Chatham-Kent Children's Services v. L.L., 2015 ONCJ 312

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 45(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. COURT FILE No.: 122/01 DATE: 2015-06-03 Citation: Chatham-Kent Children's Services v. L.L. , 2015 ONCJ 312 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: Chatham-Kent Children’s Services, Applicant, — AND — L.L., R. D., S.T., and T.R.

Respondents, Before Justice Lucy Glenn Heard on September 23, 24, 25, 26, 2014, January 19, 21, 22, 23, 29 and 30, 2015. Reasons for Judgment released on June 3, 2015.

Paula DeBoer .............................................................................................. for the applicant society David Gulyus ........................................................................................... for the respondent/mother Christos Vitsentzatos………………………………………………………… for the respondent/father, TR No appearance by or on behalf of the fathers, ST and RD, even though served with notice Judith Pascoe/Tara Gatten……………………………………………….. for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the youngest child.

Bobbie-Lynn Sands-Keller .................................................. for the Office of the Children’s Lawyer, legal representative for the two oldest children GLENN J.: [ 1 ] This is an application regarding the mother’s three girls, namely M. born […] , , 1999, whose father is RD, J. born […] , , 2004, whose father is ST and T. born […] , , 2012, whose father is TR. [ 2 ] The fathers of the two oldest girls are in default and have not taken

part in these proceedings. Both the mother and TR, the father of the youngest child, T., were present and represented by counsel at trial as were all of the children through the OCL. The proposed plans of the various parties : [ 3 ] The Society’s plan was that that all of the children should be made Crown Wards with no access to any parent for the purpose of adoption. [ 4 ] The OCL’s plan in regards to M. who is now age 16, is consistent with her wishes.

M. does not want to be returned to the care of her mother but wants to be made a Crown Ward and to maintain access with her mother and with her father (with whom she has limited contact). Specifically she does not want to be adopted and would not sign the consent to be adopted by anyone. As for 11- year-old J., she wants to be returned to the care of her mother pursuant to a supervision order. She does not wish to have contact with her father who has no access to her, in any case. Both of the older children want to maintain a relationship with each other and T..

The OCL for the youngest child, T. who is age 2, was in agreement with the position taken by the Society and took no position regarding access between the two oldest children and their youngest sibling, T.. Neither of the two oldest children wanted any contact with TR. [ 5 ] The mother’s plan was that she wanted the return of all of her children to her care pursuant to a supervision order. She did however respect the wishes of M. and therefore acknowledged that the only other alternative was that she would be made a Crown Ward but she then wanted to maintain contact with M. through an access order.

She maintained that there should be no access between J. and her father but did not oppose M. having ongoing access with her father and she took no position regarding TR having access to T. or either of the other two children. [ 6 ] The plan of father, TR who is the father of two-year-old T. was that all of the children and his child in particular would be placed with him under a supervision order or in the alternative, if the children were placed with the mother, he wished to have access to them.

It is noteworthy that pursuant to earlier orders in this proceeding, the court has specifically refused him any interim access to his own child or to the two other children. [ 7 ] Date of Apprehension : The children were apprehended from the mother on August 4, 2012. T. was one month old at the time and has been in care ever since. The two oldest children have been in care throughout this period except for a four month period when they were in a kin placement. [ 8 ] The mother and TR have both lead complicated lives and been the subject of multiple previously interventions by the Society.

TR’s history . [ 9 ] TR who is 36 years of age testified that he had been brought up in a non-functional family or origin. His parents abused drugs and alcohol and were physically abusive and neglectful of him. He was exposed to domestic violence between his parents and also between his mother and step-father. In the course of his upbringing he had stints in foster care and placements with extended family. He suffered sexual abuse while being looked after by an aunt and uncle. By age 10 or 11 he was engaged in criminal activity.

He was moved in and out of the homes of extended family and spent a month at CPRI after he shot a BB gun at his mother. He claimed that he was given drugs by his mother and step-father and that after his stepfather assaulted him and at age 16, his mother told him to leave. He was a heavy drug user between the ages of 17 to about 23 and according to him, between age 18 and 20 he lived on the street and overdosed a couple times. At this point in his life he was selling drugs, was living “all over the place.” It was during this time period that he became aware of his Bipolar symptoms. [ 10 ] His interviews with Dr.

McDermott, who completed a Parental Capacity Assessment (hereinafter called a PCA) of him both in 2006 and in 2013, revealed that he engaged in a number of relationships with women that involved violence or inappropriate behaviour.

[ 11 ] He admitted to shooting a BB gun at his mother at age 13 and was involved in a robbery in 1999 when he would have been about age 20. [ 12 ] On April 27, 2002, after being evicted from Sunnybrook Hospital, he returned to a basement of the facility later and clamped his right hand over a female worker’s mouth and held an exact-o knife in front of her face with his left hand. On being caught he reported that he was drug addicted.

During the initial investigation he admitted that he was entertaining the notion of raping the victim but later claimed this was “a fleeting thought.” [ 13 ] In October of 2002 he was charged with making a obscene phone call after leaving a lengthy phone message with a massage therapist with whom he claimed to have been negotiating a treatment. [ 14 ] He spoke to Dr.

McDermott of being in a relationship with a woman who was “way older than him” (age 35 or 36) who began attacking him. [ 15 ] He came to Chatham because “Toronto was getting violent.” He had been charged in Toronto with assaulting a woman with a weapon. [ 16 ] There were also concerns for his behaviour with staff at Family Service Kent resulting in a restraining order being obtained against him. [ 17 ] His next serious relationship was with the mother of his first child. She charged him with sexual assault.

He claimed that after being in jail for six or seven months, he plead guilty to “domestic assault”, but stated that actually she sexually assaulted him and made him have sex with her all [the] T. time. Despite a no-contact order, he took her and her daughter out West. She was pregnant with his child at the time and while they were out West they had another altercation. She accused him of pushing her but he reported that she punched herself in the face. In his interview with Dr.

McDermott, he suggested that this incident was a consensual fight between them. [ 18 ] After returning to the Chatham area, he met the mother of his second and third children. In the 2013 PCA he claimed that the assaults that this mother reported on two occasions were in fact caused by her harming herself. He also reported that during his relationship with her, he was involved in an ongoing affair with the mother in this case. [ 19 ] On March 14, 2006, TR’s second and third children were found in need of protection pursuant s. 37(2) (

b) of the Child and Family Services Act (hereinafter called the CFSA). The reasons found by the court as underpinning this finding included that the father had been diagnosed with personality disorder, antisocial features and borderline histrionic and narcissistic features for which he had not received any treatment or counselling as recommended by his doctor. It was also a concern that he had a history of criminal activity involving violence, and that he had been terminated from a program for Anger Management because of his failure to identify any anger problems.

He had also failed to take responsibility for his behaviour when he had taken a Sexual Offender treatment program in the fall of 2004 and had not received the additional individual counselling that had been recommended by the counsellor. [ 20 ] At the time his second and third children were found to be in need of protection, the question of disposition had to go to trial and on March 7, 2008 the court ordered that these two children would be made Wards of the Crown with no access to the parents.

