Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk v. H.C., 2014 ONCJ 508

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice 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. COURT FILE No.: 171/08 DATE: 2014-09-24 Citation: Children’s Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk v. H.C. , 2014 ONCJ 508 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: THE CHILREN’S AID SOCIETY OF HALDIMAND AND NORFOLK Applicant – AND – H.E.C. and R.R. Respondents

Before Justice L. P. Thibideau Trial Heard in Simcoe on April, 9, 10, 11 and 12, 2013, May 29, 2013, November 25, 26, 27, 28, 2013 and April 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, 2014 Reasons for Judgment dated September 24, 2014 P. James ............................................................................................................ for the Applicant E. Montour ........................................................................................................... R.R. T. Simpson ................................................................................ A.M.C., R.A.C. and B.M.C. H.

Silver ...................................................................................................................... A.R.C. THIBIDEAU J .: (Written) [ 1 ] The trial of this status review application brought by the Children's Aid Society of Haldimand and Norfolk took place over 14 days between the 9 th of April 2013 and the 11 th of April 2014. Written submissions were provided by all participants at trial which did not include the mother H.E.C..

The children, the subject of this application are as follows: A.M.C. (A.M.C.) born […] 2000 R.A.C. (R.A.C.) born […] 2003 B.M.C. (B.M.C.) born […] 2005 A.R.C. (A.R.C.) born […] 2008. [ 2 ] The Society involvement with the mother and father goes back to the 12th of September 2002. The significant orders and judgments of the court are as follows: 1) Temporary consent order of the 22 nd of December 2008 wherein the following was ordered:

a) all children returned to parental care under specified supervision terms addressing:

i) physical discipline ii) threats to control behaviour iii) father's excess alcohol use, without an alcohol ban iv) parental conflict complete with a requirement to engage in relationship counselling

v) smoke-free environment focusing on mother vi) maximum of two dogs in the home vii) engagement with the services offered by the Society viii) father to particularly follow through with addiction assessment and recommended treatment or counselling ix) parents to properly care for the dental needs of the children

x) individual parent counselling to address life stresses and coping skills xi) demonstration of a stable home environment

2) Final

summary judgment order of the 11 th of February 2009 made statutory findings with respect to the children's particulars and the fact that they were in need of protection pursuant to section 37(2)(b)(

i) and (ii), and (

g) of the Act . The order made the temporary supervision order of the 22 nd of December 2008 a final order for a six month period. 3) Temporary without prejudice order of 17 th June 2009:

a) all children to remain in Society care with three weekly access visits for the parents, terms and conditions at discretion of the Society. This was the care order operating till trial. 4) Temporary order 16 th September 2009:

a) father’s access reduced to two hours weekly on consent. 5) Temporary order 30 th September 2009:

a) mother’s access reduced to two hours per week. 6) Temporary care and custody hearing order 11 th January 2010 wherein court found the parents were not sufficiently engaged in services to safely return children to mother’s care, it being ordered that all children remain in Society care with access to the parents, terms and conditions at the Society's discretion. 7) Temporary order of 7 th February 2011 wherein mother’s motion request for increased access was denied with the status quo to continue. 8) Temporary order of 7 th March 2012 wherein the two girls, A.M.C. and R.A.C., were placed in the care of father, residing with his partner, R.C..

Significant supervision conditions attached were as follows:

a) no unauthorized access to mother or her current partner

b) no access to mother at all to two boys on a without prejudice basis

c) terms addressing father's alcohol abuse issue

d) terms addressing proper child care

e) follow through with services as recommended by Society workers. 9) Temporary order of the 21 st of February 2013, following apprehension of the two girls from father's care wherein the children A.M.C. and R.A.C., were to remain in Society care with father access in the discretion of the Society, and with sibling access. THE POSITIONS Society Position: [ 3 ] The original Society position set out in its status review application of the 17 th of June 2009 was for Society wardship for six months with discretionary access to the parents.

On the 8 th of April 2010 the Society amended its application to seek Crown wardship without access, for all four children. [ 4 ] The Society position was informally amended at trial to seek Crown wardship for all four children, no parental access to the boys, B.M.C. and A.R.C., with father access only to the girls A.M.C. and R.A.C. in the discretion of the Society. No formal order of access was requested as between the two girls, although the Society took the position that they would use their best efforts to have informal contact among the siblings if possible.

