DIRECTOR OF CHILD, FAMILY v. COMMUNITY SERVICE, 2020 BCPC 231

Citation: British Columbia (Child, Family and Community Service) v. R.L.T. 2020 BCPC 231 Date: 20201125 File No: 13525 Registry: Kamloops IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT , R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 46 AND THE CHILDREN: D.L.C., born [omitted for publication] R.M.C., born [omitted for publication] J.A.S., born [omitted for publication] V.H.S., born [omitted for publication] BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE APPLICANT AND: R.L.T. PARENT AND: P.M.C. PARENT AND: W.A.S.

PARENT File No: 14960 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE FAMILY LAW ACT , S.B.C. 2011 c. 25 BETWEEN: P.M.C. APPLICANT AND: R.L.T. RESPONDENT REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE S.D. FRAME

Counsel for the Director: T. Brice-Nicolson and M. Brus Counsel for the Parent:, P.M.C.: C. Kane Appearing on his own behalf: W.A.S. Appearing on her own behalf: R.L.T. Counsel for the child, D.L.C.: A. Soll Place of Hearing: Kamloops, B.C.

Dates of Hearing: January 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, February 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, 20, 21, March 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 23, June 15, 16, 17, July 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, September 9, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 2020 Date of Judgment: November 25, 2020 [ 1 ] This is an application by the Director of Child and Family Services for a Continuing Custody Order with respect to these children: D.L.C. born [omitted for publication]; R.M.C. born [omitted for publication]; V.H.S. born [omitted for publication]; and J.A.S. born [omitted for publication]. [ 2 ] There is also an application under Family Law Act proceedings by P.M.C. for guardianship, primary residence and parental responsibilities for D.L.C. and R.M.C.

He seeks these remedies regardless of the outcome of the continuing custody order proceedings. [ 3 ] W.A.S. and R.L.T. are aligned in their desire to have all of the children returned home to them, but R.L.T. no longer entirely opposes P.M.C.’s application for parenting time. R.L.T.’s interests are not entirely aligned, though, with W.A.S.’s interests because the Director has considered a return of the children to R.L.T. with in-house supports, provided W.A.S. is not part of the arrangement. R.L.T. is not prepared to accept any arrangements that do not include W.A.S.

D.L.C., who is a party and is represented by counsel, initially did not want to return home if W.A.S. was present, but does now wish to go home. [ 4 ] A continuing custody order is a harsh measure. A successful order could result in the complete separation of a child or children from their family. The safety of the children is the predominant focus. It is no comfort to the children to know that arrangements could be made following a continuing custody order for them to have access to their parents.

It is similarly no comfort to the parents to know that they can apply to set aside the continuing custody order at some time in the future should they take the necessary steps to allay the protection concerns. If it is appropriate to make the continuing custody order, then that is the order that must be made regardless of these assurances. [ 5 ] The authority for making a continuing custody order is found in the Child, Family and Community Services Act . The relevant sections are appended to this judgment for ease of reference at Appendix “A” and are sections 2, 4, 13, 40, 41, 49 and 50.

P.M.C.’s application for guardianship, primary residence and parental responsibilities is governed by the Family Law Act. [ 6 ] I am making the continuing custody orders sought with respect to all four children and dismissing P.M.C.’s application. Dealing first with P.M.C.’s application, while evidence suggests he had a more engaged history when D.L.C. and R.M.C. were small and he resided with R.L.T., P.M.C. has had very little engagement in the upbringing of these girls since their separation in 2012.

Even in these proceedings, he did not take any active steps toward being more than an access parent while the children were in foster care. Further, he took no steps to create a sense of permanent residency for the two girls though, at least in part, there may be a valid explanation for that.

His lack of engagement is marked by the fact that he did not file his Family Law Act proceedings seeking primary residence and parental responsibilities of the two girls until January 2020 despite a very long and arduous path for these children. [ 7 ] With respect to the Director’s application for a continuing custody order, I find with the constellation of issues that all four children are in need of protection and there is no reasonable prospect that any of the parents will protect the children from abuse, neglect and harm; that the parents will engage with the many support services that have been offered in order to provide a safe and nurturing environment for the children; nor that any of the parents are able to meet the best interests of the children; and that there is little prospect it would be in the best interest of these children to be returned to their parents.

I am satisfied that there is no significant likelihood that the circumstances leading to the removal of these children will improve within a reasonable time or that these parents will be able to meet the needs of these children. The children have been subjected to considerable instability that includes mental health challenges of R.L.T. and W.A.S.; domestic violence between R.L.T. and both W.A.S. and P.M.C.; physical abuse toward D.L.C.; sexual abuse or inappropriate sexual behaviour around or toward the three daughters; and neglect of the care of the children. I.

THE FAMILY [ 8 ] All three of the parents in these proceedings have had families before the children who are the subject of these proceedings. R.L.T. was in a prior relationship resulting in the birth of her oldest son. W.A.S. was in two prior relationships with both step and biological children resulting and P.M.C. was in a relationship resulting in the birth of his oldest son. This is a general overview of the immediate family involved directly in these proceedings. [ 9 ] The immediate family is comprised of W.A.S., R.L.T., P.M.C., D.L.C., R.M.C., V.H.S. and J.A.S.

Each of them has engaged with various social workers, doctors, counsellors, mental health professionals and supervisors. I will first address the primary aspects of each person. In doing so, I refer not only to the evidence of the parties but to some of those professionals who dealt with them. These include W.A.S.’s general physician, Dr. Densmore, who also participated in FASD assessments; Ian Reedman and Heather Cooke; Kerrie Petrie who is a CYMH counsellor, Dr. Chapple who is a paediatrician who assessed the daughters at the SCAN clinic; and Dr.

Lawrence, a psychologist who assessed the daughters. [ 10 ] There were many other witnesses who testified in these proceedings including supervisors, support workers, family members and otherwise as well as the parties themselves. There is a vast amount of evidence that was presented in the many days of this trial. It is not possible to set it all out in this judgment, nor is it useful to the parties who have lived this experience for years. However, I outlined some of the evidence to put context into my findings. W.A.S.

[ 11 ] The father of the two youngest children, V.H.S. and J.A.S., is W.A.S. He commenced a relationship with R.L.T. in 2012. [ 12 ] By August of 2012, the Ministry of Child and Family Development (MCFD) commenced doing background checks on W.A.S. because W.A.S. was spending time with R.L.T. and the children who were involved with MCFD. Judy Zubrod did a criminal record check on W.A.S. She also conducted a child welfare check on W.A.S. in various locations in Canada, including Ontario and Alberta. W.A.S. has a criminal record.

Documents from mental health agencies in Ontario also indicated that W.A.S. had struggled with mental health issues prior to coming to British Columbia. [ 13 ] W.A.S. testified that he had once believed that he suffered from a mental health disorder but, based upon information he discovered about a deliberately mistaken identity, he now no longer believes he suffers from any mental illness. He has testified that he has continued to stay on Persons with Disability ostensibly on the basis of this mental health disorder in order to provide a review, as it were, of services received by Persons with Disability.

He initially told me that he did this at the behest or with the blessing of the Prime Minister’s office. As his testimony unfolded, it became clear that he offered to do this by way of letter to the Prime Minister’s office and not with any agreement with the federal government at any level. There is no agreement for W.A.S. to continue to receive Persons with Disabilities for any other reason than that he has that disability. [ 14 ] W.A.S. has been assessed by two psychiatrists during the course of these proceedings. He has also been treated by a third one.

The two doctors who have provided assessments of one form or another are Dr. Marke and Dr. Lessing. The third doctor, Dr. Odubote did not provide an assessment though he has been much maligned by W.A.S. in these proceedings. This was a common theme with W.A.S. who expressed bigoted views not only toward the two doctors who did not originate in Canada but also toward a gay foster parent and toward social workers and support givers who were either tattooed or younger than him.

He was easily diverted to these views during the course of these proceedings whether asking questions, making submissions to the court or testifying, and that did little to assist his case. [ 15 ] Dr. Densmore testified that W.A.S. had disclosed early to him that he had PTSD and issues with pain control, that W.A.S. had exhibited delusional behaviour and that he was using lithium under Dr. Odobute’s care. Dr.

Densmore testified that he had not diagnosed W.A.S. with bipolar disorder but he was aware that other medical professionals had made a diagnosis of bipolar disorder in the past and had treated W.A.S. for that diagnosis. [ 16 ] Dr. Densmore believed W.A.S. and R.L.T. should participate in a parental capacity assessment, and that W.A.S. should have his mental health assessed. Neither has been done. [ 17 ] Dr. Marke’s psychiatric assessment is much disputed by W.A.S. The Director did not call Dr. Marke to testify on these proceedings. As a consequence, I am not relying on his report to assess W.A.S.’s mental health.

