Children’s Aid Society of Peel Region v. P.G., 2011 ONCJ 750

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. Brampton Registry No. 20017/08 DATE: 2011·XI·30 CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Peel Region v. P.G. , 2011 ONCJ 750 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF THE REGION OF PEEL , Applicant, — AND — P.G. and J.V., Respondents. Before Justice Patrick W.

Dunn Heard on 1-3 November 2011 Reasons for Judgment released on 30 November 2011 W. Todd Moore .............................................................................. counsel for the applicant society Glen A. Cook .................................................................... counsel for the respondent mother, P.G.

[ 1 ] JUSTICE P.W. DUNN:— This is an amended early status review application dated 18 July 2011, in which the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (the society) sought an order for Crown wardship without access leading to the adoption of C.. born […]2009. Protection findings were made on 16 September 2009, based upon a risk of physical and emotional harm to the child. The parents are Ms. P.G., twenty-three, and Mr. J.V., about nineteen. [ 2 ] The case is about a mother with some parenting skills, but in the society’s view, not enough to be able to provide a safe and nurturing upbringing to C..

However, this mother dearly does love her child. [ 3 ] Ms. P.G. admitted that in the past, she lead an unstable lifestyle, and her relationship with Mr. J.V. was injurious to herself and to her ability to parent. However she submitted that she has been in a secure residence since January 2011, and Mr. J.V. is out of her life permanently since November 2010. Ms. P.G. believed she is competent to assume custody, with the society’s support. In the alternative, she proposed a friend as an adoptive parent, with herself having access. [ 4 ] Ms.

P.G. had a childhood that was deleterious to her development as a person and future mother. She was neglected, mistreated and traumatized by her mother, Ms. S.R.., and her stepfather, Mr. J.R.., who was the only father figure she had. [ 5 ] Ms. S.R.. was non-nurturing and cruel when P.G.. had been locked in her room and deprived of food. She was not encouraged to attend school, and now reads at a grade four or five level. She only went to grade eight. Ms. S.R.. slept most days, leaving child care to Mr. J.R.. [ 6 ] Ms. P.G.’s stepfather sexually abused her from age eight. They slept in the same bed and Ms.

S.R.. reposed elsewhere on a couch. Mr. J.R..’s brother also sexually abused her from her age of five years. Ms. S.R.. knew about the wrongdoing and did not prevent it. Subsequently Mr. J.R.. was charged with interference with a minor and sentenced to two years of house arrest. [ 7 ] Mr. J.R..’s sexual relations with his stepdaughter lead to the birth of her first child, M.G., born […] 2006. [ 8 ] Although the status review before the court is about Ms.

P.G.’s second child C., the society considered the history of her parenting of M.G. when making recommendations about C.. [ 9 ] The hospital where M.G. was born brought its concerns to the society’s attention about Ms. P.G.’s transience, her lack of parenting and coping skills, and the criminal activity of Mr. J.V., who was thought at first to be M.G.’s father. [ 10 ] After M.G.’s birth, Ms. P.G. was living with Ms. S.R.. The society allowed Ms. S.R.. to be the baby’s primary caregiver, unaware that Mr. J.R.. was the actual father. Seven months later, by February 2007, the society learned of Mr.

J.R..’s true role and, on 4 March 2008, M.G. was apprehended and placed in the society’s care. Later in June 2009, the child was put with caregivers under the society’s supervision. [ 11 ] Mr. J.R.. had a psycho-legal assessment at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), to determine what risks he might pose for his daughter. It was determined that M.G. would be safe in his care, because he was a biological father, in contrast to his stepfather status with Ms. P.G. [ 12 ] Ms. P.G., at age eighteen, sought custody of M.G., and the society explored that possibility.

To gain information about her parenting capacity and her ability to learn and to employ new parenting techniques on a consistent basis, the society enrolled her in its Therapeutic Access and Assessment Program (TAAP) from August to November 2008. Mr. J.V. was not involved in that course. [ 13 ] TAAP is run in an ordinary looking house operated by the society. It has the usual amenities of any residence; a functioning kitchen, a child’s bedroom and a backyard play area.

The house permits a hands-on parenting experience in a real life setting where instruction can be given and the opportunity is there for parents to implement their learning. [ 14 ] Atizhe Zeneli was the society’s child and youth worker who ran TAAP. Parenting sessions were to be three to four hours a day over a several week span. Ms. P.G. had been offered ninety-four-and-a-half hours over the period 11 August 2008 to 20 November 2008. She attended forty-nine hours, and missed forty-five-and-a-half hours of parental teaching time. Being late was also a concern. [ 15 ] Ms. Zeneli’s observations of Ms.

P.G. with two-year-old M.G. during this period were that she: • Showed positive instrumental parenting skills such as feeding, changing diapers and transitioning from one activity to another. • Was sensitive and nurturing to M.G. • Brought food and clothing which the program required. • Appropriately could take on the roles of playmate, teacher and disciplinarian. • Appeared preoccupied with her own needs, such as diminished finances and her relationship with Mr. J.V.

SheJ. was withdrawn to M.G., and the child’s emotional needs were not met. • Sought physical and emotional support from M.G., and she put her own needs ahead of her daughter’s. • Showed limited insight into M.G.’s angst when she arrived late or not at all. • Had difficulty providing a consistent and predictable routine.