The Society seeks a formal access order for father and the two girls. No access for mother. [ 5 ] The Society position with respect to access between the two boys is ambiguous and confusing. At page four of the Society’s written submissions the following is stated: “The Society continues to support contact among the children and will do so if an adoptive home is found for any of them, but the Society does not support a formal access order except in the case of the girls and Mr. R.R., and as between B.M.C. and A.R.C..”

At Paragraph 91 of those submissions the Society states: “The Society submits that an access order affecting the boys, particularly access to a parent or to the girls, will interfere with the prospects of the boys being adopted and therefore the parties advocating for such access have not met the second prong of the test in section 59(2.1) of the CFSA .” Likewise at Paragraph 93 the Society states as follows: “The Society submits that it is in the best interests of R.A.C. and A.M.C. to maintain the relationship with their father through an access order and that there should be no access order with respect to B.M.C. and A.R.C. in order to facilitate permanency for them through adoption.” In making the access decision for the boys there will be an assumption that the Society does not want any formal access order for them of any kind.

Mother’s Position: [ 6 ] Mother’s formal position is as per her answer and plan of care of the 9 th of October 2010 for the children to reside with her and her partner, T.S.. However mother has not participated in the process for some time and in fact did not participate at trial with the result that the Society’s case against her presented at trial went unanswered.

Father’s Position: [ 7 ] Father formally responded to the original 16 th of June 2009 status review application by answer and the plan of care dated 16 th September 2009, requesting, without supporting reasons or actual plan of care, the children be returned to the care of mother, H.E.C., with whom he resided at that time.

By answer and plan of care dated 11 th June 2010 father responded to the Society's amended status review application with a more detailed plan of care and a request that the four children reside with him alone, having separated from mother by this time. [ 8 ] At trial father's position was that the four children be returned to his care under Society supervision, in the home where he resides with his new partner R.C. and her biological son, D.H., and Ms.

R.C.'s mother, G.C.. [ 9 ] Alternatively, if any child is made a Crown Ward father seeks a sibling access order between children in his care and any such Crown Ward. If all children are made Crown Wards, he seeks access to those children, failing which father seeks an openness order, which is not part of this proceeding. OCL Position (T. Simpson representing A.M.C., R.A.C. and B.M.C.): [ 10 ] Counsel for these children supports a different regime from all others proposed.

The request is for an order that the children R.A.C. and B.M.C. be placed in father's care under Society supervision, and that the child A.M.C., continue to reside in foster care by way of a Crown wardship order. There is a request for a formal access order between siblings and between each sibling and father. No access order is requested with respect to mother. [ 11 ] The fallback position is that one of these two children should be placed with father, the other being made a ward of the Crown, with access to father and access to siblings. OCL Position (H.

Silver representing A.R.C.): [ 12 ] The request with respect to this child is that he be made a Crown ward with no access to either parent. There is a request that he have a formal sibling access order with respect to his brother B.M.C. (reciprocating order) and that there be no formal order, merely informal contact between him and his sisters.

Positions [ 13 ] The result is that each participant at trial has a different view as to what the appropriate outcome should be, and requests a different order from the court with respect to disposition. All positions would require statutory findings pursuant to

section 37 of the Act . The Society wishes a continuation of the findings already made in the final order of the 11 th of February 2009. The remaining participants do not specifically address the statutory findings issue. The exception, contained in the written submissions of Ms. Silver at paragraph 121, is the implied statement that section 37(2)(b)(

i) and (ii) apply, and that (

g) does not apply. SOCIAL HISTORY [ 14 ] The social history can be divided into two parts, the history prior to the final separation of mother and father, and the period thereafter. Father states that the separation occurred in June of 2009. Pre-separation Social History: [ 15 ] The final order under review was made on the 11 th of February 2009 when the parents were residing together. The child care issues addressed in that order and the previous order of 22 nd December 2008 were of varying duration.

It cannot be contested, and is not in fact contested, that the obligations imposed on the parents in those orders addressed specific proven behaviours and attitudes negatively effecting acceptable child care. [ 16 ] As early as 2002 father exhibited alcohol and drug facilitated anger towards mother with their one child A.M.C. present, involving assault and threatening resulting in criminal charges for assault and uttering threats. In 2006 father was charged with an alcohol and driving offence.