In making this determination, Justice Fuerth concluded that it could be expected that TR would continue in the future to pursue relationships with vulnerable women whom he would dominate and control and subject to abusive behaviours and that his antisocial personality was not amenable to change. Justice Fuerth also concluded that TR held females in low regard. [ 21 ] The mother of his fourth child was assaulted by TR while she pregnant. As a result, he was convicted and spent time in custody. The 2013 PCA included comments by TR that this partner was extremely manipulative and irresponsible.

He told the assessor that that partner’s claims that he had assaulted her throughout their 13-month relationship were inaccurate. Rather, she was sexually aggressive and, at one point, he had to fight her off and take her to the ground during an incident while she was pregnant. He reported that due to his years of street fighting, he had knowledge of how to subdue people without injuring them.

He reported that he was able to restrain her by choking her and bringing her to the ground without harming the unborn baby. [ 22 ] As a result of his being convicted of assault in regards to this partner, he was not to have contact with her, but in fact they remained in contact and immediately, upon his release from custody, they reunited. Within a few days of their reunion, TR assaulted her again and was convicted and incarcerated for a lengthier period of time. [ 23 ] On July 6, 2009, the court found that this fourth child who was born […] , 2007 was in need of protection under s. 37(2) (b)(

i) of the CFSA. The reasons articulated as underpinning for this finding referred back to the protection concern relating to his second and third child. In addition, the court recited his criminal record in more detail which included assaults against women, an indecent telephone call, an assault with a weapon, and property crimes.

It also specifically referred to his conviction on January 3, 2008 for one count of assault causing bodily harm and four counts of assault, all against the mother of this fourth child and the fact that when he got out of custody for those crimes he resumed residency with that mother and assaulted her again. The reasons underpinning the protection proceeding also included reference to his physical and mental abuse towards women and the fact that he held women in low esteem.

The same concerns regarding his mental health disorders as have already been mentioned, were once again articulated. [ 24 ] On August 12, 2009, the court placed this fourth child in the care of that child’s mother subject to supervision and specifically prohibited her from allowing any contact between the child and TR. There was no order made for access between that child and TR. [ 25 ] On March 17, 2011, when that matter was status reviewed, the court found the fourth child to be in need of protection under s. 37(2)(b)(

i) of the CFSA and placed this child in the custody of the mother with the issue of access to TR reserved for trial or a Rule 16 motion. The reasons in support of the continued protection finding included that on August 3, 2010, TR had (now) been sentenced for the incident that took place shortly after he was released from custody and reunited with the mother. Those offences included assault causing bodily harm, five counts of assault and failure to comply. The sentencing Judge commented on TR’s inability to take responsibility for his actions and further characterized his assault of the fourth child’s mother as “egregious” in that he caused an

extremely dangerous situation by assaulting the mother in question on the roadside in a vehicle with the child present, all the while in breach of a court order. At the time, his probation order also prohibited any contact with this fourth child. He was sentenced to 545 days in custody plus three years of probation. The issue of his access to his fourth child was dealt with by way of a

Summary Judgment motion. [ 26 ] On May 10, 2013 after hearing this motion, the court found that there was no triable issue and ordered that TR would have no access to his fourth child. In coming to this conclusion, the court referred back to the findings of the March 17, 2011 order and in addition found that TR minimized and justified his abusive behaviours and was unable to apply the information obtained from service providers to his own life. The court also relied on a PCA by Dr.

K McDermott dated January 14, 2013 and specifically, the portion which concluded that TR continued to be punitive towards women, that he continued to prey on weak and/or vulnerable women and that he had little insight into his own issues in this regard. The court also relied on Dr. McDermott’s conclusions that TR continued to show signs of antisocial personality features and narcissism; he continued to lack essential empathy for women and was dogmatic in his disappointments, frustrations and anger towards them.

She recommended that any legal ties between him and this fourth child should be severed and that any child in his care would be at high risk for exposure to adult conflict that would erode the child’s sense of safety and security. [ 27 ] TR’s Criminal Record : With a tumultuous background like this, it is not surprising that TR has accumulated a significant criminal record. However, it is noteworthy that his last criminal convictions were on August 3, 2010 for assault, bodily harm and failure to comply with probation.

This relates to incidents that took place on March 22, 2008 which was about seven years before the conclusion of this trial. [ 28 ] TR testified that he was heavily using drugs when he was convicted of the following matters: Assault as a young person in 1993, Robbery in 1999, Theft in 2001, Assault with a weapon in 2002 and Indecent Telephone Calls in 2002. [ 29 ] He further testified that he had untreated mental health needs at the time he was involved in actions that led to the following criminal record: Assault and disobeying an order of the court in 2003, two failures to comply with a probation order in 2003 and a failure to comply with a recognizance in 2003 and one failure to comply with a probation order in 2004.

He testified that even though he sought help for his mental health problems, he couldn’t get the help he needed because his trust issues prevented him from disclosing the abuse he had suffered in his background. [ 30 ] He was further convicted of five assaults and a further bodily harm in January of 2008 which relate back to 2007 (in regards to the mother of his fourth child) and the assault bodily harm and the failure to comply with probation which took place on March 22, 2008 to which he plead guilty on August 3, 2010. [ 31 ] Although he appeared to have received some medication for his mental health difficulties previously, it was not until he was in custody in 2008 when he had some level of sobriety that he developed rapport with a jail psychiatrist and was placed on medication that helped him with what he called his “manic state.” He testified that his relationships improved almost immediately.

His actual diagnosis was not confirmed until he finally got out of custody in September of 2009 and it was confirm by a psychiatrist who he still sees regularly. [ 32 ] In his testimony, he acknowledged that he had children who were mothered by four different women, three of whom he acknowledged that he has assaulted. There is no allegation that he has ever assaulted the mother in our case, and it appears that the last time he assaulted one of these women was in March of 2008. While TR did in general state that he accepted accountability for his actions, it is also noteworthy and consistent with Dr.

McDermott’s report, that at no time did he unabashedly accept responsibility for these assaults. Rather, he spoke of all of these women assaulting him first and that he only retaliated in response to these situations. In general, he continued to minimize his own culpability and he continued to justify his abusive behaviours.

He testified that he would plead guilty to get out of custody and that “when you are manic, it is hard to sit in custody.” [ 33 ] He was last in custody regarding any of these matters on September 21 2009 at which time he was released on bail after serving 544 days of presentence custody in regards to his last criminal convictions. Part of the conditions of his release was that he was to seek psychiatric assistance which, indeed he did, with Dr.

Chamberlain. [ 34 ] Parental Capacity Assessment of the Father: The updated PCA that was referred to in the order of May 10, 2013, was completed on January 14, 2013 by Dr. K. McDermott, Clinical Psychologist. She interviewed the father for this report in November of 2012, which was not long after the apprehension of the three children in our proceeding.

This report was an update of a report completed by the same assessor on July 25, 2006 in relation to his second and third children, referred to above. [ 35 ] It is noteworthy, that the original PCA reported that the father’s overall intellectual functioning was in the superior range. The 2006 PCA also concluded that TR was considered to have a well-entrenched pattern of interacting with others, particularly females, in an antisocial and aggressive manner.

He was found to be fractious, aggressive and lacking in remorse for his actions. [ 36 ] It went on to state at page 22 that: “When TR’s historical information is taken together with his current presentation and the results of the formal psychological assessment, the picture emerges of a young man who has a well-entrenched pattern of interacting with the world. He clearly shows strong evidence of antisocial personality. Such individuals are interpersonally exploitive. They may be irritable and aggressive and have disregard for the safety of self or others.