However, I am relying on the balance of the evidence before me. [ 18 ] I am also not relying on Dr. Lessing’s report which I will come to more fully. My own observations are that W.A.S. was highly dysregulated during these proceedings and more particularly when he had consumed excess cannabis before and during court days. It is clear that there is an underlying mental health condition that must be diagnosed and treated. R.L.T. [ 19 ] The mother of all four children is R.L.T. R.L.T. was born on [omitted for publication].

She is also the mother of an older child who resides with his maternal grandfather and his wife. [ 20 ] From the Director’s perspective, R.L.T. has struggled with being able to parent her children consistently and safely over an extended period of time. The Director says that R.L.T.’s parenting capacity has been significantly impacted by the effects of Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder (FASD).

As a result, she struggles with tasks requiring complex cognitive processing. [ 21 ] R.L.T.’s father, R.T. testified that he and R.L.T.’s mother J.T.(1), had a tumultuous relationship that involved family violence, drug and alcohol abuse, child neglect, and ultimately the involvement of the Ministry of Children and Family Development (MCFD). He testified that all four of his children, including R.L.T., have FASD. [ 22 ] R.L.T. lived with R.T. and J.T.(2) in the mid-1990s. R.T.’s affidavit recounts incidents of R.L.T.’s behaviour as a teenager and young adult. R.L.T. was vulnerable and easily manipulated.

She also finished high school in an adapted programme. [ 23 ] Upon turning 18, R.L.T. left British Columbia to live with her mother in Alberta. R.L.T. returned home from Alberta and discovered she was pregnant with her son B.T. [ 24 ] MCFD determined that due to R.L.T.’s FASD, low IQ and lack of potential parenting capacity, R.L.T. could not care for the baby on her own. [ 25 ] MCFD told R.L.T. that either the baby would be placed with R.T. or be placed in foster care. Ultimately B.T. was placed with R.T. and J.T.(2) in family law proceedings.

Although R.L.T. has had contact with B.T. since then, her relationship with him and the frequency of her contact varies. [ 26 ] R.L.T. testified about experiencing abuse as a child and teenager, and about her relationship with her father. She was a compelling and sympathetic witness and party. Her emotions were raw and evident throughout the proceedings with many tears and heartfelt submissions. R.L.T. related how through her younger years she had been sexually, physically and emotionally abused by members of her own family.

It is no surprise, then, that the failure of her own parents to protect her growing up has left her conflicted about her relationship with her father now. [ 27 ] R.L.T. related how when she found out that she was pregnant with B.T. she had talked to the father, J.J. Her own father told J.J. not to contact them again, leaving her angry with her father.

[ 28 ] During her pregnancy, R.L.T. said that she was abused by her father, J.T.(2) and J.T.(2)’s daughter. They told the social workers that she was doing drugs and alcohol while she was pregnant which left her mental health unwell. Her parents did not support her during her pregnancy and she received a lot of parent support services from the Ministry. [ 29 ] R.L.T. acknowledged that she has FASD but it does not cause harm to the children. She testified she has learned a lot about parenting both as a single parent and as part of a parenting team with W.A.S. [ 30 ] Dr. Densmore is W.A.S.’s general physician.

He testified that R.L.T.’s FASD diagnosis, having met with R.L.T. in the presence of W.A.S., is accurate. Dr. Densmore believes that R.L.T.’s limitations are quite marked but that she can do well with appropriate support. He observed that R.L.T. faces multiple barriers and that she gets distracted easily. The appropriate support piece is, I find, key. [ 31 ] R.L.T. frequently deferred to W.A.S. during the course of these proceedings. It was a complaint of the social workers that they would attempt to speak with R.L.T. but W.A.S. would talk over her or override her decisions.

It was a frequent observation of supervisors that W.A.S. would countermand R.L.T.’s direction to the children. All of this was counter-productive to R.L.T. reaching a point where she could, with appropriate supports, have the children returned to her care. It also demonstrates a level of manipulation and control on W.A.S.’s part that makes it unlikely supports will be utilized to the benefit of the protection, care and well-being of these children. P.M.C. [ 32 ] The father of the two oldest children, D.L.C. and R.M.C., is P.M.C. [ 33 ] From 2012 to 2017 P.M.C. struggled with housing.

He couch-surfed and stayed with friends or family for brief periods of time, including with R.L.T. He also slept in the park and was homeless. [ 34 ] P.M.C. has struggled to parent his two daughters consistently. Though he participated with their care when he was in a relationship with R.L.T., he has not parented them on a full-time basis since 2011. At present P.M.C. resides in the [omitted for publication] residence which has been converted from a motel to social housing. He can have overnight visits with D.L.C. and R.M.C. in this accommodation but they cannot stay for extended periods.

He cannot apply for adequate housing unless and until the girls have primary residence with him. [ 35 ] P.M.C. testified that he and R.L.T. worked as a parenting team when they were together. There were no incidents of domestic violence between them, according to him. This is not supported by the records of interviews with the children. [ 36 ] P.M.C. knew R.L.T.’s FASD resulted in her having some limitations. He believed that R.L.T. needed someone strong as her partner to assist her with her FASD limitation.

He thought that person would be W.A.S. [ 37 ] P.M.C. feels that his parenting time with his daughters was restricted once R.L.T. and W.A.S. were together. While he was able to see the girls, the visits were subject to conditions set by R.L.T. and W.A.S. He said that the visits could only be at certain times and only at the S./T. home. R.L.T. and W.A.S. do not agree with this characterization of P.M.C.’s parenting time. They claim that he was encouraged to come over and see the children, given money to take them out for treats, and encouraged to take them to the nearby park.

P.M.C., according to them, preferred to play music with W.A.S., then leave soon after the girls returned from school. I note that in this time P.M.C. did not make any efforts to pursue any remedies through the courts to have more parenting time or more flexible conditions. [ 38 ] P.M.C. is not working. He cites a lack of available jobs and he has transportation challenges. P.M.C. last worked in 2012 doing inventory counts. P.M.C. suffers from glaucoma and uses marijuana for his symptoms but denies his unemployment is related to his health challenges. He also suffers from allergies and asthma.

He has had difficulty wearing a mask during the COVID-19 pandemic. [ 39 ] The pandemic presented a number of access difficulties for MCFD in the beginning. P.M.C.’s attitude toward the COVID-19 virus presented a difficulty. His evidence in this regard was internally inconsistent, insupportable and illogical. When asked whether the pandemic had been stressful, he denied that it was and maintained that he was not worried about getting the virus or about anyone getting the virus. He was more stressed about the limits being placed on everyone. This in itself is concerning from a compliance perspective.

He believes that the media has over-exaggerated the concerns and has expressed that to D.L.C. While maintaining that he believed in a certain amount of critical thinking, he said he does not turn on the television and listen to everything “they” say. While he does not believe it is a hoax and knows that it is real and can be deadly, he likened it to the flu or pneumonia. This is clearly not the case. [ 40 ] This would not be a concern except that during his telephone calls and video chats with D.L.C. he would speak to her frequently about the virus. He denied this, claiming he only mentioned it a few times.

After he was told not to say anything, he stopped. He sensibly washes his hands 20 to 30 times a day, rather than using sanitizers. However, with respect to the masks, he said he had yet to see any confirmed science supporting that the use of masks blocks the virus. He opined that the virus is smaller than smoke, and masks can lower a person’s oxygen levels. P.M.C. presented no scientific or medical evidence to support his views to either the social workers or the court. He cited R.M.C.’s complaint that she had trouble breathing with the mask.

He suggested that he was a critical thinker and would think for himself. That being the case, when he went to the park with D.L.C., he encouraged her to take off her mask. He had looked around to see if anyone was wearing a mask or social distancing and noted that the park was “completely packed”. Despite this, he did not see the need for them to wear a mask. [ 41 ] He also encouraged the children not to use hand sanitizer.

Despite what he had maintained about not believing what he saw on television, he based his theory on a ticker at the bottom of a television screen that noted 50 hand sanitizers were being recalled. P.M.C. should not have been picking and choosing which protocols to observe where the health and safety of his children, their caregivers, and everyone else they come into contact is concerned.

Nor should he be sharing his controversial views with his young daughters. [ 42 ] That being said, P.M.C.’s opinions regarding the pandemic and the efficacy of the preventive protocols is not the most troubling aspect of P.M.C.’s application. Despite being aware of the suspicions around E.E., a friend of R.L.T., P.M.C. did nothing either to help D.L.C. and R.M.C. or to take measures to prevent them being exposed to E.E. Despite D.L.C.’s obvious conflict with W.A.S. and her complaints about him striking her, P.M.C. did nothing to protect her from this abuse. Despite knowing that the Director was pursuing a

continuing custody order with respect to his two daughters, P.M.C. did not advance his family law application until the veritable eve of trial and, indeed, indicated until well into the proceedings that he was prepared to be an access parent only.