Mother has made it known that father has a 10 year driving ban related to an alcohol driving offence. [ 17 ] In 2008 a domestic violence investigation revealed an intoxicated father in conflict with mother resulting in further charges of assault and threatening. It was at this time that mother’s issues became known, using physical discipline to control children's behaviour —wooden spoon, flyswatter. Addiction counselling for both was not being utilized.

The full inventory of concerns were laid out in the orders made. [ 18 ] Four months later on the 12 th of June 2009 the apprehension of the children took place based on the parenting issues demonstrated by the parents in that short time period between the final order and the apprehension. These included significant dental needs for the three older children not being addressed at all, despite being severe and substantial, readily observable by a prudent parent.

At this time mother was the primary caregiver. [ 19 ] Weekly visits confirm that mother was at a loss to control dangerous and unacceptable child behaviour using non-violent methods. Services intended to assist with the day to day child care concerns were not taken up by mother, e.g. public health person visits, subsidized daycare. Other services like behaviour management worker assistance was being avoided. Essentially in June of 2009 all services offered were being terminated for lack of involvement. [ 20 ] Direct parental supervision in and out of the residence was observed to be dangerously lacking.

Multiple dogs and dog breeding, resulting in litters in the home, were contrary to the terms of the supervision order and a health threat to the children, with urinating puppies in the children's living area. This was connected with an habitually soiled and dirty home environment. The children themselves were often observed with dirt on their clothes and persons in a sub-standard home environment. [ 21 ] Mother reported father as drinking daily, often to visible excess, with children describing him at times as sleepy, falling down, wobbly.

His self-assessment was he had no drinking or drug issues and this impeded addiction counselling. His self report and the observations of him by mother and children were at odds. [ 22 ] The family had three residences in the one year leading up to apprehension. Budgeting assistance, residence location assistance and subsidized daycare were all rejected by mother. According to her engagement with service providers was hampered by her diagnosed anxiety for which she was receiving medical treatment and medications, often resulting in her being unable to leave her residence.

[ 23 ] Essentially both parents were either in denial or avoiding engagement with services for all the issues itemized in the governing court order for supervision of their parenting of the four children.

It is clear from the material that a substantial list of service providers were made available or suggested without any meaningful engagement or any engagement at all by the parents in 2009 leading up to the apprehension. [ 24 ] The plan moving forward to address the observed parenting concerns while the children were in temporary care included the following: 1) anger management and addiction program for father 2) drug and alcohol testing for father 3) cessation of cigarette smoking in the home 4) parenting program and couples’ counselling for both parents 5) dispersal of animals to other homes 6) obtaining permanent suitable housing 7) demonstrating engagement by both parents with service providers 8) Society to facilitate service provider referrals for the parents [ 25 ] On the whole the Society plan at that time appeared reasonable and necessary.

Post-apprehension Social History: [ 26 ] The post-apprehension social histories presented by the Society and father are factually similar. However the

interpretations differ significantly. [ 27 ] The initial apprehension of all four children from biological mother and father took place in June of 2009. The children were placed together in the K. kinship home for about one-and-a-half years. Mother's assertions of unacceptable foster father behaviour in the home resulted in all children being removed in December of 2010 without verification of the allegations. [ 28 ] The two girls were placed together with foster parents P. for about one year until placed with father and his new partner, R.C., in a home where her son and her mother also resided.

The two girls remained with him from December of 2011 until the second apprehension from his home on the 19 th of February 2013.

Since then they have lived in separate foster homes—R.A.C. with a new foster family and A.M.C. returning to her previous foster home. [ 29 ] After removal from the kinship placement the two boys were placed in separate foster homes for almost two years, until placed in the same E. foster home in May of 2011, where they continue to reside. [ 30 ] Father places the time of his permanent separation from mother at the same time as the first four children apprehension in June of 2009. [ 31 ] Access has varied over the years. There was separate mother and father access to begin with.