There is a serious lack of remorse as indicated by being indifferent to, or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated or stolen from others. There is ample evidence that he had conduct disorder before the age of 15. TR clearly meets these criteria for an antisocial diagnosis. He also evidences borderline (fear of abandonment) and histrionic (excessive emotionality and attention-seeking) as well as some narcissistic (self-absorbed) features. The personality characteristics are firmly entrenched and highly resistant to change.” [ 37 ] Dr.

McDermott also reported that TR held his mother in extremely low regard for her neglect and abandonment of him. This was paired with an idealized perception of his largely absent biological father. Over time, it created a dynamic where women were

seen as malevolent and conniving. Although there was a focus on his sexual and aggressive inappropriateness in relationships with women, sexuality was only one area wherein he attempted to “even the score” between genders. She predicted that he would repeatedly engage in a dynamic whereby he would select vulnerable females and demand loyalty and control within a relationship.

Perceived challenges and disloyalty would be immediately met by hostility and, eventually, lead to aggression”. [ 38 ] In her second PCA which was dated January 14, 2013 which was prepared in preparation for the court to consider TR’s access to his fourth child, Dr. McDermott again observed that TR considers himself to be a victim of women rather than to have victimized them. [ 39 ] The second report was also critical of TR’s continued involvement with the mother in our case.

At page 33 she reflected that he resumed a relationship with the mother in 2009 despite his understanding that she would be in jeopardy of losing her children should she expose them to him. [ 40 ] Dr. McDermott concluded at page 34 of the report that “there was no doubt that TR has mood issues, but he also continues to have antisocial characteristics. Despite much recent treatment and professional support, [his] problematic relationships with partners have not changed substantially over the course of six and one-half years since the last assessment was conducted.

His current interpersonal behaviour appears to be cooperative as long as he believes he is perceived as a victim, but he does not comprehend or take responsibility for the harm he has done and continues to do to a number of women and their children.” [ 41 ] In her oral evidence, Dr. McDermott described TR as being a hyper, driven, rapid- talker who was articulate but also “wound tight” which was indeed how he presented when he gave evidence in court. She also stressed that he saw himself as a benevolent kind of guy who tried to help damaged women.

Otherwise, he was victimized by women, the Children’s Aid Society and the justice system. [ 42 ] In regards to TR’s opinion about the McDermott reports, he testified that he agreed that he had engaged in problematic and abusive behaviour but he disagreed with the contention that he was solely responsible for all the conflict or that he had an agenda to manipulate of disempower women to gain some level of satisfaction or to suit his narcissistic antisocial personality disorder. He denied that he controlled the women that were referred to in the reports or that he was narcissistic.

He also complained that the assessor didn’t allow him to adequately explain what he believed were her misconceptions that she expressed in the first report. She only looked for the negative things and did not take note of any of TR’s positive aspects. [ 43 ] TR also claimed that when he last spoke to Dr. McDermott he was in the middle of his therapy regarding his own abuse. However, since then he has come to realize that he can’t continue to be obsessed by having been victimized as a child and that in order to heal he has to accept accountability for his actions.

At the time of the second assessment, he believed that he was not at the point where he could focus on the impact of his actions. He spoke of his understanding that there is not just physical violence and name calling like he and the mother engaged in, but that there were other types of violent behaviour that had negative implications and that needed to be avoided.

He went on to say that he acknowledged all those behaviours and to speak of his commitment not to engage in those behaviours and that his consistency in this regard improves each day. [ 44 ] As negative as these assessments were, and as concerning as it may be that TR didn’t or couldn’t clearly accept responsibility for the abuse and harm he has caused in the past, in my view, TR has made progress. He testified that he continues to be maintained on a daily regimen of medication that addresses his racing thoughts, his anxiety, PTSD and his OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder) behaviors.

Initially he saw the prescribing psychiatrist weekly and now he only sees him quarterly or as needed, although he can quickly access this medical assistance if the need presents itself. Since he has been on medication he claimed that he has seen a lot of changes in himself that he is thankful for. One of the benefits was that it allowed him to engage in a meaningful way with support agencies and in therapies to address some of his underlying issues. It is noteworthy that the Society had nothing to do with TR’s accessing services. TR reached out, on his own, to engage in services. These services included: a.

The John Howard Society. He remained involved with them between September of 2009 and early 2014. They provided him with support services and counseling regarding the impact of his criminal behaviour on himself and others. They made the referral of TR to a counsellor, John Field and also assisted him in not having further involvement in the criminal court. b. The Canadian Mental Health Association. His involvement with them took place between September 2009 and the end of 2010 and involved counselling regarding his mental health issues and his involvement in the criminal justice system. c. Dr.

Davis: TR first engaged with Dr. Davis (a psychologist) after he received the Assessment of Dr. McDermott in February of 2013. While their involvement appears to have been fairly brief, he described that they discussed his clinical issues including problems with anxiety. He has recently re-engaged with her because of his concern about the impact of this proceeding on his emotional and mental stability. d. TR also testified that he had a family physician and a dentist. e. John Field.

The details of TR’s counselling with John Field are set out below. [ 45 ] TR acknowledged that the Society had not been sent independent information that he had received these services. [ 46 ] Counseling with John Field : TR testified that the group programs run by John Field which he started in 2010 had some of the most profound and life-lasting impact on him of anything he undertook. He has also been engaged in one-on-one therapy with John Field since 2012. In general, he has been working on the trauma he suffered as a child and interpersonal relationships.

He testified that through this therapy, he was encouraged to confront issues in a meaningful way without resorting to destructive behaviours such that he has been able to actualize the whole concept of quality of life and really enjoy the worthwhileness of meaningful relationships with those in his life whether it is co-workers, friend, female partners or even the mothers of his children. TR indicated that he currently sees John Fields every two or three weeks and would continue to do so.

[ 47 ] Mr Field testified as to the nature of the therapy he has been providing to TR since 2010. He has a Master’s degree in individual and marital therapy. He specializes in providing males with anger management therapy or therapy for those who were abused as children. His counseling also is aimed at PTSD and stress management. [ 48 ] In this regard he co-facilitates a 10-week group for men called a “Coping Group.” Participants are there voluntarily and each session lasts three hours. This group is not an anger management group but it responds to trauma which triggers anger.

He testified that the bulk of the coping issues relate to sexual abuse, however, in this first 10-week session the program is largely instructional. Completion of this first program is followed by a 10 to 16 week group that is peer-supported called the “Process Group.” Once again each session lasts three hours and topics of discussion are based on personal disclosure. [ 49 ] Mr. Field testified that in 2010 TR became very interested in looking at his own issues as he started into these programs. TR was described as a good participant, that he didn’t miss a group and that he brought an appropriate sense of humour.

When he completed the first group he started into the second 16 week group which he has completed three times over. He did two groups per year between 2010 and 2012. In addition, between sessions he became involved with a further peer group in between the regular programing which allows people who had finished the program to stay connected, without having to attend every week. At present TR was described as “almost a co-facilitator” of that peer group. [ 50 ] Mr.