• Did not sustain what she was taught to meet M.G.’s emotional needs. [ 16 ] TAAP had recommended that Ms. P.G. take trauma counselling to deal with her past, which she did not do. She had some counselling with Healthy Babies, Healthy Children and the Valley Infant Program, both of which ended their involvement because of her lack of commitment and participation. [ 17 ] The society had a serious heed that Ms. P.G. was not bonding with M.G. Ms. P.G. knew that, because she had difficulty deciding whether to relate to this child as her daughter (which she was) or as a sister, because of Mr.

J.R..’s role. [ 18 ] Based on the TAAP assessment and its knowledge of Ms. P.G.’s parenting difficulties and continuing transience, the society did not recommend placement of M.G. with her mother. It then considered a plan of care by Mr. J.R.. and his new partner, Ms. K.R.. As mentioned, the CAMH report held that M.G. would not be at risk in the care of her father. Ms. P.G. accepted the findings of CAMH, and agreed for her stepfather and Ms. K.R.. to have custody of M.G. She also understood the challenge she would have in raising two young children. [ 19 ] This court placed M.G. with Mr. J.R.. and Ms.

K.R.. under twelve months supervision, which proved to be successful. Later on 24 November 2010 under Children’s Law Reform Act proceedings, they obtained final custody. [ 20 ] After the custody proceedings for M.G. concluded, Ms. P.G. had visits with her daughter in the community, but they were few, mainly because she was inconsistent in her attendance. Ms. P.G. last saw M.G. about a year ago. [ 21 ] This case is not about M.G.; the subject is Ms. P.G.’s second child C.. Ms.

P.G.’s history with M.G. was set out in some detail to illustrate her involvement with her first daughter in comparison to that of her second. [ 22 ] C.’s father, Mr. J.V., also had significant challenges in his youth. His parents are his mother Ms. R.S.. and his stepfather, Mr. J.S.. Ms. R.S.. could not handle her son’s aberrant behaviour, and a children’s aid society became involved and at age twelve, he became a Crown ward. Mr. J.V. has shown limited insight into his circumstances. He could not understand why his mother “gave up” on him and that made him angry.

He did not comprehend why he continued to have involvement with courts, and he believed Peel police were “out to get him”. He ran repeatedly from foster homes and experimented with drugs and alcohol and engaged in delinquent behaviour. As of August 2010, he claimed to have been incarcerated over forty times. Charges related to fights in the community, aggression, resisting arrest, assaulting police and theft.

The society’s notes (Exhibit 2, Tab 3) state: When asked about how his charges will impact his parenting, and for insight into why the society would have concerns about his parenting, he said his personal life should not impact his parenting, as he would not do anything in front of his child. He denied and minimized the risks associated with his lifestyle both around his criminal involvement and substance abuse. Mr. J.V. supported the return of C. to Ms. P.G. [ 23 ] The society opened a file on C. on […]2009, which was the day she was born. By that time, Ms.

Liz Okai, then a family service worker for the society, had been assisting Ms. P.G. for three years since M.G.’s birth in […] 2006. The society had similar concerns about Ms. P.G.’s parenting of C. as it did with her caregiving to M.G. These were: • Transient accommodation. Between mid 2008 and August 2009, Ms. P.G. was in four residences before C. was born. Then she was in three housing arrangements between August 2009 and January 2010. These moves disrupted the child care routine. • Inadequate parenting and coping skills. • Ms.

P.G.’s unwillingness or inability to follow through on advice and accept trauma counselling. Also the society was concerned that Ms. P.G. had no prenatal care in the first six months of her pregnancy, and that she had been subjected to Mr. J.V.’s physical and emotional abuse. He had punched and choked her out of frustration and anger. Ms. P.G. had a seven year on and off relationship with Mr. J.V.. ItJ. was known that C.’s father was heavily involved with drugs, and the society believed that Ms. P.G. was too (marijuana), but not to the same extent. The provenance of the drugs was also a worry, because Ms.

P.G. could not have afforded them on her limited social assistance income. [ 24 ] It was said previously that Ms. P.G. had a hardship committing to parenting M.G. because of her dichotomous perception of the child being her daughter, but also was like a sister. Ms. P.G.’s attitude to C. was entirely different. She professed her commitment to parenting her second daughter, with Mr. J.V.’s support. [ 25 ] The society appreciated that Ms. P.G. was competent in providing instrumental child care, and she was cooperative in a general way. To her credit, she also had community support, including her mother, Ms.

S.R.. with whom she was residing. The society decided C. would be safe with Ms. P.G., and the child was placed with her under supervision for one year. In September 2009, C.’s parents signed a Statement of Agreed Facts where they agreed to findings of risk of physical and emotional harm and a court order ensued. The terms of supervision were: • Mr. J.V. was to have access only in accordance with the society’s direction. • C. was not to be left alone with her maternal grandmother, Ms. S.R.., for more than two hours. (That was because of Ms. R.’s failure to protect Ms. P.G. from her stepfather, Mr. J.R..)

Also, Mr. J.V. was required to participate in services recommended by the society to include parental counselling and drug screening. I found that the terms of supervision were loosely drafted, and could have been more specific about the society’s concerns regarding Ms. P.G.’s frequent changes in residences, failing to attend appointments with parenting instructors and do drug screens. [ 26 ] Soon after the supervision order was implemented, difficulties arose in Ms.

P.G.’s compliance with the terms of supervision: • She and C. relocated at least three times without telling the society. • She repeatedly missed appointments with the society’s Infant Wellness consultant, Public Health nurse and Family Visitor. • The society had asked Ms. P.G. to take drug tests which she did not do. • Mr. J.V. did not accept the supports recommended by the society. • Ms. P.G. and C. were with Mr. J.V. without supervision. • Ms. P.G. left C. with Ms. S.R.. for over two hours more than once. Virtually all of the supervision terms were breached.