Mother’s access situation deteriorated, mostly involving non-attendance. By court order of the 7 th of March 2012 her access to the two boys was terminated. Access to the two girls continued intermittently. In later 2012 formal access stopped. However she has had non-authorized contact with A.M.C. from time to time since. [ 32 ] Father has been historically consistent regarding access to all the children, including extended access with the boys when the girls resided with him. Since the second apprehension of the girls in February of 2013 access has been regular, but less and supervised,

including most recently in father's home. Both father and the Society focus on the time period between apprehension in 2009 and the present to put their cases—the conditions and circumstances of the four children, father and step-mother interaction with the four children, the family dynamic with respect to two blended families and the causes and affects of child behaviour and diagnosed illnesses. [ 33 ] All of the circumstances and incidents regarding child behaviour and parental response are seen through the prism of parenting ability.

When the biological parents were together with the children the issues concerning father were as follows: 1) excessive alcohol use or abuse 2) absentee parent 3) lack of parenting ability 4) home condition 5) domestic violence and discord [ 34 ] Since father commenced his relationship with step-mother the Society concedes that some initial concerns are no longer present. Domestic violence is not an issue and there is a good continuing relationship track record.

The home conditions are suitable for children to be present long term. [ 35 ] The remaining issues partly stated and partly gleaned from the evidence before the court are now as follows: 1) father as secondary parent to step-mother like he was previously to mother 2) lack of parenting ability including different parenting styles, lack of accord between parents as to parenting procedures 3) father and step-mother's inability or unwillingness to learn and employ good parenting techniques for four children, each with behavioural issues, each demonstrating fragile components to their personality and behaviour. [ 36 ] The Society has voiced concern with respect to the alcohol use history of father.

The best evidence is that father’s alcohol consumption is consistently substantial, some 24 beers more or less, per week. He has been observed on at least one occasion to have alcohol on his breath during an access visit. Since commencing his relationship with step-mother he does not consume alcohol in the presence of the children, requiring him to absent himself from the house on the family property in order to consume alcohol, leaving step-mother as the primary caregiver during those times.

However there is no clear evidence that alcohol has directly or negatively affected his ability to parent otherwise. [ 37 ] The alcohol situation historically has been such that a consensual alcohol safety plan was engaged early on and had to be implemented one time in the several years since father has separated from biological mother.

Alcohol consumption by father is an issue that requires attention and monitoring but is not currently an obvious negative ingredient of father’s observed parenting. [ 38 ] The real focus of the Society's request for Crown wardship of all four children is the issue of inability to parent adequately. [ 39 ] There was a great deal of evidence from both sides regarding access of all four children and parenting of the two girls while in father's care, for the time period between the first apprehension in 2009 and the apprehension of the girls from father’s and step-mother's care in February of 2013.

Each participant emphasizes this evidence to convince the court of the correctness of their respective positions. The result was much access detail and some access statistics were before the court. [ 40 ] One access supervisor described a year’s worth of access as consisting of 24 visits, one quarter of the visits being good or acceptable, and the rest characterized by chaos, inappropriate child behaviour, verbally and physically.

Over time some individual issues arising from time to time were as follows: 1) A working woodstove in the home is a concern for the physical safety of the children 2) A bonfire fueled by gasoline made by the children without adult supervision 3) Four children on one trampoline without supervision 4) A.M.C. on a summer holiday stay of a month or so away from home, unauthorized, with an unacceptable caregiver in one of

the two homes in which she stayed. [ 41 ] Ultimately the events surrounding access can be characterized this way. The father and step-mother did not preempt the concerning behaviour, but there were genuine attempts to address the issues, some successful, some not. [ 42 ] The quality of access cycled up and down. It is agreed the best visit was on the 10 th of March 2012 with all four children in father's home when the girls resided there. This was a visit characterized by no evidence of alcohol use at all, activities preplanned by father and step-mother, with cooperative engaged children.

This is contrasted with a visit on the 19 th of January 2013, shortly before the second apprehension of the girls. A visit characterized by children yelling, screaming, fighting and hitting each other, with non-helpful inappropriate responses (verbal sarcasm) to quell the chaos from a father frustrated by the difficulty in restoring calm and civility. [ 43 ] Father asserts that it was the opinion of at least one worker that there were no risk of harm concerns during access visits.