Field testified that TR became better at being aware of how some of his historical abuse affected him in regards to women and in general, and that he became better able to organize himself and regulate himself by being more thoughtful before he spoke. [ 51 ] Then, in early 2012, TR began regular one-on-one counselling with Mr. Field. At that time TR told Mr. Field that he wanted to focus on his issues and how he behaves with his female partners. Mr.

Field testified that men who have been sexually abused in the past are often dealt with through an “angry man, psychiatric or a substance abuse lens” however, in his therapy, he focused on what is the root-cause of the problems which is the child who had been abused. He claimed that TR was very motivated to better himself and to gain more insight into his behaviours. In fact, he was more motivated that most people. Mr. Field believed that TR began to understand that there were times when he responded to certain injustices and that he was more reactive than he should have been.

TR wanted to know what his triggers were and how to better respond. [ 52 ] Mr. Field stated that through therapy, it is possible for TR to change and that the success rate is quite good. Sessions are about every three weeks for an hour. Especially in the last year he was said to be much more aware of his interactions with women and be more thoughtful and aware of how he behaves. [ 53 ] Mr. Field testified that with his counselling program, first it was imperative that a respectful relationship would be built between himself and his client and then he would work on developing TR’s ability to develop insight.

He testified that now they were at this second stage and that after four years of involvement, TR is better than he was in the past. [ 54 ] When Mr. Field was questioned about why it was that TR continued to minimize his responsibility for the harm he had caused to women, he explained his understanding of TR as follows. TR was a child victim of abuse who lacked control over this violence. His anger and inappropriate actions with others is his way of trying to be “heard” and attempting to have his abuse issues be seen and attended to.

In answer to the question of whether TR was working on his abuse issues with women, he stated that his work involves helping people like TR use their intelligence to understand that violence is not the way to be heard and that if he is violent he is not helping his own cause. So in a therapeutic context he is encouraged not to react with violence. By dealing with the root cause of his misbehaviour, (that being his own childhood abuse) this minimizes his acting out. Mr.

Field testified that if TR is now not engaged in physical abuse, that is a sign that the counselling is working. [ 55 ] Indeed, there are no reports of domestic or any other violence perpetrated by TR since the 2008 incident with the mother of TR’s fourth child. This, I must say, is progress! [ 56 ] In addition, to all of this, Mr. Field supervises a men’s meal program for marginal or homeless men every Thursday morning at noon. According to Mr. Brown, TR has become a “caring volunteer” not only for the people who come for food but also for the other volunteers.

Some of the volunteers are women, but there has never been an issue with TR in this regard. Mr. Fields did not believe that TR was narcissistic. Rather, he was observed to display empathy with others. [ 57 ] Mr. Field testified that he had never met any of TR’s partners and that he had only read Dr. McDermott’s report the day before he gave evidence in court. However he testified that even if he had read the report before engaging with TR, he would not have changed the course of his therapy. [ 58 ] During her testimony, Dr.

McDermott claimed that TR was “flying under the radar” in that he never took responsibility for any of the harm he caused. Rather he presented himself as a victim or otherwise minimized his actions. She was sharply critical of the therapy he had been getting from Mr. Field for several reasons. Firstly, Mr. Field told her that he considered himself an advocate for TR and had not checked out TR’s history through any collateral source. When she spoke to Mr. Field, it was clear that he relied solely on TR for information and was unaware of the details of TR’s negative interactions with women.

As such, she claimed that there was no transparency as to TR’s true needs. She suggested that a system that advocates for a client might make the client feel better but it is not “treatment.” Further, she stated that even with all this “treatment” he still takes no responsibility for any of his transgressions and “owns” nothing. She suggested that if he were getting somewhere, he wouldn’t only blame others for the trouble he has gotten into. [ 59 ] Mr. Field acknowledged that he had spoken with Dr.

McDermott in a conversation which he said lasted about 20 minutes at the time she was preparing her second report which was released on January 14, 2013. He testified that his impression was that she was not much interested in his ideas if he didn’t see things as she did and that his observations were minimized. He testified that notwithstanding her report, he believed that TR’s level of frustration has been reduced and that as a victim he could be and has been helped and that now he doesn’t engage in the same way that he did a couple of years ago. He now has more insight into himself. [ 60 ] I agree with Mr.

Field that TR has been helped and this is evidenced by the fact that there are no reports of his abusing

others in a number of years. This does not mean that he has arrived at a true understanding of the harm that he has caused in the past, but it does mean that we need to appreciate what he has accomplished. Further, it should be noted that these accomplishments have been voluntarily achieved by him without any help, direction or support from the Society. [ 61 ] Work : TR testified that he is currently employed working on average 50 to 70 hours per day with two different jobs. One of the jobs is part-time and requires about 20 hours of work per week.

He has been honest with his employers about his clinical issues and acknowledged how supportive they were of him. He testified that if he becomes really manic, they will pull him aside and help him. His full time job involves doing market research for insurance companies, banks and health care companies. This is the fifth year that he has worked for them and he has some control over the hours that he works. He also has health benefits with this work.

His part-time job is performed two days per week and involves shipping and receiving duties. [ 62 ] TR’s current girlfriend testified that she had been in a relationship with him for about a year and although they had never resided together she sees him daily. She reported that she has been an accounting clerk for 10 years and currently has a child placed with her by the London CAS in a kinship care arrangement. She is also a single mother of to her own two children. None of these children have met TR as she wanted their relationship to be established as a long-term one before doing so.

While they had had arguments and disagreements during the course of their relationship, she stated that he had never been physical or controlling with her and that there was nothing abnormal or unhealthy about their disagreements. She commented on how neat, organized and well maintained his home was and also claimed that she had not seen any of the behaviours that troubled Dr. McDermott so much. [ 63 ] She stated that she was aware of TR’s criminal history and that she had read documents related to the past court history along with the reports by Dr. McDermott.

In spite of the reservations expressed in the assessments, this witness stated that TR was kind and loving and that he treated her very well. She noted that he displays moodiness and that her understanding was that he suffered from OCD, PTSD and Bi-Polar disorder and that she sees him taking prescription medication for these conditions. [ 64 ] I found her to be a credible witness. She did not appear to me to be weak, needy or abused. [ 65 ] Courses Taken by TR : TR presented the court with multiple certificates of courses taken since 2008.

To summarize, they include three courses related to personal counselling, one first aid course, five psychology courses, five nutrition courses, five parenting courses, and eighty-seven courses related to bible studies. [ 66 ] Dr. McDermott testified that even though TR may have gained the intellectual knowledge that has been presented to him in numerous courses and programs, the important thing is to look at how one conducts their life. While Dr.

McDermott acknowledged that she did not know what TR had been doing for the last two years, she could say from her two assessments that he was on a trajectory that did not suggest a positive outcome. She testified that TR was manipulative and controlling and that ultimately he had a severe personality disorder. [ 67 ] In my view, contrary to the assessment of Dr. McDermott, it would appear that TR has changed his trajectory for the better. He may not have done the kind of work that Dr. McDermott thinks he should be doing, and he may not yet be a completely redeemed soul, but he has made significant strides.

His hard work cannot be dismissed. [ 68 ] Communication Between the Father and the Society: The communication sent by the father to the Society between December of 2012 and January 2013 was voluminous. Some of his communications were by telephone but much of it was in written form; on one occasion being a 31 page document (which was placed into evidence) and on another occasion being in excess of 500 pages (which was not placed into evidence).