On 28 January 2010, four months after the baby had been placed with Ms. P.G., the society apprehended C.. [ 27 ] The society then placed the child in the foster home of Ms. D.B2.., who has had a positive and substantial influence on C. in the very important early formative months of the child’s life. [ 28 ] After the apprehension in January 2010, the society still recognized the possibility that C. might be returned to her mother (or perhaps to mother and father together). Ms. P.G. and Mr. J.V. were invited to demonstrate a commitment to raising their daughter by: • Both participating in a Safer Family Program.

Ms. P.G. would also need to address personal issues, such as her past sexual abuse and domestic violence with Mr. J.V., improve coping and parenting skills significantly, and obtain stable housing. Mr. J.V. was to confront his drug usage and criminal activity. • Both were to do random drug screening (on 3 May 2010, the test results showed that both parties used marijuana and Mr. J.V. accessed cocaine. Ms.

P.G. tested positive for marijuana on October 4 th and 15 th , 2010). • Both were to participate regularly in parenting classes through Family Futures. [ 29 ] At the same time as the door was open for these parents to prove they can provide effective caregiving, in the spring of 2010 the society was considering a kin placement. Ms. P.G. had family connections, especially through Mr. J.V.’s relatives whom she believed would be willing to adopt C.. Althought Ms.

P.G.’s first preference would have been for her daughter to be returned to her, she would accept an adoptive arrangement provided there was an openness provision where she could still have person-to-person access. It must have been apparent to the society that Ms. P.G.’s planning was bifurcated; was she planning to parent alone, or was it to be with Mr. J.V.’s support? I doubt whether even Ms. P.G. knew the answer. [ 30 ] The parents exercised access to C. after the January 2010 apprehension and Ms. Okai supervised some of the access (between January and March, 2010).

It was at the society’s office (with some exceptions) and at the outset, both parents attended regularly. Ms. Okai’s affidavit (sworn 26 October 2011) states that Ms. P.G. attended sixty per cent of the scheduled access. The worker’s observations about the access were: • Both parents participated and engaged C. positively during visits. • Ms. P.G. and Mr. J.V. were happy to see their daughter and spend time with her. • Ms. P.G. showed enhanced parenting skills in comparison to that demonstrated with M.G. • Without prompting, Ms. P.G. fed and changed C.. • When Mr. J.V. was present, Ms.

P.G. was competent in child care. If he did not attend, because he was in jail or the parties were in a dispute, either Ms. P.G. did not attend or if she did, she was preoccupied and emotionally absent for C.. • The foster mother expressed concern that when Ms. P.G. did not attend for access, C. was upset and confused, even at two years of age. [ 31 ] Carla Marques was the society’s family service worker who supervised access between March and August 2010; she was trained to assess parent-child relationships.

This access was in the Supervised Access Program, where parents are taught caregiving skills and have the opportunity to put their learning into practice. These parents were offered fifty-eight hours of parenting instruction and practice. Ms. P.G. attended for twenty-two hours, and Mr. J.V., for eleven. Ms. Marques observed that Ms. P.G.:

(1) Did not appreciate the importance of routine for young persons like C.. She did not understand the correlation between routine and behaviour challenges.

(2) Lost her enthusiasm during the course of the visits. She became more withdrawn as C.’s needs were increasing. Hence the quality of this mother’s parenting decreased as each visit progressed.

(3) Was more competent, cheerful, patient and positive without Mr. J.V.’s presence. She received affection from C., took pride in her daughter’s accomplishments and responded better to the child’s cues. (This observation was in contrast to Ms. Okai’s comments about Mr. J.V.’s good influence on Ms. P.G. during access.)

(4) When she did attend, she was cooperative, pleasant and listened to feedback.

(5) Did not display insight into how her relationship with Mr. J.V. impacted her ability to respond to C.’s needs. [ 32 ] Overall, Ms. Marques believed that Ms. P.G. genuinely wished to make changes in her life, but she was impeded by her chaotic and unpredictable lifestyle. She had little money, was unable to stabilize housing and be regular in access and deal effectively with Mr. J.V.’s problems. [ 33 ] Despite the negative conclusions on Ms. P.G.’s parenting ability after the first TAAP assessment with M.G. in 2008, the society decided to do a second assessment in March 2010.

The reasoning behind this decision was: • C.’s father was now involved, and the society wanted information about the parents’ relationship and their ability to parent together. • Ms. P.G.’s attitude and commitment to C. were much different than her engagement with M.G. • Ms. P.G. was a little older and felt that she was more mature. • She claimed her supports were more significant in 2010 than they were two years earlier. [ 34 ] The second TAAP ran from June 15 th to July 28 th , 2010. Mr. J.V. did not participate at the outset because he was incarcerated. There were eleven sessions scheduled; Ms.

P.G. attended four and Mr. J.V., one. The program ended because of the parents’ lack of commitment and because of Mr. J.V.’s incarcerations. The number of sessions could have been extended, but were not because of the lack of attendance by the parents in the scheduled course. [ 35 ] The results of the second TAAP were:

(1) Ms. P.G.’s instrumental care was more enhanced than exhibited in the first TAAP with M.G.

(2) It was clear that Ms. P.G. needed to resolve her past life experiences and learn to manage stressors before she could effectively care for a young child.