On the whole of the evidence context it is more proper to say that while there was potential harm arising on access visits as recited, no actual physical harm came to any child on access. [ 44 ] The ups and downs of access had three characteristics. Only a few were out of parental control, many were difficult and demanding, some were satisfactory or good. [ 45 ] Step-mother, particularly when the girls were residing in father's home, reported father was not pulling his weight in sharing parental responsibilities and that they often disagreed on how to address parenting issues as they came up.

The step-mother believed in the observance of rules and consistency of approach. She felt undermined by father's easier attitude, sometimes in direct contradiction of step-mother about how to proceed. The evidence for that time discloses a father more easily frustrated with poor child behaviour than step-mother. The result—step-mother felt overwhelmed and unsupported by father. [ 46 ] Access quality has improved since the girls left father's care in early 2013 and has remained better than before, with shorter but supervised visits, which is the current access regime in father's home.

SERVICES FOR PROVIDED [ 47 ] Before the first apprehension the Society proposed and provided an intensive service plan. Frequent access was monitored and the parents mentored by access facilitators. Family service workers attended on schedules ranging from less frequent to weekly.

In 2008 a large number of services were offered father and biological mother including: 1) alcohol program 2) family home visitors 3) public health worker 4) subsidized daycare 5) REACH counselling 6) on-site behaviour management worker [ 48 ] None of these services were engaged by either parent, except biological mother did engage with REACH in personal counselling in 2009. [ 49 ] Post-apprehension and post-parental separation father engaged in budget counselling a year or so after recommendation. He began but did not complete anger management counselling.

The Beyond Basics childcare program was offered but not engaged.

[ 50 ] An organized CAAP assessment was cancelled because father failed to participate. Counselling regarding the integration of two families into one blended family was completed. The presence of a clinical access facilitator was accepted and not challenged by father and step-mother, who understandably, wanted more access, preferably not supervised. [ 51 ] A crisis worker to deal with A.M.C.’s significant self-harm behaviour, begun while residing with father, was declined.

Father did engage with Addiction Counselling in a program whereby self-report of the situation resulted in an assessment of no observable alcohol issue. The Society found the process to be lacking validity; father saw the result as confirming his belief he had no real alcohol issue. [ 52 ] In any event an alcohol safety plan was agreed to—limit intake to an undefined acceptable level, and if exceeded, utilize agreed safety plan.

There is no evidence this failed. [ 53 ] In 2011-2012 father gave evidence that he engaged with other services as follows: 1) Banyon Community Services 2) Haldimand Norfolk REACH Services 3) Powerhouse Project 4) Family counselling [ 54 ] However there is no evidence before the court as to what each service focused on, the participation rate and the assessed outcome. The documents filed by father provide numerous documents entitled “Resource Material” (tabs 18-26 inclusive in Exhibit 7 Document Brief of Exhibits of Respondent Father).

But there is no independent evidence by any service provider, which is not the Society, as to how father or step-mother did in any engagement with any service provider to assess parenting ability and/or upgrade parenting ability. The exception is a certificate demonstrating that father completed the COPE Parenting Program at REACH in April of 2011. [ 55 ] We are left with some non-detailed father’s unsubstantiated comments about what he did and how he did it, and the evidence of the Society witnesses, regarding the outcome of engagement with Society provided programs or personnel.

Father’s assertion that he participated in five of six offered services may be true, but only the ones for which Society assessment is available show any outcomes. These were as follows: 1) engagement with access supervisors 2) substance abuse testing - positive for alcohol 3) family group conferencing with CAS personnel [ 56 ] The result is that the evidence before the court as to parenting ability and any change in parenting ability comes from observed behaviour by others, self-report of own behaviour, and Society personnel assessment and Society filed documents.

THE CHILDREN [ 57 ] All children have lived with parents, a parent, or in foster care as previously set out. A.M.C. : [ 58 ] A.M.C. was 13 years of age when the trial finished; she was eight years of age when first taken into care. In February 2013 A.M.C.’s child psychiatrist diagnosed her as having Generalized Anxiety Disorder. She is also assessed as being a non-situational intrinsic worrier.

Her uncertain legal status and her uncertain living situation is a defined source of worry and anxiety. [ 59 ] The doctor’s professional opinion is that prescription medications and behavioural strategies are the best management

techniques.