The father claimed in the communications placed before the court he believed that it was the mother who had a personality disorder, rather than him; that though out his life, he has been the one to be victimized; that the mother was predominantly the aggressor and abusive partner; that he had plead guilty to nearly two dozen charges which he didn’t commit in order to get out of house arrest and expedite the sluggish judicial system and that he was not the monster that the Society purported him to be.

These were at times couched in language that purported to express his concern for her wellbeing and her need for assistance with her problems. [ 69 ] In spite of this communication, it was quite clear from the evidence of the family service worker that TR was left completely out of the loop after the apprehension of his child. He was not offered services, they did not attempt to confirm that he was receiving services, there was no discussion about the possibility of his having access with his child and they provided him with no information about his child.

The apparent rational for this was that from the first day the case was placed before a court, the court ordered that TR would have no access to his child. This order was later confirmed at the temporary care and custody hearing. [ 70 ] Further, it was known to the Society that Dr. McDermott was completing a PCA in the fall of 2012 regarding the father as it related to his fourth child and that she would be completing a thorough review of all of the services that the father, had accessed in an attempt to address his issues.

Given the history of protection findings that had already been made against the father, the Society believed that there was no point in duplicating the work of Dr. McDermott in reviewing the same information for themselves.

They also believed that they could rely on the strength of the various court findings in support of the notion that TR would not have any involvement with his child in this case, no matter what services he might have obtained in the meantime to address his issues. [ 71 ] Based on the father’s history, the Society gave no consideration to his plan that he would provide a placement for the three girls or even his own biological child. Indeed, on July 26, 2013 the motion by the father TR for access to T. was dismissed by the Court.

This order for no access apparently flowed from the earlier highly concerning findings of protection; all of which gave him no access to his other children. Mother’s Protection Concerns: [ 72 ] The Society has been involved with the mother since 1999 on an intermittent basis, and since 2003 on a nearly continual basis. The involvement revolved around her poor choice of intimate partners, parenting skills enrichment, child behaviour management, supervision of children, cleanliness of the home and her mental health. There have been multiple previous judicial findings involving the two oldest children in this case.

[ 73 ] She first became pregnant at the age of 15, and that child, Joseph, who is now an adult, was frequently parented by the maternal grandmother. When the mother next became pregnant, this time with M., she was 22 years of age and RD who is M.’s father was then age 16. M. was born on […] , 1999. RD was not interested, nor capable of providing help of any fashion to the mother regarding this child.

Indeed, he is in default in this proceeding and only has occasional contact with M.. [ 74 ] Soon after the birth of M., the Society became involved with the mother when they became aware that she was allowing ST to have contact with her children. ST posed a risk to the children because he had previously been found to have sexually abused two young boys including through oral sex and inappropriate touching. They later termination services to the mother when she reported that she was no longer maintaining a relationship with ST.

However, the mother and ST recommenced their relationship in the fall of 2001 and by the fall of 2002, her children were again in contact with him. [ 75 ] As such a protection proceeding was commenced and on February 12, 2004, the child M. and her older brother (who is not the subject of these proceedings) were found to be in need of protection under s. 37(2) (b) (i) & (ii) of CFSA based on the above facts. At the time that that order was made, the mother was pregnant with ST’s child, J..

As a result, the children were placed in her care under supervision for a period of time with the requirement that there be no contact with this man. On June 17, 2004, there was an order made as it related to the child J. who had been born […] , 2004 setting out much the same factual findings. [ 76 ] By the time the court terminated that protection proceeding on November 10, 2005, the mother and TR were already involved in a romantic relationship which had commenced in 2004.

TR came into contact with M. and J. on many occasions during this time period in their relationship which apparently came to an end in about 2006. During this period, the mother became pregnant with TR’s child but aborted it because she believed the child would likely only be apprehended. Between 2006 and 2008 they had little contact. [ 77 ] On February 5, 2008, the court had once again found that the children were in need of protection pursuant to s. 37 (2) (b) (

i) and (ii) of the CFSA; this time because the mother was identified as suffering from depression and she found it difficult to wake up in the morning, which lead to issues regarding appropriate supervision of the children. In addition, she had been struggling to provide the children with basic necessities including food and heat. A further supervision order was put in place at this time. On October 9, 2008, the court terminated this order. [ 78 ] However, in 2008, while TR was in custody after having been found guilty of assaulting the mother of his fourth child, the mother came to visit him at the jail.

At that time, they immediately recommenced their relationship. She knew that he had been convicted of assaulting his intimate partner which caused her injury. Even with all of the red flags she engaged in a clandestine relationship with him. [ 79 ] In 2009 the Society brought a new application to prohibit the mother from allowing contact between her children and TR.

On October 22, 2009 the court made a temporary without prejudice order that M. and J. be placed in the care of the mother under terms of supervision that required (among other things) that she not allow TR access to the children in any capacity. [ 80 ] During that proceeding, the mother repeatedly assured the Society that her relationship with TR was over and that she would not be reconciling with him, although from time to time, she reported having contact with him. She was repeatedly advised that if she exposed her children to TR, the Society would take invasive measures.

On February 23, 2010, the Society withdrew its application based on assurances from the mother that she had ended her relationship with TR and on her entering into a voluntary Service agreement which among other things prohibited her from allowing TR from having access to her children. [ 81 ] However, the mother testified at trial that between September of 2009 and July of 2012 she visited TR about once every three months when she and the children would go to his residence for a weekend. On one occasion she took the children to his place for a week.

It was necessary for her to go to his residence in London since, at the time the terms of his probation prohibited him from coming to Chatham where the victim of his crimes (the mother of his fourth child) resided. During this entire period the Society was engaged in activities to have her recognize the protection issues involved in exposing her children to TR and to agree that she would not do so. [ 82 ] In her testimony, the mother claimed that for the most part the relationship was positive, but in the next breath she testified that they would argue about many things including child rearing.

She also claimed that TR was jealous of her relationship with someone called MJ because, according to the mother, MJ treated her nicely. She stated that both she and TR were both bipolar and participated in name calling. [ 83 ] TR testified that prior to his pleading guilty for the second time to assaulting the mother of his fourth child on August 3, 2010, his relationship with the mother was complicated by the fact that he was required by the terms of his bail to live with his parents who continued to abuse alcohol and acted with prejudice against J. who is bi-racial.

In spite of this on at least one occasion the mother brought the children to visit him at his parent’s home. Once his criminal proceedings were resolved he immediately moved into his own residence and at that point in August of 2010, they began to discuss more seriously the future of their relationship.

These conversations would have taken place even though the mother knew that the Society would intervene if they found out about their renewed relationship. [ 84 ] Between then and the birth of T. on […] , 2012, there were times that the mother brought the children with her to visit TR in London two weekends in a month. At other times they might not have any communication for two months at a time.

On at least one occasion the mother brought the children for a visit that lasted for a couple of weeks during the summer. [ 85 ] The CAS file was reopened in October of 2010 after the mother indicated that she wanted to suffocate the children and then kill herself. This crisis was prompted because of some difficulty she was having in her relationship with TR. In December, the mother told the worker that she had been to London to see her psychiatrist (though she refused to sign a release to allow communication with her doctor) and that she had had coffee with TR while she was there.