(3) Her unpredictable lifestyle did not offer stability either to herself nor to a child in her care. [ 36 ] On 19 August 2010, Ms. Okai and her supervisor Yvonne Neuff met Ms. P.G., who was told that the society decided not to return C. to her and the options of adoption and a kinship placement were discussed. It appears that even at that point there was still an opportunity to Ms. P.G. to rehabilitate and put forward a plan for custody. In Ms. Neuff’s affidavit sworn 26 October 2011 she stated: Ms. P.G. was advised that C. could only be in temporary care of the society for one year, so Ms.

P.G. needed to stabilize her life quickly and address per personal issues if she wanted C. returned to her care. [ 37 ] Mr. J.V. stopped attending parenting instruction after 15 June 2010. It can be said that he did not comply with hardly any of the society’s recommendations, other than to attend access on occasion. On 23 November 2010, he left Ontario permanently to reside with relatives in Newfoundland. [ 38 ] At the time of the apprehension of C. in January 2010, Ms. P.G. was invited to submit names for a kin assessment regarding a placement for the child and numerous persons were offered. The first was Ms.

G.B.., a paternal aunt. She was not approved because of a long, as well as recent history with the society. In July 2010, Ms. L.W.., a paternal great aunt in Newfoundland was proposed. (Ms. L.W.. is the mother of the previously mentioned Ms. G.B..) Ms. L.W.. declined to produce her medical records of methadone usage, and Ms. P.G. withdrew her name because of her drug habits. [ 39 ] In August 2010, Ms. P.G. suggested two persons. The first was Ms. D.B.. She had recently adopted three children, and was still on adoptive probation at the time so her plan was dismissed. Then Ms. R.J..’s name was submitted.

She was said by Ms. P.G. to be a great aunt. Ms. R.J.. never contacted the society and no plan was submitted. [ 40 ] Two more names were advanced in September 2010. Ms. K.R.. was introduced by Ms. P.G. Ms. R.P.. was Mr. J.R..’s partner and they had custody of M.G. The society did not even assess that plan because of its concern about Mr. J.R..’s actions with Ms. P.G. where he was not the biological father. Then Ms. J.B. was proposed as a kin caregiver. (She was the daughter of Ms. D.B.. who had previously been considered.) Ms. J.B. was known to Ms. P.G. in the past.

An assessment was satisfactorily completed on her and

her partner, Mr. A.P. The society’s plan then in September 2010 was for Ms. J.B. and Mr. A.P. to adopt C. on an open basis, which would allow regular access by Ms. P.G. OnP. 27 April 2011, the little girl was placed with these kin and prior to that, they had fruitful access with C.. The foster mother, Ms. D.B1.., facilitated that access in a positive way, and the little girl began a healthy attachment to her new caregivers. [ 41 ] As part of Ms. P.G.’s plan to have access, which the society wanted to be supervised, Ms.

P.G. needed a stable residence where the access could take place and a supervisor had to be approved for the task. Ms. P.G. had been living with one Ms. L.G.. since January 2011, and her name was put forward as the supervisor. Ms. L.G.. was known to the society because of past child protection issues with her children, and it maintained an open file. The G.. household was certainly active, because Ms. L.G.. had five children ranging in age from one to sixteen years. [ 42 ] Ms. L.G.. was assessed by the society as an access supervisor and was approved. Ms.

P.G. had six visits at her residence between July and September 2011. During visits, it is safe to assume there were multiple interactions between C. and Ms. L.G..’s children and other visiting children and with adults in the house. Likewise, Ms. P.G. socialized with the other adults and their children, as well as attending to C.. To repeat, the purpose of the access visits at Ms. L.G.’s home was to facilitate the companion arrangement whereby Ms. J.B. and Mr. A.P. would have adoptive custody, and Ms.

P.G. would have a place to exercise access as part of an open adoption. [ 43 ] Returning to the narrative where C. was in a pre-adoptive placement, the society had reason to be optimistic about the outcome of the B.-P. plan, but then in the spring and early summer of 2011, problems were brewing. Ms. J.B. and her mother, Ms. D.B.. and other family members were having conflict with Ms. P.G.. Because P. of things said, Ms. J.B. was showing opposition to access by Ms. P.G., and that lead to Ms. P.G.’s resistance to the continued placement of C. with Ms. J.B. (Ms. P.G.’s agreement with C. being adopted by Ms.

J.B. was entirely premised on Ms. P.G.’s having access to the child.) [ 44 ] The society then decided that this family conflict would have a detrimental effect on C., the concern being that Ms. J.B. would show animus to Ms. PG.. Another serious impediment for the success of this placement was Ms. P.G.’s conviction that she should be the primary decision maker, even though she would only see her daughter during access. That attitude would seriously compromise Ms. J.B.’s and Mr.

A.P.’s authority as adoptive parents. [ 45 ] On 27 July 2011, C. was removed from the B..-P.. household and returned to the foster mother, Ms. D.B2.., where she still remains. Ms. D.B2.. testified that the two-year-old girl did not react well to the upset at being removed from the B..-P.. home, where after three months she was beginning to sink roots. [ 46 ] Curiously, even after C. was returned to foster care in July 2011, the access to Ms. P.G. at Ms. L.G..’s residence continued until September 2011.

Because this access was only intended to be a part of the open adoption at the B..-P.. residence, it is hard to understand why, after that placement collapsed, the access at the G.. house continued for part of two months. By the end of September 2011, the foster mother had the following concerns about that access: • C. resisted attending; • She returned hungry and with wet diapers; • After coming back to the foster home, there were behavioural issues; C. was aggressive and hitting her foster mother. [ 47 ] On 4 October 2011, the society ended the access at Ms. L.G..’s home, and Ms.