As I have noted, he has taken no steps to gain more parenting time, to arrange for at least acceptable sleeping arrangements for his daughters to have overnights, or to even investigate what supports would be available to him and formulating a strategy with the Ministry to make his plan a viable one. [ 43 ] All of this demonstrates that P.M.C. has neither the initiative nor the insight or capacity to not only parent his daughters but to protect them either. D.L.C. [ 44 ] D.L.C. was born on the [omitted for publication].

She has presented with a number of challenges. [ 45 ] The issues surrounding D.L.C. include blaming her for the altercations within the family and the behaviours of the other children; parentification of her role among the other children; sexualized behaviour; conflict and domestic violence with respect to her parents and siblings; and neglect. [ 46 ] In 2010 shortly after the children were removed D.L.C. was seen by Dr. Chapple at the Suspected Child Abuse and Neglect Clinic in Kamloops (SCAN). That assessment by Dr. Chapple led to the family being provided with ongoing services by MCFD and community partners.

D.L.C. was referred to CYMH. [ 47 ] D.L.C.’s IQ was recorded at 79, and school work which involved memory was a struggle. D.L.C. was at risk for conduct problems, attention problems and learning difficulties. D.L.C.’s testing results revealed a child with some cognitive delays and a child who operates at less than her chronological age. [ 48 ] In June of 2011, D.L.C. started to exhibit sexualized behaviour. This was before the report about D.L.C. sleeping on E.E.’s chest while he massaged her feet; and the report of him massaging her thighs. I will address those incidents more fully.

This was before W.A.S. was in their lives. After that incident, there were also reports of D.L.C. frequently touching her private parts but she denied any “bad touches”. That was in January 2013 at a time where W.A.S. had become part of R.L.T.’s life. [ 49 ] Ian Reedman is mental health clinician who provided counselling to D.L.C.

He also made recommendations for D.L.C. going forward including stability, access to a therapeutic resources, and trauma-focused therapy. [ 50 ] D.L.C.’s most pressing needs are identified as continuity of care and permanency, and the need for D.L.C. to have an attuned caregiver. [ 51 ] D.L.C. changed schools or foster homes a concerning number of times. This contributed to her challenges. [ 52 ] Dr. Lawrence has provided an assessment of D.L.C. which I will address more fully in due course. [ 53 ] As I have said, D.L.C. initially did not want to return home if W.A.S. would be present in the home.

As time passed and she became more frustrated with her lack of permanency, D.L.C. has decided she would prefer to return home to R.L.T. even if W.A.S. is there, and to spend weekends with P.M.C. R.M.C. [ 54 ] R.M.C. was born on the [omitted for publication]. [ 55 ] R.M.C. has presented with troubling behaviours that include hiding under tables, blankets and pillows; sucking her thumb while disconnecting or disassociating with her surroundings; and sexualized behaviour. [ 56 ] R.M.C. wants to return home and no longer be in MCFD care.

MCFD and R.M.C.’s professionals have identified that predictability is important for R.M.C. Future caregivers need to be consistent. [ 57 ] R.M.C.’s patterns of behaviour included not participating in class, being disconnected, and hiding within her clothing or away from the group. R.M.C. was still sucking her thumb at home and at school as of her 9 th birthday. R.M.C. internalized what was going on around her and she suffered from ongoing bowel and toileting issues. [ 58 ] Kerri Petrie from CYMH received a referral for R.M.C. in February 2018 and had her first meeting with R.M.C. in May 2018.

R.M.C. was struggling with relationship trust. Ms. Petrie believes R.M.C. needs emotional and environmental stability going forward. [ 59 ] Dr. Chapple saw R.M.C. at the SCAN clinic. She testified that lots of children will have toileting issues if they are under stress, or experiencing trauma. Both apply to R.M.C. [ 60 ] R.M.C. tested in the mid-range for comprehension and memory. During the testing R.M.C. said that she was afraid of being punished by R.L.T. and W.A.S., and that there were secrets in her family but that she did not know what they were. [ 61 ] Dr. Lawrence assessed R.M.C.

He testified that R.M.C. was disassociating in the present as a result of traumatic experiences in the past. Dr. Lawrence found that R.M.C. had PTSD. R.M.C. would not have developed PTSD if she had not experienced family violence or inappropriate discipline. Her social functioning was very close to being in the impaired range and she has attachment injuries. Dr. Lawrence also testified that he believed R.M.C. had been exposed to sexual behaviour. V.H.S. [ 62 ] V.H.S. was born on the [omitted for publication].

V.H.S. was removed at birth because W.A.S. was threatening to take the baby and leave the jurisdiction; he was attempting to override the medical advice of R.L.T.’s doctors; and he was not giving R.L.T. a voice

with respect to her health and the birth of her baby. This was a common refrain in those who witnessed this relationship. Following V.H.S.’s birth, she was placed into the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit for her protection. [ 63 ] V.H.S. was ultimately returned to her parents, but then diagnosed with failure to thrive. R.L.T. and W.A.S. are of the view that V.H.S.’s failure to thrive was entirely related to her removal as R.L.T.’s breast milk dried up in the interlude before her return. V.H.S. was removed on August 21, 2013 and returned on September 4, 2013.

I have no evidence before me about how long it would take for breast milk to dry up but the real question is what efforts were made to express or replace the milk so that V.H.S. did not reach this state of failure to thrive. [ 64 ] R.L.T. testified that she asked the public health nurse for help because her breast milk was not coming in. She said they had ready-made formula at home at all times both with MCFD help and without. LMO purchased a breast pump for R.L.T.

The doctors and nurses encouraged R.L.T. to breastfeed. [ 65 ] W.A.S.’s evidence was also that the social workers were encouraging R.L.T. to breastfeed at LMO for the visits. He maintained that he was “standing there with a bottle” while the baby was getting thin. This is an example of W.A.S.’s incapacity to comprehend the impact of his controlling expectations. It may well be that had R.L.T. breastfed at LMO and continued to pump breastmilk when away from V.H.S., she may have been able to continue to breastfeed once V.H.S. was home.

This would continue to be a theme with J.A.S.’s removal. [ 66 ] W.A.S. gave evidence that when V.H.S. returned to them she had thrush. It was obvious on her tongue. She was also thin. W.A.S. said he heard the social worker tell the doctors to give her something she could use. I take it from this that she was asking the doctors to get her some evidence that she could use in court. [ 67 ] At the urging of the social workers at the time, W.A.S. and R.L.T. took V.H.S. to emergency where she was ultimately diagnosed. Eventually, V.H.S. fed very well. [ 68 ] Dr.

Chapple testified that the issues V.H.S. had in her first year of life were feeding and maintaining her weight. [ 69 ] V.H.S. has been identified as the favourite of her parents. V.H.S. knew that she was the favourite, resorting to manipulation and temper tantrums if she did not get her way. She also exhibits troubling behaviours including anger and sexualized behaviour. V.H.S.’s sexualized behaviour was identified as unusual for a girl of 5.

This was almost certainly an indicator of the child being sexually abused at some point. [ 70 ] V.H.S.’s cognitive functioning was in the normal range and there were minor fluctuations in her ability to self-regulate between school and the foster home. [ 71 ] V.H.S. often sought out peer attention that was not reciprocated. V.H.S. sabotaged relationships with her anger and dysregulated behaviour. V.H.S. also exhibited sexualized behaviour within her foster home, and would go on to have social difficulties in school. [ 72 ] V.H.S. had a history of touching her own and other people’s genital areas. Dr.

Lawrence, who also examined V.H.S., opined that the testing results and V.H.S.’s behaviours indicate she would require a high level of supervision and instruction around age-appropriate and safe sexual behaviour. Dr. Lawrence felt that V.H.S. likely also suffered from an attachment disorder. J.A.S. [ 73 ] J.A.S. was born on the [omitted for publication]. [ 74 ] J.A.S. was in the hospital emergency in October 2016 for respiratory issues. Medications were prescribed for J.A.S. These medications were in the form of puffers which were sometimes provided to the family due to their financial difficulties.

There is a good deal of dispute about the cause of J.A.S.’s respiratory problems and particularly whether W.A.S.’s marijuana consumption contributed to it. [ 75 ] In December 2016, J.A.S. again attended at the ER on a number of occasions primarily for those respiratory issues. W.A.S. maintains that the respiratory issues J.A.S. suffered were as a result of inhaled breast milk. Dr. Chapple rejected this possibility. J.A.S.’s parents were told to eliminate pets and smoke from J.A.S.’s environment. [ 76 ] J.A.S. was seen again in April 2017 for continuing respiratory issues.