The main focus is a three-pronged one: 1) Parenting by informed parental figures able to follow through defined cognitive and behavioural techniques with a caveat that this technique works better with younger children; 2) In the long term A.M.C. will require individual insight-oriented cognitive behavioural psychotherapy to learn anxiety management with cognitive reframing techniques to address her perpetual distortions of the world around her; 3) Continuation of a prescribed drug therapy plan with changes as required. [ 60 ] There was informal opinion that while residing with father in 2012 A.M.C. suffered from depression and anxiety.

It was at this time that she commenced self- harming activity by cutting, which she saw as a method of taking away her worries. This behaviour continued in foster care and is now a major focus for protection concerns and treatment. While in father's care her behaviour was described by step-mother as defiant and belligerent.

She was described as often unresponsive to father, step-mother, and step- grandmother in their attempts to regulate her conduct and verbal conflict in the home. [ 61 ] She has on one occasion since coming into foster care after apprehension from father's home drank what she believed to be a dangerous liquid to do self-harm. In the foster home there is a triple focus plan in place. The day to day living program consists of a firm, caring, consistent approach to her and her behaviour with preset rules and expectations.

In addition there is a physical safety plan removing from her personal environment sharp objects and cleaning supplies. Finally a prescribed medication plan is in place and followed. [ 62 ] Since coming into foster care and since the separation of the girls from the boys for access purposes, her behaviour on access visits has improved. R.A.C. : [ 63 ] R.A.C. was 10 years of age when the trial ended; she was five years of age when first taken into care. Her pediatrician diagnosed her with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in December of 2012.

The underlying symptoms reported to the doctor for his assessment were a history of inattentive behaviours and hyperactivity at home and at school from at least six years of age. The observable conduct reported by step-mother directly to the doctor was difficulty with routine and anger management. She was easily distracted. For example she was not able to read for more than two minutes at one time. Other complaints were opposition and defiance to authority in the parental home. She transfers blame. She exhibited nocturnal enuresis—difficulty falling asleep and staying asleep.

Her test scores for ADHD revealed she was well within the diagnosis range, not borderline. The professional opinion was that her ADHD contributes to significant and problematic disruptive behaviour as well as inattention to essential tasks, interfering with learning and social relationships.

The management techniques recommended were as follows: 1) Consistent highly structure home routine and daily life management; 2) Positive reinforcement, external-behavioural modification; 3) Advocacy in the community for ADHD supports; 4) A regime of prescription medication properly followed; and 5) Proper ADHD attentive diet. B.M.C. : [ 64 ] B.M.C. was nine years of age when the trial ended; he was four years of age when taken into care. B.M.C. is the child with the least amount of professional intervention.

Unlike his siblings he has no diagnosed illness or disorder, although he required massive dental intervention when first taken into foster care. In the sibling group he is not an instigator of difficult behaviour. [ 65 ] However, B.M.C. has exhibited intermittently over the three years of foster care melt-down behaviour to a significant degree. There is a positive correlation between access visits with father and family and behaviour categorized as hyperactive, with child upset and tantrums.

He is described as oppositional and defiant, often with inappropriate language. [ 66 ] It was observed that the February 2013 change in access visits with father from four children present to only two boys present improved his behaviour around access visits noticeably.

[ 67 ] The result is an extensive behaviour management technique list employed by the foster mother and passed on by her to father and step-mother. Over the second half of foster care, from 2012 to 2014, melt-downs have diminished, he is still excitable. He is in need of remedial help at school especially with respect to mathematics and reading, which foster mother attributes to lack of exposure at a younger age and not a lack of intelligence or ability. School behaviour has markedly improved.

The foster mother attributes behaviour improvement to a concerted effort consisting of positive reinforcement as opposed to negative consequences like timeouts, phasing to minor negative consequences and the use of the 1-2-3 Magic Program for child behaviour. Verbal direction and reminders are useful, and emotional and verbal assurance is also employed. [ 68 ] The school catch-up program for educational deficiencies is being supplemented in the foster home. In general the efforts at home and school have shown positive results, with more progress required.

A.R.C. : [ 69 ] A.R.C. was five-and-a-half years of age when the trial ended; he was less than a year old when first taken into care. A.R.C. was diagnosed by his pediatrician with ADHD some time prior to the 21 st of March 2013 when his pediatrician informed A.R.C.'s school of the diagnosis. This was a response to a letter from his school principal concerned with his observed conduct at school.