P.G. could have supervised access at the society’s office, if she arranged for it. There was only one such visit on 14 October 2011 and no access since. Ms. Karen Grant, a child protection worker with the society, tried to induce Ms. P.G. to attend visits even with the cost of transportation being provided, but to no avail. [ 48 ] Ms. P.G. made further suggestions for kin placements. On 27 July 2011, she proposed her daughter’s paternal grandparents — Ms. R.S.. and Mr. J.S..

The society did not support this placement because: • C. did not have a relationship with them. • There was a concern that if this placement progressed, Mr. J.V. could reappear in his daughter’s life, perhaps with ill effect. • If Mr. and Ms. S.. were to be assessed, a pattern of access would be required. After C.’s recent moves, more disruption would not benefit her. [ 49 ] There was one further and final proposal by Ms. P.G. for a kin provider. On 29 June 2011, perhaps when Ms. P.G. knew about issues in the B.-P. placement, she suggested Ms. N.C.. to adopt C.. The name of Ms. N.C.. was Ms.

P.G.’s backup choice of caregiver; her preference was for the child to be returned to her. [ 50 ] After C. rejoined her foster mother in July 2011, the society’s plan was to find a permanent caregiver with no connection to Ms. P.G.. ItP. was concerned that an open adoption with someone known to C.’s mother would lead to future conflict and upset in the little girl’s life. [ 51 ] At this point, it may be convenient to give a tableau of C.. As of November 2011, the little girl is two years, three months old.

She is happy and content, engages in activities and socializes well with other children and is cute and loveable. The person who knows her best is Ms. D.B2.., her foster mother. She described her charge as a curious, active person who requires patient, committed

caregiving. She is a sensitive child who became upset when Ms. P.G. did not attend for access or was late. In Ms. D.B2..’s considered opinion, C. is capable of making attachment to loving and effective parents.

I can observe that there certainly will be a period of mistrust on the part of this young person in meeting future caregivers, because she had been introduced to different persons, who for various reasons have not stayed in her life. [ 52 ] Turning now to an examination of the society’s witnesses, each worker swore a comprehensive affidavit of her involvement, and was presented to give evidence in chief and then to be cross-examined by Mr. Cook. [ 53 ] Liz Okai was a family service worker with the society, who knew Ms. P.G. for four years during her parenting of M.G. and C..

She was involved between October 2006 and November 2010. [ 54 ] Atixhe Zeneli was a child and youth worker in the society’s Therapeutic Access and Assessment program. She was active with the family from July to December 2008 during the assessment of Ms. P.G. with M.G. [ 55 ] Carla Marques was the family service worker who supervised access between March and June in 2010. Yvonne Neuff was the society’s team leader who directed Ms. Okai and Karen Grant. Ms. Neuff was a supervisor from April 2008 to October 2011. She was aware of all the society’s plans and the assistance given to Ms.

P.G. [ 56 ] Karen Grant was the child protection worker from December 2010 to October 2011. Angelo Arcand was the social worker who provided services to L.G.. from March 2010 to April 2011. Nadine Helgason was the society’s team leader in the adoption department and was involved in permanency planning for C.. Ms. D.B2.. was C.’s foster mother from February 2010 after the apprehension until April 2011 when C. was placed in the B..-P.. home, and then from July 2011 to the present. It should be said that Ms.

D.B2..’s fondness for C. was so deep that she and her husband considered adopting C. and that placement would have been ideal. However, Ms. D.B2.. has four biological children (and one other foster child) who understandably claim so much of her attention and energy. [ 57 ] The court will consider the effectiveness of the evidence from Ms. P.G.’s witnesses. One of the two important supporters for Ms. P.G. was Ms. L.G.., who provided a residence and encouragement for her since January 2011. Ms. L.G.. would be the access supervisor for Ms. P.G. with C. if the court were to accede to Ms.

P.G.’s plan for an open adoption. The residence has been described as “chaotic” and “very busy” by different witnesses. It can certainly be observed that several persons were living there and coming and going at various times. Mr. Moore asked Ms. L.G.. if she knew about the protection concerns of the society. She said she did; it was because of Mr. J.V.’s family, and no other issues came to her mind. [ 58 ] I do not believe that Ms. L.G..’s home would be a supportive place for C. if Ms. P.G. were to exercise access at that location. There would be too many other children and adults who would compromise Ms.

P.G.’s need for “one-on-one” time with her daughter. Confusion would reign and missed teaching moments would abound. [ 59 ] In Ms. L.G..’s opinion, based on the six occasions she observed Ms. P.G. with C., mother and daughter were “well bonded”. She described Ms. P.G. as “more responsible, happier, more stress free” than presumably in January 2011 when she came to live with her. Ms. L.G..’s views did not match those of the society’s witnesses. [ 60 ] The next three witnesses visited Ms. L.G.. on a regular basis. The first was Mr. C.W.., who is the father of two of Ms. L.G..’s children.

He lived with his parents, because he and Ms. L.G.. were not sufficiently compatible to cohabit. There was no consensus on how often this gentleman was in the G.. residence. He stated that he was very active with all the children and helpful in the maintenance of the household. Mr. C.W.. appeared to have serious health issues that at least kept him from working. I question how much Mr. C.W.. actually did in the G.. residence. [ 61 ] Mr. C.W.. has known Ms. P.G. for two years, and during that time he believed he had been effectual in giving her parenting advice. He only saw Ms. P.G. and C. on four visits. When Mr.