The parents testified this was caused by the smoke from our forest fires claiming the respiratory issues resolved when they left town to visit W.A.S.’s father. However, the fires that caused our smoke issues had not yet commenced in April 2017 or for two months after. [ 77 ] J.A.S.’s behaviours at daycare and pre-school showed that he has not had interaction with children his own age. He was oppositional when he was frustrated. Dr. Lawrence commented that a lack of consistent attention to his development and medical issues contributed to J.A.S.’s developmental difficulties.

Although J.A.S. appeared to function well cognitively, he had speech delay at the time of testing. He was often angry and aggressive. II. THE EXTENDED FAMILY [ 78 ] Other extended family members also feature in the relevant portions of the family history. W.A.S. has children from two prior relationships. The daughter from his first union with C.M. is R.J.S., born [omitted for publication]. She was ultimately adopted and now has the name R.M.M. C.M. also had two daughters for whom W.A.S. was a stepfather, I.M., born [omitted for publication] and M.B.M., born [omitted for publication].

The child from his later union with M.M. is D.E.M. [ 79 ] There is a confused history about how W.A.S. became separated from C.M. and her children, including his child, R.M.M. It would appear that when he left British Columbia to go to Alberta for work, leaving the family behind, C.M. began a relationship with

someone else and W.A.S. was ultimately barred from the family home. He described a scenario where he was only permitted to see the children if he agreed to leave town. Somehow his parenting time ended and the family ended up in Ontario. There, all the children were removed evidently because of abuse by C.M.’s then partner. That partner ended up in prison for sexual offences. Apparently there was a case of mistaken identity with that person initially being identified as W.A.S.

This became problematic for W.A.S. because the person was serving time for sexually abusing the girls. [ 80 ] In the meantime, W.A.S. maintained that he had been attempting to locate the children throughout this time. However, he offered no court documents to show what those efforts were. When R.M.M. was removed and ultimately adopted, the Ontario Ministry was able to contact W.A.S. He testified that he was advised it was too late for him to do anything.

It should be noted that while the Ontario Ministry was concerned about sexual abuse of the three girls, there is nothing in the evidence before me that W.A.S. is the perpetrator of that sexual abuse. In fact, R.M.M. testified at these proceedings that the abuser is still in prison and one of her sisters attends his parole hearings whenever they arise. [ 81 ] W.A.S. was then married to B.M. I do not understand that there were any children with B.M. W.A.S. had met M.M. after his marriage to B.M. ended. When M.M. became pregnant, she wanted to return to St. Catharines, Ontario to be close to her family.

Although W.A.S. thought this was not a good idea, he relented. His relationship with M.M. was strained because of his financial circumstances. [ 82 ] When his daughter D.E.M. was born, a social worker attended to ensure that they were prepared with food, crib and knowledge for caring for the baby. No further intervention was required. [ 83 ] However, within six months, M.M.’s parents had intervened and brought her and the child to their home. M.M. left W.A.S. [ 84 ] At some point, M.M. ended up living with a man named M.L.

W.A.S. was ultimately charged with threatening M.L. and breaching a no-contact order that was in place with respect to him. [ 85 ] Thereafter, W.A.S. strenuously pursued access to D.E.M. However, the family blocked him and the police would not assist him despite having parenting time orders. W.A.S. has not seen D.E.M. since she was five. [ 86 ] R.L.T. has a son B.T. from a prior relationship, whom I have already discussed. B.T. is now 18 years old and continues to have contact with his half-siblings. [ 87 ] P.M.C. also has a son from a prior relationship, D.A.L. D.A.L. was the result of a brief relationship.

P.M.C. maintains contact with D.A.L., but there is no evidence of the role P.M.C. played in D.A.L.’s upbringing. D.A.L. is now 34. I have no evidence of whether D.A.L. has any relationship with his half-siblings. P.M.C. testified that D.A.L. has not seen his two sisters for a long time, and had only seen them a few times “years ago”. [ 88 ] R.L.T.’s father R.T. and stepmother J.T.(2) are also involved with the family.

They have guardianship of B.T. by way of a court order in separate Family Relations Act proceedings as I noted. [ 89 ] J.T.(1), who passed away on [omitted for publication] is R.L.T.’s biological mother. She had a tumultuous relationship with R.T. R.L.T. was close with her. She is deeply impacted by her mother’s death. [ 90 ] Involvement of the MCFD with the family and extended family dates back well before the birth of these children. They were involved with W.A.S.’s oldest children. They were involved with R.L.T.’s oldest child and with R.L.T. during her youth.

They have been involved with these children for a number of years. The timeline that follows is not meant to capture every incident that happened in this family’s life but to capture those important events as well as more significant interventions. III. TIMELINE Up to 2010 [ 91 ] W.A.S. provided almost all of the evidence about his life and various relationships that I have for consideration. His testimony was often difficult to follow, straying into unrelated areas. He focused throughout the proceedings, whether in questions, submissions, or evidence, on pursuing his own agenda or various conspiracies.

His evidence was inconsistent, he prevaricated, and he is unable to support a good deal of what he said. [ 92 ] Despite having said in his application for disability benefits that he was historically not employed, W.A.S. related a sometimes fantastical history. He started out with a career in armed forces which was cut short by a training accident with a hand grenade. He went from there to England where he worked as a chef at a cordon bleu restaurant. He left that employment to work for [omitted for publication]. There he had security access at Interpol.

Having achieved the objective he had set for himself, he resigned. He had an offer to come back to Canada where he worked in Hamilton, Ontario for a company called [omitted for publication]. He was in buying and sales. That is where he met C.M. He then received an offer to work on the west coast and took the family to Prince Rupert where he worked as a 4 th class steam engineer. [ 93 ] W.A.S. related how that company was a dangerous place to work. When the environmental protection agency ultimately fined it $25,000, the management assumed he was responsible for it. The company was sold.

He was next employed as a project manager for the [omitted for publication]. He was doing scientific research on salmon. [ 94 ] Just as they were about to implement the hatchery, W.A.S. was laid off so that the company could start an Atlantic salmon farm. From there, W.A.S. returned to Edmonton for work. It was while he was in Edmonton that C.M. began her relationship with someone else.

After some strange phone calls, he hitchhiked back to Prince Rupert where his neighbour answered the door and told him he could not come in. [ 95 ] W.A.S. said that the police told him they knew who he was and that they would arrest him if he went around there anymore. He

found out by telephone that R.M.M. had been born. C.M. finally let W.A.S. see the child if he agreed to leave town. [ 96 ] W.A.S. returned to his parent’s home, having nowhere else to go. However, the children were apprehended and C.M. asked him to come back. W.A.S. was supposed to testify against C.M. at the trial but C.M. convinced him to appear as her witness so that the children would not end up in care. The children were returned to her. Soon after, she was in a relationship with someone named H.M., who was presumably a baronet. W.A.S. believed she thought H.M. was wealthy.

H.M. was jealous of W.A.S. being around to look after the kids. There was very little work for W.A.S. anyway so he returned to Edmonton to find employment. [ 97 ] W.A.S. found employment selling freezers of beef over the telephone for the next year and a half. He had no contact with C.M. or the children. His letters were returned and she would not take his calls. She left Prince Rupert and he did not know where she went. [ 98 ] He was at his parents’ acreage when C.M. showed up needing gas money. They joined forces and returned to Ontario. [ 99 ] Back in Hamilton, W.A.S. was staying with his mother.

She became upset with him at one point for eating tuna out of the cupboard and told him he had to leave. He was now homeless in Hamilton. [ 100 ] The next part of W.A.S.’s evidence was peculiar in that he commenced it with “next thing I hear, I’m a licensed insurance agent and engaged to B.M.” He also worked as a rehab practitioner working with handicapped adults which did not pay a lot of money but was very rewarding. He left the job when he backed the forklift into his boss’ friend’s car. So he was fired. [ 101 ] After that he was selling insurance, which required him to go to school in Calgary.

While there, B.M. called him to say that she had found his children whom he had been looking for since he met her. This was when he learned that R.M.M. and her sisters had been apprehended, his consent had been dispensed with in the proceedings, and R.M.M. was to be adopted. [ 102 ] W.A.S. joined Parent Finders, Fathers For Justice, and Adoption Seekers so he could reconnect with his children. This created friction with B.M. [ 103 ] At this point, W.A.S. was working for an organization called [omitted for publication] which made him responsible for five hotels and their staff.