In March of 2013 that observed conduct was described as follows: 1) Inordinately affectionate and clingy with his J-K teacher physically and emotionally; 2) Use of sticker reward system to improve behaviour appeared helpful; 3) Use of explicit sexualized language; 4) Demonstrated verbal aggression at times, at times appropriate with peers; 5) Roller coaster emotions daily with mood determining language and conduct; 6) Classroom learning focused on structure and routine for him rather than actual academic learning; and 7) Generally non-observation of physical aggression. [ 70 ] The foster mother's assessment was that the changes to access—two children at one time not four—has also been helpful for A.R.C..

THE LEGISLATION [ 71 ] Pursuant to section 64(2)(

b) of the Act the Society has brought the amended application before the court for judicial status review of the final order of the 11 th of February 2009. That order confirmed an existing situation whereby all four children were returned to the care of the biological parents, H.E.C. and R.R., under specific terms of supervision by the Society for a period of six months. The Society has done so as required by section 64(2)(

b) of the Act . This triggers consideration for purposes of disposition of three specific sections of the Act as follows: Court may vary, etc. 65.

(1) Where an application for review of a child’s status is made under

section 64, the court may, in the child’s best interests, (

a) vary or terminate the original order made under subsection 57 (1), including a term or condition or a provision for access that is part of the order; (

b) order that the original order terminate on a specified future date; (

c) make a further order or orders under

section 57; or (

d) make an order under

section 57.1. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 65 (1) ; 2006, c. 5, s. 23 (1) . Order where child in need of protection 57.

(1) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to

protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders or an order under

section 57.1, in the child’s best interests: Supervision order 1. That the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the Society, for a specified period of at least three months and not more than 12 months. Society wardship 2. That the child be made a ward of the Society and be placed in its care and custody for a specified period not exceeding twelve months. Crown wardship 3. That the child be made a ward of the Crown, until the wardship is terminated under

section 65.2 or expires under subsection 71 (1), and be placed in the care of the Society. Consecutive orders of Society wardship and supervision 4. That the child be made a ward of the Society under paragraph 2 for a specified period and then be returned to a parent or another person under paragraph 1, for a period or periods not exceeding an aggregate of twelve months. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 57 (1) ; 2006, c. 5, s. 13 (1-3). Court to inquire

(2) In determining which order to make under subsection (1) or

section 57.1, the court shall ask the parties what efforts the Society or another agency or person has made to assist the child before intervention under this Part. 2006, c. 5, s. 13 (4) . Less disruptive alternatives preferred

(3) The court shall not make an order removing the child from the care of the person who had charge of him or her immediately before intervention under this Part unless the court is satisfied that alternatives that are less disruptive to the child, including non-residential services and the assistance referred to in subsection (2), would be inadequate to protect the child. 1999, c. 2, s. 15 (1). Community placement to be considered

(4) Where the court decides that it is necessary to remove the child from the care of the person who had charge of him or her immediately before intervention under this Part, the court shall, before making an order for Society or Crown wardship under paragraph 2 or 3 of subsection (1), consider whether it is possible to place the child with a relative, neighbour or other member of the child’s community or extended family under paragraph 1 of subsection (1) with the consent of the relative or other person. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 57 (4) . Idem: where child an Indian or a native person

(5) Where the child referred to in subsection (4) is an Indian or a native person, unless there is a substantial reason for placing the child elsewhere, the court shall place the child with, (

a) a member of the child’s extended family; (

b) a member of the child’s band or native community; or (

c) another Indian or native family. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 57 (5) .

(6) Repealed: 1999, c. 2, s. 15 (2). Idem

(7) When the court has dispensed with notice to a person under subsection 39 (7), the court shall not make an order for Crown wardship under paragraph 3 of subsection (1), or an order for Society wardship under paragraph 2 of subsection (1) for a period exceeding thirty days, until a further hearing under subsection 47 (1) has been held upon notice to that person. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 57 (7) . Terms and conditions of supervision order

(8) If the court makes a supervision order under paragraph 1 of subsection (1), the court may impose, (

a) reasonable terms and conditions relating to the child’s care and supervision; (

b) reasonable terms and conditions on, (

i) the child’s parent, (ii) the person who will have care and custody of the child under the order, (iii) the child, and (iv) any other person, other than a foster parent, who is putting forward or would participate in a plan for the care and custody of or

access to the child; and (

c) reasonable terms and conditions on the Society that will supervise the placement, but shall not require the Society to provide financial assistance or purchase any goods or services. 2006, c. 5, s. 13 (5) . Where no court order necessary

(9) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection but is not satisfied that a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall order that the child remain with or be returned to the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 57 (9) .

