significant risk to any baby, and of course, it complicates the efficacy of her medications as well as her doctor's ability to properly treat her and deal with her medication regime.

It also would significantly interfere with her lifestyle and, in particular, would have a very negative and dangerous impact on any child in her care. [ 8 ] The medical reports about Mother again evidence that she has a serious, chronic, persistent mental illness including delusions, so this mental illness is of a nature which significantly impacts her ability to parent safely.

On all of the materials before me, I find she has a lack of capacity to parent and a lack of capacity to learn to parent effectively. [ 9 ] There is no question that her mental illness has been exacerbated by pre- and postpartum physiological changes; however, seven months has now passed and it does not appear to me that she has made any significant changes. [ 10 ] It is clear that Mother can recognize what she needs to do and she can say what she needs to do.

The difficulty I find is that there is no evidence she has the ability to follow through meaningfully with any planning or learning to parent or to integrate any skills she might learn into her lifestyle. One of the reports I think aptly describes her as extensively disorganized and subject to impulsivity. [ 11 ] It is clear that she has periods where she functions better than at other times, but even when she is functioning at what would appear to be her highest level, in my view she is not functioning to a level which would permit her to parent even with supports in place.

She would effectively need a 24-hour-a-day co-parent in order to raise a child. [ 12 ] Her pattern is a cyclical one: she gets better, she decompensates, she stabilizes, she decompensates, and even when stable she continues to abuse substances to the extent that they have a significant impact on her. [ 13 ] I find the Director has established to the balance that the child is in need of protection, and I make that finding under s. 13(1) (h). In my view, it is appropriate to move immediately to a continuing custody order under s. 41(1)(d).

I make the necessary findings, as I have already indicated, under s. 41(2). [ 14 ] I am not sure, Mr. Lunny, are there any other findings I need to make at this point? [ 15 ] MR. LUNNY: No, Your Honour, thank you. [ 16 ] THE COURT: The only other final comment I will make is that there is always hope and, of course, now, with the change in

the Act , if Mother is able to, and the medical treatment changes, she may well be in a position in the future to make an application. [ 17 ] MS. SAWYER: What about with respect to access? [ 18 ] THE COURT: Well, I am assuming that with a child at this age -- well, Mr. Lunny, is it going to be sort of the normal course where she will have some access? I mean, she does not have very much access to the child now, even – [ 19 ] MR. LUNNY: She has had access while Court has been going on. My understanding is that access will continue till they find a placement.

As soon as an adoption placement occurs, access will probably be curtailed, and then they try to negotiate an openness agreement with the adoptive parent, which may be a letter a year; it may be nothing. I don't know. [ 20 ] THE COURT: Right. But she is not going to be cut off today. She will continue – [ 21 ] MR. LUNNY: Not today. [ 22 ] THE COURT: -- to see the baby until such time as you find a placement and then the attempt will be made for an open adoption. [ 23 ] MR. LUNNY: That is the standard. [ 24 ] THE COURT: Okay. [ 25 ] MR. LUNNY: Thank you very much, Your Honour. [ 26 ] MS.

SAWYER: Thank you, Your Honour. (REASONS CONCLUDED)