By 1989, he was in charge of the organization. He made a very good income there. However, he says that he asked for a raise but was declined. [ 104 ] W.A.S. left work because of this and took a drastic cut in pay as the acting operations manager for a research and development and marketing organization. In this time, his relationship with B.M. was disintegrating. He found this awkward because he was working with her father and brother so he took a leave of absence while the relationship was sorted out. [ 105 ] While on that leave of absence, he joined a rock band and had some success.

He ended up back in Ontario where he met M.M. I have already addressed the history with M.M. What ensued after that time was a very troubling time for W.A.S. He described things as increasingly difficult while he was in St. Catharines up to 2007. He said people would stop talking to him with no explanation. He showed up to his driving job one day where a person in a suit and another one in uniform accused him of being a child molester. He was fired. [ 106 ] His landlord evicted him so a friend could move in.

Evidently his next landlord had a visit from someone who told the landlord that W.A.S. was not someone who should be in his house. [ 107 ] W.A.S. now found himself homeless and unable to collect welfare because he had no address. He described the daily process of moving from church to church day by day along with other homeless people. He did this for two years while he tried to get disability. [ 108 ] In this time, he wrote Prime Minister Chretien to advise him that while he was an able person, he wanted to collect disability because he did not have any idea of why people were saying things behind his back.

He had gone to see a doctor who then referred him to a lawyer. W.A.S. related a tale of how the Prime Minister and the Premier appointed a judge jointly to adjudicate his case specifically. In this time, W.A.S. offered a service to them whereby he would audit and provide feedback with reports to the Prime Minister’s office from the point of view of a person trying to access these services. He testified that his proposal was accepted.

Ultimately, the adjudicator deemed he was wrongly denied and he was provided benefits. [ 109 ] Despite now receiving benefits and being able to get some employment as a delivery driver, he was unable to meet all of his financial obligations. He asked his doctor to write a letter to relieve him of his student loans but was unsuccessful. While he was unable to have access to his daughter, he was being pursued for child support. W.A.S. suggested in his evidence that Dr. Wheeler only wrote the remarks he did about W.A.S.’s mental health in order to get him relief from the student loan. I do not believe this.

I find Dr. Wheeler assisted W.A.S.’s application for disability on the strength of a mental health diagnosis. [ 110 ] Dr. Wheeler began to prescribe various medications for W.A.S.’s mental health. Things did not improve. He lost his housing again. His family suggested he come to Kamloops. [ 111 ] W.A.S. moved to Kamloops and was living with his mother. He said this was not a good situation because his mother still saw him as a 12 year old. While living there, someone called C. called him to say that God had given her a vision that she was supposed to marry him.

He had no social life to speak of so she flew out and they were married in August 2009. [ 112 ] Not long after that, R.M.M. contacted W.A.S. having finally tracked him down. She wanted him to know that he was now a grandfather. R.M.M. told him that when she was little she had been told he had died of an overdose. [ 113 ] W.A.S. said that it was she who told him that her stepfather was originally charged with sexual offences against the children under W.A.S.’s name. W.A.S. had said that in 1988 while selling insurance he was also a gun collector. He wanted to register his guns including an AK-47.

It was then that he learned that he had been convicted of murder and of child molesting. Apparently the records have been corrected.

[ 114 ] W.A.S. said that when his daughter called him to tell him this, it cured him of his mental illness on the spot. That is clearly not so. [ 115 ] Meanwhile, P.M.C. and R.L.T. began their relationship in 2004. They began living together in 2005. [ 116 ] D.L.C. was born on [omitted for publication]. [ 117 ] In 2008, P.M.C. began working for [omitted for publication] where he continued to be employed until 2012. In that employment, he was away from Kamloops working out of town for two to three weeks per month. [ 118 ] W.A.S. moved to British Columbia in January, 2008.

However, W.A.S. was not yet involved with P.M.C. and R.L.T. [ 119 ] MCFD received a report about D.L.C.’s care on January 22, 2008. Social worker Judy Zubrod confirmed by letter dated February 1, 2008 that D.L.C. was not in need of protection. [ 120 ] R.M.C. was born on [omitted for publication]. 2010 [ 121 ] D.L.C.’s kindergarten raised concerns in 2010 about D.L.C.’s hygiene and her eyesight. Ultimately, D.L.C. would require eyeglasses which became a point of contention. Sometimes she would be compliant and wear them. Other times she did not.

This became an issue with MCFD who felt that R.L.T. ought to be ensuring D.L.C. was wearing her glasses. [ 122 ] On August 10, 2010, R.L.T.’s mother J.T.(1) contacted MCFD regarding R.L.T.’s parenting, and D.L.C. and R.M.C.’s behaviours. She reported that R.L.T. abused the children and that she restrained D.L.C. by sitting on her, slapping her and covering her mouth. She also reported that the verbal abuse between R.L.T. and P.M.C. was “really bad”. R.L.T. denied this in her testimony. [ 123 ] As a result of the report, MCFD opened an investigation.

R.L.T. admitted in her interview in that investigation that P.M.C. hits the children and that she has smacked D.L.C. in the face, held her hand over D.L.C.’s mouth and sat on her to control her temper tantrums. It has to be noted that this occurred well before W.A.S. was in the lives of R.L.T. and her children. [ 124 ] The

summary of clinical assessments found that D.L.C. had a normal physical examination, but the history indicated neglect, including poor overall and significantly poor dental hygiene that required dental surgery. D.L.C. was found to have a mild expressive speech delay, and was recommended to see an optometrist. Dr. Chapple strongly recommended a parental capacity assessment for D.L.C.’s parents and supported ongoing Ministry support for the family.

The parenting capacity report was never done. [ 125 ] When interviewed during this investigation, D.L.C. told the social worker, Trina Whidden, that her parents fought all the time and slapped each other. In her cross examination, R.L.T. said that her “kids see things”. She said they did not lie and that D.L.C. had witnessed R.L.T. and P.M.C. have arguments. She denied those arguments would become physical because one of them would go for a walk to restrain themselves. It is difficult to reconcile R.L.T.’s assertion that the children, including D.L.C., do not lie with her later assertions.

There is also a considerable difference between an argument and slapping. It also contradicts P.M.C.’s assertion that there was no domestic violence in his relationship with R.L.T. [ 126 ] As a result of the investigation, MCFD removed D.L.C. and R.M.C. on September 29, 2010, placing them in foster care. The protection concerns raised were exposure to domestic violence, neglect of the children, a lack of supervision of the children, substance abuse, the parenting capacity of each parent, and their abilities keep the children safe.

These concerns would remain consistent and persistent over the years. [ 127 ] On October 6, 2010, the court granted an interim custody order. This was also the day that D.L.C. attended the Children’s Health Clinic. She was examined by Dr. Chapple. [ 128 ] Also in October 2010, the foster parents prepared a caregiver’s report addressing aggression between D.L.C. and R.M.C. This aggression also persisted in the years to come. [ 129 ] The parties reached a mediation agreement on November 4, 2010 with respect to the Director’s application for a temporary custody order.

On November 17, 2010, the court granted a temporary custody order for three months. In the process of making that order, the court found that the children were in need of protection. 2011 [ 130 ] The court granted a six month supervision order on February 16, 2011. This permitted the return of R.M.C. and D.L.C. to R.L.T. and P.M.C. for a period of six months to expire August 26, 2011. That supervision order contained 11 terms.

The Director’s decision to convert its application to a supervision order was based on identified support services, the absence of physical discipline, and that the children were attending school. In the closing report dated February 21, 2011, the social worker determined that the file would remain open for the duration of the supervision order. It also identified that the children and their mother were Metis. [ 131 ] On March 29, 2011, the social worker, Ms. Whidden wrote a letter to the Elizabeth Fry Society to support R.L.T. and P.M.C. in their search for more appropriate housing for the children.

In that correspondence, she wrote that the parents had struggled with housing for approximately two years. She also wrote that the parents had long term disabilities that would benefit from secure, safe, and affordable housing. [ 132 ] D.L.C. had a follow-up appointment with Dr. Chapple on March 30, 2011 at the Children’s Clinic after she had been returned to the care of her parents. In her medical/legal report, Dr. Chapple identified issues including eye-rolling, out-toeing, learning difficulties, and school challenges. Of the eye-rolling episodes that had been reported, Dr.

Chapple felt they were behavioural rather than seizure related. She noted that D.L.C. was following physiotherapy for her out-toeing and was being fitted for orthotics. Dr. Chapple

recommended her school performance be monitored for the difficulties and challenges D.L.C. was exhibiting. [ 133 ] Concerns were raised about a friend of R.L.T., E.E., in August 2011. The concern was about inappropriate sexual behaviour around the children. There was a report that D.L.C. was sleeping under the coffee table in his home. E.E. was rubbing her leg and her feet. R.L.T. was aware of concerns raised about E.E. being inappropriate with the children. However, she explained that E.E. was merely massaging D.L.C.’s feet.