Moore asked him about why C. was in care, he answered “[Ms. P.G.] switched addresses and {Mr. J.V.] was not to see the children. That’s about it.” [ 62 ] Ms. Leann La. and her five-year-old daughter visited Ms. L.G.. most weekdays from 3:00 p.m. to about 6:30 p.m., and for much of Saturday and Sunday. Ms. Leann La. has known Ms. P.G. for two years, and she saw four access sessions at Ms. L.G..’s. In her view, Ms. P.G. parented well. She, like Ms. L.G.., found Ms. P.G. more responsible, happier, more stress free as time went by. Ms. Leann La. supported Ms.

P.G.’s request for custody, and she had no knowledge of the society’s concerns. [ 63 ] The other important witness for Ms. P.G. was Ms. N.C., who was proposed as an adoptive party. Ms. N.C., thirty-five, with no children, was a personal support worker. She lived with her mother who had a disability pension because of diabetes. Like the last two witnesses, Ms. N.C. has known Ms. P.G. for two years, having met through Ms. L.G.. Ms. N.C. visited at Ms. L.G..’s home two to three times a week to see her nephew, who was one of Ms. L.G..’s children. Ms.

N.C. wanted a child, but so far had not met a gentleman to support her in this quest. Ms. P.G. asked her if she would accept C. in an adoption, and Ms. N.C. agreed. [ 64 ] Ms. N.C. would need the assistance of daycare and her mother to provide for C.. The little girl has had no connection with Ms. N.C. nor her mother. Ms. N.C. has only seen mother and daughter together for five or six hours during access at Ms. L.G..’s. When Mr. Moore asked Ms. N.C. what she knew about the society’s involvement, she said “I asked [Ms. P.G.] about that, but she didn’t say anything”. [ 65 ] These witnesses were friends of Ms.

P.G. through the common connection of Ms. L.G.. They all wanted to support Ms. P.G., either in her plan for custody or for access through Ms. L.G.. They only saw Ms. P.G. with C. on relatively brief occasions, but even then other children and adults were present. It is doubtful that they viewed much parenting because of the numerous interactions taking place. It is most important to remark that Ms. L.G.., Mr. C.W.., Ms. Leann La. and Ms. N.C. knew little about the society’s concerns, so they did not understand what to look for when they observed Ms. P.G.’s parenting. [ 66 ] Ms.

P.G.’s final witness was Jova Papuano, who is a clinician at Family Services Peel and she counselled families in

conflict. A referral had been made by the society to her agency to assist Ms. P.G. and Mr. J.V.. Ms. PapuanoJ. saw the parents together for the first time on 3 May 2010, which was the last occasion she met Mr. J… V.H…J. wanted couple counselling to commence, but Ms. Papuano wished to start with individual sessions. From there, the clinician saw Ms. P.G. eleven times between May and December 2010. Unlike other sites where Ms. P.G.’s attendance was frequently problematic, Ms. Papuano made it convenient for Ms. P.G. because sessions were in the client’s residence. [ 67 ] Counselling was intended to deal with Ms.

P.G.’s personal issues: • Violence from Mr. J.V.; • Her past trauma as a child; • Budgeting; • Coping with stress (to include alternatives to marijuana use); • Establish boundaries and safety plans. Although the intended purpose of this counselling was for Ms. P.G.’s self improvement, Ms. Papuano found that her client’s actual goal was to obtain the return of C.. The counselling ended when Ms. P.G. relocated, and Ms. Papuano could not contact her. [ 68 ] Ms. Papuano gave an opinion to Mr. Cook that Ms. P.G. “can look after a young child”. This caught Mr.

Moore’s interest; however, he need not have been concerned because Ms. Papuano added “…from what [Ms. P.G.] told me”. Ms. Papuano in essence was only stating what Ms. P.G. herself believed. Ms. Papuano had not conducted a parenting capacity assessment, and she was not familiar in any detail with the society’s protection concerns. Ms. P.G. had not even told her about the TAAP assessment in the summer of 2010 while her counselling was taking place. Ms. Papuano observed that Ms. P.G. showed insight into her past, and that would be beneficial to her as a person. That opinion, however, is not relevant to Ms.

P.G.’s caregiving ability. [ 69 ] In comparing the evidence from the society’s witnesses with that from Ms. P.G., I have no hesitation in accepting the testimony and affidavits from the society’s witnesses. There were no challenges by Ms. P.G. to the contents of the society’s witnesses’ affidavits. Little weight can be placed on the opinions of Ms.

P.G.’s witnesses, because they did not have informed viewpoints. [ 70 ] The society’s request for Crown wardship without access is pursuant to clause 57(1)3 of the Child and Family Services Act (the Act). [ 71 ] Subsection 57(2) of the Act requires the court to determine what efforts have been made to assist the child before intervention under Part Three of the Act. Ms. P.G. was offered services and plans from which she unfortunately failed to benefit. These were:

(1) Ms. Okai and Ms. Grant and others in the society were available to Ms. P.G. from the time of C.’s birth to give advice.

(2) Programs such as Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, the Infant Wellness Program,Working Together With Families 0-6 program, a Public Health Nurse, a Family Visitor, Family Services Peel, Safer Family Program, Family Futures, were all services provided for Ms. P.G.