Again over the following months the mother repeatedly told the Society that they were no longer in a relationship and she was frequently advised by the Society worker that she ran the risk of having her children apprehended if she allowed TR access to them. The Society continued to monitor the situation through until August

10, 2011 when they again closed their file based on the mother’s assurances that she would not be reconciling with TR. In their closing letter to her they stated that should they reconcile, the Society would intervene and would likely proceed with a court application and possible with apprehension if required. [ 86 ] Then on January 3, 2012, the mother advised a worker that she was three months pregnant with TR’s child (T.) and that the last time she had seen him with the two older children was on December 25, 2011 when she and the children were with him for a day and one- half.

The worker was advised by the children that they had been left in the care of TR when the mother went to the store and that the mother and TR had a verbal altercation while they were there. However while the mother refused to sign a voluntary agreement to terminate contact between TR and the children, she verbally agreed that she would not allow any further contact between TR and the children.

As the Society had not received any further referrals regarding ongoing contact between the mother and TR the file was again closed. [ 87 ] By June of 2012, when the mother contacted the Society to discuss the possibility of TR meeting the expected child once the child was born, she was advised that the Society would not support the mother being the person to supervise any access. It appears that it was left that the mother would be looking into the community based supervised access center for assistance.

At that point in time, the father was still prohibited from being in Chatham-Kent. [ 88 ] On […] , 2012, the mother gave birth to T. who had been fathered by TR. The Society tried to deal with the protection issues regarding TR’s contact with the child by way of a voluntary service agreement with the mother. They reached a verbal agreement with the mother that she would not allow unsupervised access by TR to this child and that any such access would be supervised by a community based supervised access center.

The mother assured the Society that there would be no such access for the next six months in any case because TR was prohibited from attending at Chatham, and the child was too young to travel to London for access visits. However, when the Society asked her to enter into a written agreement to this effect, the mother refused. [ 89 ] As it turned out between July 1, 2012 and August 4, 2012, she brought all of the children, including T. to London on at least two and maybe three occasions to visit TR at his home.

These visits were said to be of long duration and the one that preceded the apprehension on August 4, 2012 lasted five days. The mother had taken the children to TR’s home hoping that it would lead to their being able to live as a family. [ 90 ] However, according to what the mother told Dr.

McDermott when a PCA was completed, they fought continually and extensively because the mother wanted an exclusive relationship with him and but he did not. [ 91 ] With regards to the visit that immediately preceded the apprehension on August 4, 2012, things began to fall apart badly when TR and the mother had a verbal altercation on a public bus in the presence of the children which resulted in him calling the police. This was followed that night with the mother waking him up and yelling at him at about 3:00 A.M.

In an effort not to allow it to escalate, he asked her to leave the home and then (to his credit) he left his home (rather than engaging in physical conflict) and called the police and the London CAS. [ 92 ] TR testified that he believed that the mother was becoming increasingly unstable and that her behaviour had escalated beyond his ability to calm her down. Although the children had been sleeping, M. was awaken by the incident.

As a result, early the next morning, with the encouragement of the police, the mother and the children made arrangements to return to Chatham in the morning. [ 93 ] These developments were reported to the Chatham-Kent Children’s Services and the decision was made by them to apprehend the children on their return to Chatham. This decision was based on the mother’s history of choosing bad partners and then exposing her children to them, on the father’s violence with his former partners and the fact that the mother had not been truthful about keeping the children and TR apart.

Indeed, the mother and TR had engaged in verbal conflict in the presence of the children requiring the intervention of police on two occasions which raised a risk of emotional harm to them.

Further, the mother was known to have suffered from depression, thoughts of self-harm and harming the children in the past, and on this occasion she was presenting as being overwhelmed. [ 94 ] On August 9, 2012, this court made a without prejudice order that the children be placed in the temporary care of the Society with supervised access to the mother a minimum of five times per week for T. and three time per week for the two oldest children.

M.’s father was also granted supervised access, but the order articulated that the father of T. (TR) and the father of J. would not have access without further order of the court. [ 95 ] On September 7, 2012, M. and J. were placed in a temporary kin placement pursuant to a supervision order. On January 25, 2013, the court placed M. and J. in the temporary care of the Society after the kin placement became unsustainable. [ 96 ] Even after the apprehension of the children, the mother and TR continued to be in contact.

On August 23, 2012, TR advised the worker that the mother continued to call him and “harass” him and “drag him into conflict.” He went on to claim that she was calling him six hundred times per week and that she was extorting him and trying to force him into a relationship.

He claimed that if he did not answer the telephone, the mother would show up at his door. [ 97 ] In October of 2012, the mother told the Society that she had been diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder but that she was not taking any medication for this diagnosis. [ 98 ] On October 17, 2012 the worker asked the mother if she had had any contact with TR and she claimed that she had not had any for some time. Dr.

McDermott in her Parental Capacity Assessment of the mother also noted that in October of 2012 the mother provided an affidavit to the court that she understood the negative impact the relationship with TR had on herself and her children and had ended contact with him. However, On November 15, 2012, the mother told the Society that she had suffered a miscarriage on November 3, 2012 after getting pregnant with TR in September 2012. [ 99 ] Over the next year, the mother took counselling programs for self-esteem, woman abuse, anger management, sexual

abuse, and support services at CMHA. She also was involved in personal counselling as were both of M. and J.. The mother continued to claim that her relationship with the father was over and on September 26, 2013 the court granted an order opening up access to the mother such that she could now have unsupervised access. The plan was that the Society would attempt to reintegrate the children back into the care of the mother. She was given unsupervised access to T. four times per week and to the two older children three times per week.

It was a specific term of her access that she was not to have any contact with TR and was to notify the Society forthwith of any contact initiated by him towards her. This order also reconfirmed that there was to be no access to the father TR or with J.’s father, ST without further order of the Court. At that particular point in time, the Society appeared ready to attempt a reintegration of the children back to the care of the mother. [ 100 ] But in spite of this order, the mother acknowledged at trial that she did not comply with the requirement not to have contact with TR.

She testified that between September 26, 2013 and February of 2014, she had had intimate relations with TR between 10 to 15 times, with the last time being in February of 2014 and that she did not tell the Society about this. At trial, both TR and the mother claimed that all contact between them ended in April of 2014. [ 101 ] To say the least, the mother has had great difficulty separating herself from TR. This difficulty was exceeded only by her inability to tell the truth about the status of this relationship.

While there is no evidence that they have engaged in physical violence, it appears that they both have engaged in high levels of conflict to which the children were exposed. [ 102 ] Parental Capacity Assessment of the Mother by Dr. McDermott : Pursuant to an order of this court, Dr. McDermott completed a Parental Capacity Assessment of the mother dated January 19, 2014. It is noteworthy that (whether or not Dr. McDermott knew it) the mother’s relationship with TR was continuing at the time this assessment was prepared. [ 103 ] Dr.

McDermott concluded that the mother’s background information demonstrated the extent of her emotional neediness, naivety and vulnerability to abuse and rejection. She opined that the mother had been confronted repeatedly over the course of years by a wealth of “red flags” that indicated that a relationship with TR would not go well for herself or her children. She had been repeatedly warned about the possibility of the children’s apprehension by the Society and even her own legal counsel regarding the repercussion of continuing a relationship with him.