D.L.C. also said that she was not uncomfortable with him doing this. [ 134 ] MCFD received a report on September 3, 2011 that D.L.C. was sleeping on E.E.’s chest and he was massaging her feet all night. This was ostensibly because she lacked her orthotics. R.L.T. said that she was uncomfortable with E.E. massaging D.L.C.’s feet but, all the same, she did not ask him to stop. The report also relayed that E.E.’s roommate regularly kissed D.L.C. on the lips. R.L.T. agreed in cross examination that this was so and continued after R.L.T. asked him to stop.

R.L.T. did not end the contact between D.L.C. and E.E.’s or his roommate despite these persistent warning signs. [ 135 ] Despite her concerns with respect to at least the roommate, R.L.T. would leave D.L.C. and R.M.C. in the apartment with E.E. or his roommate while doing laundry in that building. This was entirely inappropriate in the circumstances and demonstrated a lack of ability to properly supervise and protect her children. [ 136 ] R.L.T. denied she had any particular relationship with E.E.

However, P.M.C. testified that he also came home to the apartment one night to find the lights turned off and R.L.T. sitting with E.E. on the couch. He saw R.L.T. had her hand on E.E.’s leg. This is not an issue related to the protection of the children but demonstrates the various relationships impacting R.L.T. 2012 [ 137 ] On January 1, 2012, the RCMP received a report that a child was hanging out the window of an apartment. The police attended and had to waken R.L.T. The child hanging out the window was R.M.C. R.L.T. blamed D.L.C. for not watching her. Ms.

Zubrod testified that it was “the middle of the night” when the RCMP attended R.L.T.’s home. R.L.T. became frustrated and began yelling at D.L.C. R.L.T. testified that it was in fact D.L.C. hanging out the window “mooning”. The issues here are that D.L.C. was not only left in charge of her younger sibling at an inappropriate age, but both children were not being adequately supervised. [ 138 ] Concerns were also reported to MCFD about R.M.C. running up and down the hallways of the apartment building with no supervision. R.L.T. testified she could see the elevator from her apartment.

Even if she were standing at such a vantage point, this is not adequate supervision. [ 139 ] A false report was made to MCFD by a person with unstable mental health on January 31, 2012. Although the report was not substantiated, the file was left open to provide the family with supports. [ 140 ] R.L.T. and P.M.C. separated some time in 2012. Subsequently, R.L.T. began a relationship with W.A.S. [ 141 ] On August 3, 2012, the Family Vulnerability Assessment Report was completed by MCFD. The assessment determined that the risk for the family was high.

The report lists the concerns of inappropriate expectations of 7 year old D.L.C., substance abuse, and lack of supervision of the children. Inappropriate discipline was also highlighted and the prior suspected sexual abuse of D.L.C. by E.E. was noted. [ 142 ] In September 2012, D.L.C. was to begin Grade 2 at [omitted for publication] but was transferred back to [omitted for publication] part way through the school year. [ 143 ] Concerns began to arise about D.L.C.’s sexualized behaviour. In this time, Ms.

Zubrod was working with W.A.S. and R.L.T. to identify strategies for parenting the children. [ 144 ] P.M.C. was also reaching out to Lii Michif Otipemiswak (LMO) for both housing and parenting strategies. [ 145 ] In December 2012, R.L.T. and W.A.S. began living together. [ 146 ] By the end of 2012, D.L.C. was attending Child and Youth Mental Health and a girl’s group. R.M.C. was attending the Strong Start Programme from 2012 through 2013.

D.L.C. had also attended Strong Start before she started school. 2013 [ 147 ] In 2013, P.M.C. began to reside with his nephew, S.C., his wife C.C., and their two children. [ 148 ] Under cross examination, W.A.S. testified that one of D.L.C. or R.M.C. said they were locked in a closet and possibly abused at S.C. and C.C.’s residence. P.M.C. denies this. He said it was an overnight visit for which he was present and did not witness any abuse occurring. However, the girls fought and S.C. asked his father not to have them overnight again. [ 149 ] In 2013, a further anonymous report was made to LMO.

W.A.S. believed this was a malicious report made by T.G. T.G. was evidently a friend of R.L.T. She had called to report that she was present when D.L.C. told her mother that W.A.S. had hit her, leaving a bruise. R.L.T. mocked D.L.C. telling her that D.L.C. hit him first. They were smoking marijuana in the house and not watching the children. T.G. also reported that R.L.T. protects the children when W.A.S. is angry but worried about who helps them when R.L.T. gets angry. This was entirely hearsay and disputed by the parties.

In any event, the social workers do not seem to have put much stock in the complaint other than it being part of the history of the file. [ 150 ] From early 2013 through June that year, the family had frequent visits from social workers and intense supports at the home. With these supports, W.A.S. and R.L.T. were able to manage the children. [ 151 ] In February 2013, R.M.C. and D.L.C. had a bout of lice. An agency attended the home to treat the family. The affliction of lice is

not in itself a protection concern. This was a chronic issue with the family then and going forward for a period of time. In addition, the agency that was to treat the family met with resistance from W.A.S. W.A.S. was entitled to not have his head checked and treated. It is not his refusal of the treatment that is problematic. It is the manner in which he dealt with service providers and social workers over the issue. [ 152 ] Rather than addressing this in his evidence, W.A.S. preferred to focus on the fact that they also got bed bugs from the crib that was a gift from LMO.

W.A.S. found it was insulting that they thought the family needed help with the treatments. He said while they were grateful, but it was not something they had asked for. He said he did not like having unexpected company but let them “do their thing”. He denied yelling or shouting at them though he allowed that he did not feel they were there appropriately. He felt they should make an appointment but he did let them in. It had been a day of chaos so he resented the unexpected intrusion. [ 153 ] R.L.T. said that W.A.S. calmly told the women that he did not want them to treat his hair.

She also denied that D.L.C. was being blamed during these treatment sessions or that W.A.S. was yelling at D.L.C. W.A.S. said that he did yell at everyone to “keep it down” and especially at D.L.C. They said that he was blaming her for the chaos but he was blaming the agency for it because they showed up unexpectedly. W.A.S. persistently responds to others in a negative and aggressive fashion but lacks the capacity to reflect upon and improve his conduct.

This is one of many examples. [ 154 ] R.L.T. also conceded that the children had lice when they were removed in 2014 but denied that they had lice when they were removed later in Alberta. [ 155 ] On June 18, 2013, Ms. Zubrod, her student, Daphne Nicolson, and LMO family support worker, Shannon Coping, attended [omitted for publication] to interview D.L.C. D.L.C. disclosed physical abuse by W.A.S. As a result, and following a meeting with R.L.T., Ms. Zubrod created a safety plan with R.L.T. for herself and the children. It involved leaving W.A.S.

R.L.T. was to stay at the [omitted for publication] with the children. W.A.S. was to have no contact with D.L.C. R.L.T. agreed that P.M.C. would stay at the hotel with them to help with the girls and to provide support. [ 156 ] R.L.T. testified that she was pressured by multiple social workers to leave W.A.S. She claimed that they put her in a hotel room with P.M.C. without her consent. She was not comfortable with this. I do not believe her evidence. Their evidence is that she expressed a desire to leave the relationship and they took the necessary steps to assist her. [ 157 ] On June 19, 2013, Ms. Zubrod, Ms.

Nicolson and Ms. Coping attended the [omitted for publication]. Ms. Zubrod learned that R.L.T. had contacted W.A.S. to come and get her. [ 158 ] In the course of this safety plan, P.M.C. and R.L.T. took D.L.C. to the SCAN Clinic. During the examination, the physician asked D.L.C. if anyone had ever touched her private parts. D.L.C. said “ya W.A.S.”. In response to this, R.L.T. said “that’s not true”. This was an entirely inappropriate response that neither respected D.L.C.’s disclosure nor was protective of her. P.M.C. took the children back to the [omitted for publication] to await the after-hours social worker.

The children were placed in foster care. [ 159 ] Ms. Zubrod conceded in cross examination by W.A.S. that she did not speak to D.L.C. about the disclosure of the sexual touching until three months later. It was therefore not verified what D.L.C. meant by her private parts. W.A.S. surmised that D.L.C. could have stated W.A.S. touched her bum. He said that he had in fact once swatted D.L.C.’s bottom when she got into something. He believes she was referring to that occasion. Ms. Zubrod conceded that the allegations of sexual abuse were not substantiated at that time.