(3) Society workers encouraged Ms. P.G. to exercise access on a regular basis, and assisted with provisions required for teaching instruction.

(4) Parenting education was given in the TAAP program.

(5) A supervision order was implemented after C.’s birth for Ms. P.G. to demonstrate the parenting ability she claimed she had.

(6) The society put into place an open adoption arrangement that would have given Ms. P.G. much access to her daughter. In

summary, it is difficult to conceive of any other facilities or opportunities that could have been offered to Ms. P.G. [ 72 ] Subsection 57(3) of the Act requires the court to be satisfied that alternatives to Crown wardship are not available. The following options were considered: (1) a twelve month supervision order; (2) a kinship placement for an open adoption; (3) instruction to Ms. P.G. on parenthood through counselling and the TAAP program. The court is satisfied that the above options, though implemented and reinforced, were unsuccessful in protecting C.. [ 73 ] Subsection 57(4) of the Act was examined.

The court concludes that it is not possible to place C. with a relative, neighbour or any other member of the child’s community. [ 74 ] The society should not be faulted for not exploring the possibility of a placement with Ms. N.C. This person did not know C. and has no experience with parenthood. Placement with Ms. N.C. would likely lead to conflict between Ms. N.C.. and Ms. P.G. on decision making, and another apprehension could reasonably be anticipated. That conflict would result in the same instability that was bound to happen in the B.-P. house if C. continued to reside there.

[ 75 ] Further society wardship is not available (section 70 of the Act). [ 76 ] Finally, the court is obliged to take into account the best interest test by regarding the clauses in subsection 37(3) of the Act. Some clauses will be considered together because of their duplicative intent. 1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs. 2. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development. 5. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family. 7.

The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity. 10. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case. [ 77 ] At age two years and three months, it is fortunate that C. has been meeting her milestones. She is said to be appropriate for her age, and that too augurs well for her future.

It is most important that it appears C.’s attachment to her foster mother is transferable with support to another caregiver. [ 78 ] However, this child is in the most vulnerable period of her life, where she needs the qualities of parenthood that will ensure stability, stimulation and security. C. has been experiencing these good parental aptitudes in Ms. D.B2..’s foster home, but now a move must be made where the child will be encouraged to build upon the good qualities of care she experienced in Ms. D.B2..’s home.

To put it differently, at C.’s stage in life, she is at a maximum need for stability. [ 79 ] This child has had events happen to her that could have and still might lead to regression in her development:

(1) Much of C.’s access to Ms. P.G. lead to frustration and confusion in the child trying to understand Ms. P.G.’s role.

(2) Placement with B.-P. lead to bewilderment and agitation for the girl. Ms. D.B2.. said even her language relapsed after the three month sojourn.

(3) The two placements in the foster home, albeit beneficial, still lead to unrest in C.’s mind.

(4) Ms. P.G.’s failure to appreciate the requirement for routine in a child of C.’s age; her unawareness and withdrawal from her daughter’s needs and cues left the child in doubt as to what a caregiver is supposed to do.

I think it was very telling that because of the number of people seeing C. and her confusion over her caregivers, the foster mother even told her friends not to come over to the foster home in an attempt to give constancy in the little girl’s life. [ 80 ] If the next placement for C. is not final and competent to meet her needs, because of her potentially damaging past, the girl could face a major emotional setback. Such regression would adversely affect her personality and education, her ability to trust others, her friendships and propensity to have long term relationships.

(6) The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community. [ 81 ] C. has no ties to her father who abandoned her in November 2010. She has no connection with her sister M.G., whom she has only seen on a few occasions in the past. The other members of Ms. P.G.’s family who have been mentioned are her brother D.R.. and mother Ms. S.R.., and they are not part of C.’s life. There were relatives of Mr. J.V.’s family who have had remote connections with C., and friends of Ms.

P.G. who met the child, but these ties were very unsubstantial. [ 82 ] Ms. P.G. had what could be called a relationship with C., but for the most

part in a supervised access setting under the society’s auspices. I do not seriously consider the access at the G. residence meaningful, because the number of people present undermined the benefit the child could otherwise have in being with her mother. It is clear from Ms. D.B2..’s evidence that Ms. P.G.’s access did not lead to any emotional ties with C.. Supervised access of necessity has to have controlled encounters ( i.e. , usually in one place, not open in the community and with limited activities available). Ms. D.B2.. said C. was not sure who “mommy” was, and on occasion the child did not want to go on access. I do not find that the girl has emotional ties to Ms. P.G.

(8) The merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child remaining with or returning to a parent.

(11) The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent. [ 83 ] If C. were to live with Ms. P.G., I believe the child would be at risk of physical harm because of the mother’s instability of residence. • In October 2009, Ms. P.G. lived with Ms. S.J.. Ms. P.G. left that residence for fear of the actions from Ms. S.J..’s boyfriend.

• Someone was supplying Ms. P.G. with marijuana. There are criminal elements involved in the distribution of drugs, and undesirable persons may come into contact with Ms. P.G. or indeed with C.. • I do not view Ms. L.G..’s residence as stable because there were financial concerns that could undermine Ms. P.G. continuing as a tenant. According to her, most of her social assistance money went to help with rent. Also it is one thing for Ms. P.G. as an adult to reside in the crowded residence, but it is another to introduce C. there as a small child. I fear that her needs would go overlooked. Finally, Ms.