In spite of this she persisted in a relationship that she should have known would be toxic to her life and that of her children. [ 104 ] Dr. McDermott concluded that these behaviors attest to the strength of the mother’s emotional neediness. At page 25 of her reports she stated: “Psychologically speaking, [the mother’s] masochistic (self-defeating) personality characteristics, when paired together with her emotional neediness/fear of being without a partner, cause her to be vulnerable to abuse by partners and inured to her own suffering.

She has repeatedly endured unhelpful, disrespectful and toxic relationships with men to stave off loneliness. Her children have no doubt been exposed to the tumult of those relationships over the years and witnessed the aftermaths wherein [the mother] was left angry, hurt and depressed.” [ 105 ] It was further concluded by Dr. McDermott that, taken together, the historical information and current presentation along with the results of the formal psychological assessment, the picture emerges of a woman with serious, longstanding, mood and personality issues.

She also concluded that the children had been exposed to irresponsible male partners and had become embroiled in conflictual relationships and fights with others which weakened a child’s ability to recognize obvious and subtle signs of dysfunctional relationships and detracted from their being able to take protective actions for their own self-worth and safety. [ 106 ] She concluded that the mother currently had limited emotional resources and that one shouldn’t expect a quick reunion between her and the children.

She believed that the counselling that the mother had undertaken up to that point had been short-term and infrequent which was not suitable for addressing well-engrained problematic attitudes and behaviours.

Further, she reported that it would likely takes years, and not months, of hard emotional work for the mother to gain enough insight into the part she had played in the events and to reconcile her needs with those of her children. [ 107 ] When asked on cross-examination if the children could be in her care while this therapy took place, she responded that the therapy should be going in earnest and that the progress should be regularly monitored in order for the placement of the children with her to take place.

However, she believed that only the two oldest children could possibly be returned to her care as they were old enough to protect themselves to some degree. However, T. was young, vulnerable and unable to sufficiently protect herself from her mother’s behaviours. [ 108 ] She recommended that the mother enter into long-term individual therapy and that the therapist be made privy to the essential portions of this report. She recommended that the two oldest children remain in care until such time that the Society determined that their mother’s therapy was established and that she was making progress.

She also recommended that these two girls have generous access during this period. However, she opined that the mother would need all of her emotional and physical energy to focus on her two older daughters and her own healing journey. [ 109 ] She also stated that T. could not be expected to wait for the mother to transform her life and attitudes and that permanency plans should be made for her while she was still able to form healthy attachments with others without much psychological trauma. She suggested that the window of opportunity for such a transition was quickly closing.

To this end, she recommended that all access between T. and her family members should be terminated. While Dr.

McDermott believed that it would be nice if T. were to be adopted by someone who honoured her relationship with her siblings, the reality was that the mother and her sisters would not likely accept the new parents and would undermine her stability in her new family. [ 110 ] At that point in time, given the recommendations of the PCA it appeared that the Society was less convinced that their original plan for the reintegration of the children back to the care of the mother was in their best interests. [ 111 ] Additional Services Accessed by the Mother Since the Release of the PCA: Following the release of the Parental Capacity Assessment, starting in June of 2014, the mother completed six counselling sessions through a self-referral to the Canadian

Mental Health Association with Susan Dykxhorn. This counselling was geared to learning new coping skills for stressful situations. It was reported that she attended regularly, did the homework and was very much engaged. She also reported to her Society worker that she remained interested in participating in family counseling with M. and J. as per the recommendation of Dr.

McDermott in her Parenting Capacity Assessment. [ 112 ] Further, pursuant to the recommendation in the PCA and after the Society finally obtained the necessary funding, on July 11, 2014, the mother commenced psycho-therapy with Todd Caldwell, M.A., C. psych. This was to address her issues identified in the PCA in an in depth, ongoing and consistent fashion within the context of a trusting and therapeutic relationship. Indeed, Mr.

Caldwell reported in August of 2014 that the mother appeared engaged and was working to the best of her ability to gain the necessary insight, even though the therapy was still in the nascent stage. Her attendance was reported to be excellent. The Children : [ 113 ] It has been striking that the two oldest children have always appeared to be well adjusted, bright children who do extremely well at school and are without any behavioural concerns. Both are avid readers. They are respectful, happy, well behaved and well- rounded children who get along with each other are involved in activities outside of school.

These two girls live at the same foster placement and have taken

part in counseling. In addition, specifically: a . M. is very focused on her education. She has been in counselling since August of 2013. In March of 2014, (not long after being apprised of the recommendations in Dr. McDermott’s report) she began having what appeared to be panic attacks during which she felt the necessity to get away from large groups of people. Her counsellor has helped her with strategies to manage these attacks. b . J. is in grade 5 at school and has also been involved in counselling since August of 2013.

She has been diagnosed with a hearing issue which is managed in her classroom with the use of a FM system. c . T. is a busy toddler. In the past she went through a stage of biting other children and caregivers. In the past she has had health issues with respiratory matters and vomiting and has been diagnosed with gastroesophageal reflux disease. Her medical doctor recommended at that time she be on a hypoallergenic formula. [ 114 ] The Family service worker commented in her evidence that the mother must have been doing some things right in order to have produced children like this.

Her observations of the mother’s interactions with her children were very positive and she reported the mother to be kind, patient and nurturing. The mother has always participated in the Plan of Care meetings and medical appointments for the children. The Society’s Evolving Plans for the Children . [ 115 ] The children have lived through the roller coaster of plans that have been put forward by the Society.

By September of 2013, the Society obtained an order from this court making it possible to open up the mother’s access with them such that the reintegration of the children back into her care could be attempted. However, when the Parental Capacity Assessment was received in January of 2014 which recommended Crown wardship for T. and a delay in the return of the other two girls to their mother, the Society appeared taken aback.

After M. and J. were advised of the results of the Parental Capacity Assessment they were very distressed to hear that T. could be made a Crown ward with no access to any member of her birth family. They were very opposed to the possibility of losing contact with T., and also with the possibility of not being returned to their mother, at least in the immediate future.

J. was said to have been especially upset. [ 116 ] The Society was well aware that the PCA suggested that the mother’s therapy would have to go on for years and were concerned because they were not in a position to fund this type of long-term endeavour. But they were also unenthusiastic about cutting off the access between the two oldest children and the T. since they felt that they were all very attached to each other.

They recognized that, given the stellar characters of the older children, who had spent most of their lives in the care of the mother that she had demonstrated some very good parenting mixed in with the issues that caused concern. In this regard, the Family Service worker testified that the mother’s ability to meet the needs of the children was not in question. Also, the mother had always been very motivated and was participating fully in other ongoing mental health programs. [ 117 ] By July of 2014, the Society was able to find funding for a limited number of sessions of the kind of therapy that Dr.

McDermott had recommended for the mother and she began attending enthusiastically and regularly. [ 118 ] As such, the Society advised that they would attempt once again to move towards the reintegration of the children back to the mother and during the summer of 2014 they dramatically expanded her access by allowing over-night visits with all of her children with a view to returning them to her by mid-September of 2014.

It was their hope that they could mitigate the protection concerns with a supervision order. [ 119 ] Through the summer of 2014, access visits between the mother and the three girls was extensively increased with many overnight visits. Even though the issue of depression had been identified as a historical problem for the mother, all indications were that this was not a problem now. In fact, the family service worker testified that the mother’s issues with mental health had not recently been a prominent concern for them.