This was a considerable failing on the part of MCFD. Given D.L.C.’s age and the prior history of possible sexual abuse, this should have been addressed immediately. [ 160 ] On the 19 th of June, 2013, an altercation occurred between D.L.C. and W.A.S. which led to MCFD removing the children. R.L.T. told the social workers that D.L.C. had bruising. D.L.C. had told her mother that W.A.S. knocked her down, hurt her, kicked her, hit her with a bat, and knocked the wind out of her. When D.L.C. was interviewed by the social worker, R.L.T. attended the interview with D.L.C.

W.A.S. stood outside the room yelling at the social worker because he did not consent to D.L.C. being interviewed. W.A.S. had to be removed from the interview area. W.A.S. had no reason to be in that interview other than to control and intimidate those present. [ 161 ] D.L.C. made disclosures about ongoing fighting between W.A.S. and R.L.T. which R.L.T. confirmed. D.L.C. also made disclosures about ongoing fighting between W.A.S. and herself which was also confirmed by R.L.T. [ 162 ] On June 26, 2013, D.L.C. attended her SCAN appointment as part of the investigation.

This was the same day the presentation hearing was held. Dr. Pamela Sproule examined D.L.C. As a result of the interview and investigation, R.M.C. was also referred to the SCAN clinic. [ 163 ] D.L.C. reported to Dr. Sproule that if she is physically aggressive toward W.A.S. he retaliates with the same behaviour toward her. She disclosed physical abuse from both R.L.T. and W.A.S. It must be noted that there was no disclosure by D.L.C. of sexual abuse by W.A.S. or anyone during the interview with Dr. Sproule, the interview with the social workers at her school, or the interview by the RCMP.

However, there had been an earlier report to an emergency room physician which D.L.C. later denied. Similarly, the foster parent had reported to Dr. Sproule that D.L.C. had not been engaging in any inappropriate touching of her sister or any other sexualized behaviour. In her assessment, Dr. Sproule recommended ongoing close monitoring because the family was “certainly a family at risk”; a psychology assessment for D.L.C.; a referral to Child and Youth Mental Health; and a follow-up dental examination. [ 164 ] On July 9, 2013, Ms. Zubrod interviewed D.L.C. who disclosed that W.A.S. would hit her and yell at her.

He would also swear in the home. She disclosed ongoing fighting between W.A.S. and R.L.T. She told Ms. Zubrod that W.A.S. would call R.L.T. a “cunt” and a “whore”. D.L.C. felt that it was her role to protect her mother. W.A.S. attended this interview, yelling through a window at Ms. Zubrod that she could not interview D.L.C. without him present. Again, he had no purpose in being present except to control and intimidate. [ 165 ] In mid-July, 2013, Ms. Zubrod learned that R.L.T. was pregnant. R.L.T. was already connected to services such as the prenatal clinic, LMO, and the Early Childhood Development Programme.

No further services were recommended.

[ 166 ] In this time, D.L.C. began the Mind Over Madder Programme to assist her in developing her strategies for her anger. [ 167 ] On July 26, 2013, Ms. Zubrod referred R.L.T. to Interior Community Services (ICS) for supervised visits and the PAID Programme. The concerns identified related to W.A.S., which were physical abuse and allegations of sexual abuse. W.A.S. was also described as verbally aggressive and abusive. This was a theme that continued to and through this trial. The referral also identified that R.L.T. had FASD. The concern was that she did not see W.A.S. as a risk.

That concern also persists to this day. [ 168 ] An interim custody order was granted on July 31, 2013 which allowed reasonable access to R.L.T. and P.M.C. [ 169 ] On August 6, 2013, an ICM Product Report was prepared which, in part, stated that the girls could potentially come into the permanent custody of the Director. W.A.S. saw this as inflammatory and pre-determinative once he obtained this disclosure. While the evidence is that the report was prepared in this fashion to consider all of the options, it is not unreasonable for W.A.S. and R.L.T. to see this as pre-determining the outcome. [ 170 ] Ms.

Zubrod also spoke with J.T.(1), R.L.T.’s mother, in August 2013. J.T.(1) shared that R.L.T. was afraid of W.A.S. J.T.(1) did not testify at trial, having passed away. This evidence cannot therefore be tested and must be given little weight. By this I mean whether J.T. accurately relayed R.L.T.’s fears, not whether J.T.(1) said these things to Ms. Zubrod. [ 171 ] V.H.S. was born on [omitted for publication]. Although V.H.S. was removed at birth the Director withdrew from the proceedings by consent in September 2013.

The removal had primarily been precipitated by W.A.S.’s assertion that he would take V.H.S. and go to Ontario. W.A.S. asserts there was nothing nefarious in this plan but the MCFD was concerned about the protection issues that had been raised with respect to the other children. [ 172 ] On September 4, 2013, V.H.S. was returned to her parents under supervision of the Director. Thereafter, W.A.S. was referred to various programmes. Both he and R.L.T. accessed various services through the Aboriginal Friendship Centre.

Although W.A.S. was initially open to those services, he was ultimately asked to leave the programme. This was a common theme with W.A.S. who is described by various witnesses as confrontational, aggressive, threatening and disruptive. [ 173 ] In September 2013, D.L.C. began Grade 3 at [omitted for publication]. [ 174 ] On November 6, 2013, a supervision order was granted for three months. The court made a finding in that order that the children are in need of protection. After the children were returned, they continued to attend the girls’ group through LMO.

D.L.C. continued to attend Child and Youth Mental Health. [ 175 ] In November 2013, W.A.S. was diagnosed with cancer. The day after W.A.S. began his chemotherapy, on December 11, 2013, V.H.S. was taken to the hospital. She was diagnosed with failure to thrive. R.L.T. and W.A.S. believed the cause was V.H.S.’s removal by MCFD during which time R.L.T.’s breast milk began to decrease. This was a very difficult time for the family. W.A.S. also began to use cannabis for treatment of his pain for which he had a medical license.

W.A.S.’s cannabis use would ultimately become an issue for the MCFD. 2014 [ 176 ] A safety plan was prepared for February 5, 2014. The terms addressed discipline parameters and parenting time for D.L.C. and R.M.C. with P.M.C. The safety plan between R.L.T. and W.A.S. required that they have no physical discipline of the children, they were not to have physical contact between themselves, and there was to be no verbal fighting. [ 177 ] On March 6, 2014, W.A.S. contacted LMO to report an altercation between himself and R.L.T. She scratched him while he was holding V.H.S. in his arms.

R.L.T. was instructed to take D.L.C. to P.M.C.’s house a day early. In this time, D.L.C. was adamant that she would only follow her mother’s rules, and not W.A.S.’s. MCFD was concerned about the amount of violence in the household when W.A.S. was present, and for the safety of R.L.T. and the children. [ 178 ] In March 2014, the daycare contacted LMO because R.L.T. shared with them that both fathers had been pedophiles. The daycare was concerned because one of the fathers was supposed to be picking up the girls. R.L.T. was sharing information that was not only dated but also unsubstantiated.

Even after all the evidence led on this trial, I do not know what motivated R.L.T. to make this disclosure to the daycare. It is troubling whether she was seeking help, expressing suspicion, or complaining about MCFD involvement. [ 179 ] On March 12, 2014, D.L.C. was placed with foster parent G.L. pursuant to a Voluntary Care Agreement. Soon after, R.L.T. called LMO to cancel the Care Agreement. D.L.C. disclosed, however, that she did not want to live with W.A.S. She was returned to R.L.T. anyway because the voluntary agreement had been cancelled. [ 180 ] The RCMP attended the T.-S. residence in early May 2014.

This was a result of a report of an altercation between D.L.C. and W.A.S. When D.L.C. escalated, W.A.S. picked her up with his arms around her so that she could not lash out. Once he took her outside, she began to scream that he had hurt her. The police were called and attended. It was on this occasion that W.A.S. reacted inappropriately to the police presence resulting in him being charged with assaulting a police officer and resisting arrest. He was acquitted of the assault and convicted of the resisting arrest. R.L.T. was upset with D.L.C. for having W.A.S. arrested.

Eventually D.L.C. recanted, saying she just did not like W.A.S. [ 181 ] This was not the only police intervention. The RCMP had been called to the family home six times between the beginning of May 2014 and mid-June 2014. [ 182 ] On June 13, 2014, the RCMP attended the T.-S. residence in response to a report from a neighbour that they could hear a female screaming and a male yelling in W.A.S.’s basement suite. When the officer arrived, the only person screaming was R.M.C. She had peed herself and was told to take a bath. The child was in the bath.

The officer was able to check the temperature of the water and encourage the child to wash.