P.G. did not want to live long term with Ms. L.G..; she would prefer her own place. But Ms. P.G. in the history of the society’s involvement never lived alone. I doubt whether she would have the resources of various kinds to do so. [ 84 ] I perceive there is a further risk of physical harm to C., because in all the opportunity Ms. P.G. had to care for her daughter and with much instruction, she just reached the level of adequate instrumental care, and that only for short periods in the sessions.

The challenges of parenthood far exceed the ability to feed and change diapers. [ 85 ] If C. were to live with her mother, in my opinion, there is a serious risk of emotional harm to the child. There have been consistent observations by the society’s workers that Ms. P.G. was preoccupied during access and put her needs ahead of her child’s. I do not view Ms. P.G. as being able to anticipate the child’s future needs as she ages, in terms of emotional support and nurturance.

I could not trust this mother to foresee the need to replenish supplies like food, household products or child needs, since she never had to be responsible for such concerns because she was always part of someone else’s household. Another challenge for all caregivers is to be able to make appointments with professionals including doctors, and get to those appointments on time . [ 86 ] I do not see a risk in C. being kept away from Ms. P.G. because of the lack of attachment by the child to her mother. [ 87 ] There are three other unfortunate flaws in Ms. P.G. as a person that would put C. at risk.

The first was that the society found Ms. P.G. to be untruthful at times. If C. were to live with her mother, the quality of the information Ms. P.G. could give to professionals about C. would be in doubt. [ 88 ] The second concern was Ms. P.G.’s poor insight on occasion. Here are four examples:

(1) Ms. P.G. testified that she would not use marijuana if her daughter were returned to her, because then she would not be under stress.

(2) Ms. P.G. told Mr. Moore that a lack of money would not be stressful because she budgets properly.

(3) She believed C.’s unsettled behaviour was fabricated.

(4) She could not acknowledge that C.’s foster mother was the child’s psychological parent. Ms. P.G. believed that she was the only “real” parent. These beliefs, if sincerely held, are at least serious misconceptions. [ 89 ] The third was Ms. P.G.’s propensity to be involved in adult conflict. Her dispute with Ms. D.B.., Ms. J.B. and Ms. K.B.. was responsible for the breakdown of the B.-P. placement. [ 90 ] Yes, there is always a risk of adoption breakdown. However, this child does not have any known physical or mental problems.

She is at an ideal age for adoption, and many, many prospective adoptive parents will be available. Scrutinization of such candidates is a skill that experienced specialists like Ms. Helgason. will exercise to diminish the risk. [ 91 ] Ms. P.G.’s plans for this child foretell a life of poverty, deprivation, inadequate schooling and ultimate unhappiness because of the girl’s likely inability to achieve worthwhile goals. [ 92 ] On the other hand, if C. is in a successful adoption, and if the parents are at least with moderate financial means, C. can reasonably expect: • her health needs will be met.

These include appointments being made and kept with doctors, orthodontists, dentists, tutors, counsellors (to help her with her past and her mother’s deficiencies). • safety in residence and school. • appreciation of a need for a comprehensive education. • that her parents would advocate for her help with professionals, if there is a need. • that her parents will anticipate her future requirements be they physical, emotional, educational, and move to provide them.

(12) The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection. [ 93 ] The findings in September 2009 that C. was then at risk of physical and emotional abuse were true then and are true today.

[94] At the outset of the trial, I was requested to make the following finding on consent: The court finds that Ms. S.R.. is not aparent within the meaning of the Act. There will be an order for Crown wardship for C., born […] 2009. [95] Regarding subsection 59(2.1) in the Act, there will be no order for access, because I do not find that the relationshipbetween Ms. P.G. and C. is beneficial or meaningful to C.. Reference is made to the case of Children’s Aid Society of the NiagaraRegion v. J.C., , 223 O.A.C. 21, 281 D.L.R. (4th) 328, 36 R.F.L. (6th) 40, [2007] O.J. No. 1058, 2007 Cars​well​Ont1680 (Ont. Div.

Ct.). Therein Mr. Justice Aitken wrote at paragraph 29: [29] “Beneficial” has been held to mean “advantageous”. “Meaningful” has been held to mean “significant” (Children’s Aid Society of Niagara Region v. J. (M.) (2004), (ON SC), 4 R.F.L. (6th) 245, 2004 Carswell Ont. 2800 at para 45).

Theperson seeking access must prove that her relationship with the child brings a significant positive advantage to the child…More is neededthan love, the display of love, the fact that the mother had cared for the children in the past, the fact that the mother was the biologicalparent, and the fact that some visits were pleasant, especially when various negative factors impacting on the children’s emotional healthwere identified. The evidence was clear that despite the numerous visits Ms. P.G. had with C., the child consistently failed to connect with her mother. Ms.

D.B2.. testified that C. did not want to go on access, especially after the breakdown of the B.-P. placement, and the little girl did notperceive Ms. P.G. as “mommy”. A relationship between Ms. P.G. and C. would not be beneficial nor meaningful to the little girl. [96] With respect to the second test in subsection 59(2.1) of the Act, an order for access will impair the child’s futureopportunities for adoption. [97] I appreciate that this decision will come as a hardship to Ms. P. G. My hope is that her friends who were her witnesseswill support her as she struggles to find her way. [98] I am grateful to Mr.

Moore and Mr. Cook for their careful and thorough introduction of the evidence. I would like to saythat Mr. Cook’s presentation on Ms. P.G.’s behalf was as comprehensive as possible. Ms. P.G. was very well represented in thisproceedings by Mr. Cook. Released: 30 November 2011 ____________________________ Justice Patrick W. Dunn