The mother presented as always appropriate, cooperative and welcoming when a worker would attend during visits. There was never a concern that she couldn’t meet her own needs or keep the home appropriate for herself or her children. Certainly the children were aware that access was being ramped up to facilitate the return of all of them to the care of the mother. [ 120 ] However, while J. was happy and excited to be reunited with her mother, now M. appeared to be shocked and stated her wish to remain in the care of the Society and be able to have access visits with her mother and sisters.

She claimed that the mother’s place was not her home any more. She recognized that J. wished to be placed with her mother and was sad that they would be split up, but she still didn’t want to return to her mother’s home.

[ 121 ] This case had been on a trial list for months and was slated for trial starting in September of 2014. But now the intention was that there would be a Statement of Agreed Facts and a resolution of the matter rather than a trial as it related to the mother’s issues.

Then just prior to the commencement of the trial, the Society changed their plan once again, and the two oldest children were advised that the Society now would pursue making all three children Crown wards with no access to the mother. [ 122 ] Bombshell : The Society’s reintegration plan came to an abrupt halt just before this trial started after the mother revealed towards the end of August 2014 during a therapy session that she had been in a “pen pal relationship” with MJ for a period of approximately 7 years and also a telephone relationship for about 10 years.

She claimed that TR didn’t like her having this contact and so the relationship with MJ ended for about 4 years. She claimed that the relationship was not romantic in nature and that it had never been a physical relationship. Although it was unclear as to just when this relationship had been restarted, she disclosed that he had recently contacted her again through “face book” and within the past two months he started to contact her by telephone. As such she had, most recently, been talking to him on the phone for about a month or 6 weeks, approximately once per week.

She described MJ as treating her very well but that she had ended the relationship about two weeks before her disclosure. [ 123 ] What made this information so disturbing was that MJ is notorious locally as having shot and murdered his teen-age sister in January of 1998. He was found guilty of first degree murder in January of 2001 and is now serving a life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years. On June 30, 2014, his application under s. 745.6 of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 , for a reduction in his 25 year parole ineligibility period was dismissed.

He is said now to be next eligible for parole in about seven years. [ 124 ] The mother testified that she knew that he had murdered his sister when she started into her relationship with him, although she claimed that she had never visited MJ while he was in custody. The Society was very concerned about this disclosure, given that the mother had restarted her relationship with this man at the exact time when she was undergoing therapy to examine why she would engage in relationships with inappropriate men, and while access with her children was being increased for the purpose of reintegration.

As such the Society sought a further opinion from Dr. McDermott regarding this new information. [ 125 ] Dr. McDermott’s concluded that the disclosure by the mother of a long-term ongoing contact with a man convicted of murder while he resided in jail further confirmed her emotional neediness and lack of judgement. While the fact that she had disclosed this information during the course of therapy may have been seen as progress, it also indicated that her judgment still remained impaired as at August of 2014.

This suggested that the safety and security of herself and her children remained in question. [ 126 ] At trial, Dr. McDermott was troubled that the fact that the mother had not disclosed this information during the assessment and she concluded that this factor also pointed to the secrecy and duplicity of the mother. Further, she felt that the mother had yet to internalize sound and reasonable judgment and anticipated that her therapy would be more long-lasting and its progress more guarded than hitherto imagined. [ 127 ] It was only during the cross-examination of Dr.

McDermott that it became clear that indeed the mother had reported that she had been involved in a relationship with MJ for about “six months”, however unlike the disclosure that she made to the Society just before the start of trial, she reported to Dr. McDermott that they had talked about marriage. It would appear from the context of PCA (page 10 of the report) that this talk of marriage would have occurred well before the birth of T.. Clearly, Dr.

McDermott felt that she had been misled when the mother failed to report that the person with whom she had been contemplating marriage was a convicted first degree murderer who was in custody serving a life sentence. She questioned what the mother could have been thinking to even consider introducing such a person into the lives of her children. [ 128 ] The mother testified that MJ had never met the children and that she had not seen him in person since before he was convicted of murder.

She had had between 50 and 70 telephone calls with him, with conversations varying in length and sometimes lasting over an hour. These calls took place largely between 2006 and 2008 and then later in the summer of 2014 during the months of June, July and August, just before the start of trial. During this time they communicated by telephone once or twice per week. Mother’s Therapeutic Progress . [ 129 ] As mentioned above, the mother commenced psychotherapy with Mr. Caldwell in July of 2014.

He testified in January of 2015, during the course of the trial that the purpose of this therapy was so that she could deal with profound historical and current relationship issues along with unresolved mood issues which included depression, indications of periodic hypomania as well as anxiety. [ 130 ] Mr. Caldwell indicated that the therapy was roughly divided into two phases; the first related to the mother gaining understanding as to why her behaviours occurred, and the second regarding how to deal with and manage the irregulation.

He claimed that she is taking accountability for her poor judgement and stated that he believed she understood her vulnerability to engage with bad partners. In terms of progress, he estimated that on a scale of 1 to 10 she is at about a 5 or a 6 and stated that he believed she was very genuine in wanting to break the patterns that have put her in the difficulty she is now in. In answer to Dr.

McDermott’s criteria that therapy should be established and that she should be making progress before considering the return of the children, he confirmed that the mother had achieved that stage at that point in time. [ 131 ] Having said that, Mr. Caldwell anticipated that this individual therapy would need to be long-term in nature. The mother was described by him as having an excellent attendance record and being fully engaged and cooperative with her treatment objectives.

As at January 21, 2015, he had seen her on 16 occasions although, in his view, she required long-term therapy meaning that she would require more like 50 sessions. His concern was that the Society had only approved funding for six more sessions and the implication was that their funding might not extend much past this. While the Society cleared the way to extend payment for these next six therapy sessions, the mother who worked part time, had actually paid for one of the sessions which appeared to take most of one week’s income.

Finding of Protection : [ 132 ] Clearly there are deep and concerning protection concerns related to this family. Based on the facts as related in these many pages, I find that the children are in need of protection pursuant to s. 37(2)(b)(

i) of the CFSA.

[ 133 ] The over-arching reasons for this finding are that: (

a) The fathers of M. and J., RD and ST respectively, are in default and have not taken

part in this proceeding, nor have they put forward a plan for their child’s care. (

b) The mother has a profound and lengthy history of choosing dangerous and/or inappropriate men as partners and fathers of her children. (

c) M.’s father was age 16 at the time that she was conceived and has had little involvement in her upbringing. (

d) J.’s father was alleged to have sexually abused children, and has not taken

part in these proceedings to defend against these claims. Further, he is not involved in the upbringing of J.. (

e) T.’s father, TR has an extensive history with the CAS. None of his four other children are in his care. Two of his children have been made Crown wards with no access for the purpose of adoption and the first and fourth children are placed with their mothers. TR also has no access with that fourth child and at best only limited access to the first child. (

f) TR has an extensive history of convictions for abuse of his female partners, which for which he has not taken responsibility nor has he shown any real remorse. Having said that, there is no record of him engaging in assaultive behaviour or being engaged with the Criminal Justice system since 2008. (

g) This may be as a result of his receiving psychiatric treatment, including prescription medication for mental health problems which were identified as including bipolar disorder. (

h) Further, he has received therapy since 2010 which appears to have ameliorated in an important way, his antisocial tendencies

[…]