[ 183 ] During the course of this visit, the officer had smelled marijuana. He checked W.A.S.’s licence to confirm that it was still valid. This is important because W.A.S. has maintained throughout that he had a medical licence for marijuana use before its general legalization. It has been an ongoing issue for various social workers.

It also has to be noted that the issues the social workers had with the cannabis use was not about whether it was legal but the amount that W.A.S. was consuming while he had the care of the children, and the fact that he was smoking the marijuana around the children. [ 184 ] The family, having all the children back in their care, decided to travel to Ontario. R.L.T. and W.A.S. testified that they were going to Ontario to see his daughter, R.M.M. and to marry. Ms. Zubrod was aware of this plan. [ 185 ] In August 2014 on that trip, the family were travelling in Alberta.

A report was made on August 6, 2014 by Alberta Child and Family Services. W.A.S. had been admitted to Brooks Health Centre for medical reasons. The Salvation Army provided accommodation to R.L.T. and the children. However, the caseworker was concerned how the children presented at the hospital. They were evidently unhealthy, had lice and smelled of marijuana. W.A.S. had been very ill and had smoked marijuana in the car. W.A.S. smelled very strongly of marijuana. Concerns were raised about R.L.T.’s capacity, neglect of the children, and a verbal altercation that had been reported in the car.

It was also reported that W.A.S. had struck D.L.C. while they were in the car. [ 186 ] Both W.A.S. and R.L.T. said that D.L.C. had been kicking the back of the driver’s seat. They claimed this was endangering everyone in the vehicle because they were driving on the highway. There is conflicting evidence about W.A.S. reaching behind and either flicking D.L.C.’s hair, lightly hitting her on the head, or backhanding her. On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that W.A.S. struck D.L.C. Regardless of the discipline that was meted out, it was not only physical but it was dangerous.

R.L.T. was present in the vehicle and was not driving. It was her responsibility to ensure the children behaved at least until W.A.S. was able to pull over safely so that they could deal with the issue together. Striking a child of that age is not discipline. Striking a child in frustration or anger is assault. Regardless of the reasons for the “discipline”, striking a child in the head is assault. [ 187 ] As a result of the report, the children were interviewed by child protection workers for some time. R.L.T. said it was for hours.

During these interviews, R.M.C. and D.L.C. made disclosures, as a result of which protection concerns arose. It was determined that the children should be removed from W.A.S.’s care. They also made arrangements for R.L.T. [ 188 ] On August 7, 2014, Alberta Child and Family Services and MCFD agreed to transport R.L.T. and the three children back to Kamloops. On arrival, the three girls were placed again with G.L. R.L.T. said that she was dropped off without her children and with no arrangements for accommodation.

R.L.T. testified that she had a friend she was able to stay with until W.A.S. was able to re-join them. It took some considerable effort on his part to make his way back to Kamloops not only due to his illness but also because of the car trouble he experienced. In any event, the children were removed again. [ 189 ] September 2014 saw D.L.C. begin Grade 4 at [omitted for publication]. She was transferred back to [omitted for publication] in March 2015. [ 190 ] The protection hearing nominally commenced on September 17, 2014. [ 191 ] On October 31, 2014 LMO created a safety plan.

That safety plan set goals for reducing the domestic violence in the home so that the children would feel safe. It contemplated V.H.S. going home with her parents. It contemplated unsupervised parenting time with R.M.C. and it contemplated parenting time for R.L.T. only with D.L.C. [ 192 ] In this time, P.M.C. was having parenting time in the community with D.L.C. and R.M.C. [ 193 ] In November 2014, P.M.C. advised LMO of concerns about W.A.S. being a target of the Redd Alert gang.

There did not appear to be any foundation for this allegation and the MCFD asked P.M.C. to do a follow-up with Mental Health to see how he was doing. P.M.C. would revisit this subsequently after a mutual acquaintance was shot. He guessed that the acquaintance had been shot by the Redd Alert. [ 194 ] The social workers were unable to make a link between W.A.S., Redd Alert and P.M.C.’s concerns. It was also noted that when this acquaintance was shot in 2012, P.M.C. had thought it was Hells Angels who had been involved.

W.A.S. acknowledges that this acquaintance had been shot but he knows nothing of any gang affiliations. He only knew that it was gang related but not even which gang. On the balance probabilities, I am satisfied that these are unfounded musings by P.M.C.

What troubles me is that despite his stated concerns, he did nothing to extract his daughters from W.A.S.’s care. [ 195 ] A mediation agreement was reached between MCFD and the family on November 28, 2014 outlining the plan formed in October, which was to return V.H.S. to her parents, transition R.M.C. back home, and continue with D.L.C. in care under a temporary custody order. This order was granted on December 10, 2014.

No finding of protection was made with respect to D.L.C. despite that Order. 2015 [ 196 ] A safety plan for D.L.C. was created on January 29, 2015 and she was returned to the family. [ 197 ] R.L.T. went to Kelowna to visit her sister in July 2015 but contacted LMO to advise that she had been told to leave and she needed to get back to Kamloops. LMO was able to arrange a place for her to stay and provide a bus pass back to Kamloops the next day. It was around this time that a community complaint was received about the safety in the home.

However, the social workers had been to the premises and did not find any substantiation to this complaint. [ 198 ] D.L.C. began Grade 5 at [omitted for publication] in September 2015. [ 199 ] On September 3, 2015, Ms. Zubrod conducted a home visit following telephone calls from D.L.C. and R.L.T. about violence in the home. Ms. Zubrod understood the dispute started when W.A.S. came out of the bathroom to see D.L.C. hitting her mother. D.L.C. told Ms. Zubrod that W.A.S. picked her up and moved her because she was physically lashing out at her mother. She said he hurt her.

Ms. Zubrod felt W.A.S. and R.L.T. identified genuine concerns about keeping themselves safe and keeping D.L.C. safe. She did not find W.A.S.’s actions to be a protection concern. [ 200 ] On the 23 rd day of September, 2015, LMO performed a home visit following calls from D.L.C. and R.L.T. D.L.C. had been injured when W.A.S. had intervened to stop D.L.C. from hitting R.L.T. and her siblings. They had discussions about how to keep family members safe while keeping D.L.C. safely restrained. A few weeks later the RCMP were called to the family home because of an incident between D.L.C. and W.A.S.

He took her scooter away because she was swinging it and would not stop. This was reasonable discipline but the underlying issue of D.L.C.’s behaviours, their causes, and their remedies is not addressed. [ 201 ] During these private meetings with R.L.T. she disclosed that W.A.S. had hit her and that they were fighting regularly. R.L.T. had a pattern of making such disclosures and later recanting or disavowing them. 2016 [ 202 ] J.A.S. was born on [omitted for publication]. W.A.S. and R.L.T. were both accessing services at LMO in this time. [ 203 ] On August 29, 2016, Ms. Zubrod conducted another home visit.

The RCMP had attended the residence because of a report from a neighbour that they heard slapping. W.A.S. said that he had been playing a ukulele and slapping it. The RCMP report said there was screaming and yelling at the children, and this slapping sound. When the constable arrived, he could smell a strong odour of marijuana in the home. W.A.S. and R.L.T. said they were having an argument with D.L.C. about the scooter. D.L.C. told the officer that she does not get along with W.A.S. because she finds him controlling and is always telling her what to do. D.L.C. said that no one was hit.

She did not know where the hitting noise came from. The officer did not note any signs of physical injury to anyone. [ 204 ] In September 2016, D.L.C. began Grade 6 at [omitted for publication]. [ 205 ] In October 2016, Shawna Washbrook took over as social worker on the file. She was extremely concerned after a couple of weeks and was questioning whether the assessment of the file was appropriate. She met with W.A.S. and R.L.T. on November 8, 2016. The biggest concern at that time was J.A.S.’s difficulty breathing. [ 206 ] On November 24, 2016, Ms.

Washbrook and LMO support worker Natanis Houghton, received phone calls from R.L.T. that D.L.C. and W.A.S. were fighting. R.L.T. disclosed that she had also been verbally and physically abusive towards D.L.C. [ 207 ] There was another incident where D.L.C. was throwing cans of diaper cream, W.A.S. was yelling at her, and R.L.T. was trying to intervene. The other three children were present. [ 208 ] On November 30, 2016, Ms. Washbrook conducted a home visit and noted the smell of marijuana in the house.

She had concerns about marijuana smoking inside the house because of the exposure to the children. [ 209 ] On December 7, 2016, Ms. Washbrook interviewed D.L.C. and R.M.C. D.L.C. told her that W.A.S. never wanted P.M.C. to spend time with them. She complained that the two fathers were always playing music instead. Durin

[…]