Expiry of Orders Time limit 70(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the court shall not make an order for Society wardship under this Part that results in a child being a Society ward for a period exceeding, (a) 12 months, if the child is less than 6 years of age on the day the court makes an order for Society wardship; or (b) 24 months, if the child is 6 years of age or older on the day the court makes an order for Society wardship. Same

(2) In calculating the period referred to in subsection (1), time during which a child has been in a Society’s care and custody under, (

a) an agreement made under subsection 29 (1) or 30 (1) (temporary care or special needs agreement); or (

b) a temporary order made under clause 51 (2) (d), shall be counted. Previous periods to be counted

(2.1) The period referred to in subsection (1) shall include any previous periods that the child was in a Society’s care and custody as a Society ward or as described in subsection (2) other than periods that precede a continuous period of five or more years that the child was not in a Society’s care and custody. 1999, c. 2, s. 21 (1). Idem

(3) Where the period referred to in subsection (1) or (4) expires and, (

a) an appeal of an order made under subsection 57 (1) has been commenced and is not yet finally disposed of; or (

b) the court has adjourned a hearing under

section 65 (status review), the period shall be deemed to be extended until the appeal has been finally disposed of and any new hearing ordered on appeal has been completed or an order has been made under

section 65, as the case may be. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 70 (3) ; 1999, c. 2, s. 21 (2). Six-month extension

(4) Subject to paragraphs 2 and 4 of subsection 57 (1), the court may by order extend the period permitted under subsection (1) by a period not to exceed six months if it is in the child’s best interests to do so. 1999, c. 2, s. 21 (3). [ 72 ] It is agreed that

section 70 of the Act is operative because all children have been in Society care in excess of two years so that Society wardship is not a permitted disposition. On the facts of this case (no third-party placement option available) any of the children must be placed with a parent, with or without supervision, pursuant to section 57(1) 1., or be made a Crown ward under section 57(1) 3. with or without access. [ 73 ] In considering the restricted options the Act prescribes a short substantive procedural checklist. Pursuant to

section 57.(2) the court must inquire into what efforts the Society or others have made to assist the child before making an order. It flows logically that this mandate applies to assistance for a parent as well, such assistance necessarily assisting the child. [ 74 ] Pursuant to

section 57.(3) the orders available must be considered sequentially from least disruptive being considered and rejected to most disruptive being considered. In rejecting the less disruptive options the court must be satisfied that alternatives that are less disruptive are inadequate to protect the child. Thus a sequential rejection on a balance of probabilities test of all lesser options available to the court is required before the Crown wardship option is exercised.

[ 75 ] All of this is within the overriding context of the basic principles and fundamental precepts of the Act . The Act has enumerated purposes which govern the functional parts of the Act as follows: Paramount purpose and other purposes Paramount purpose (1) 1. The paramount purpose of this Act is to promote the best interests, protection and well being of children. Other purposes

(2) The additional purposes of this Act , so long as they are consistent with the best interests, protection and well-being of children, are: 1. To recognize that while parents may need help in caring for their children, that help should give support to the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and, wherever possible, be provided on the basis of mutual consent. 2. To recognize that the least disruptive course of action that is available and is appropriate in a particular case to help a child should be considered. 3.

To recognize that children’s services should be provided in a manner that, i. respects a child’s need for continuity of care and for stable relationships within a family and cultural environment, ii. takes into account physical, cultural, emotional, spiritual, mental and developmental needs and differences among children, iii. provides early assessment, planning and decision-making to achieve permanent plans for children in accordance with their best interests, and iv. includes the participation of a child, his or her parents and relatives and the members of the child’s extended family and community, where appropriate. 4.

To recognize that, wherever possible, services to children and their families should be provided in a manner that respects cultural, religious and regional differences. 5.

To recognize that Indian and native people should be entitled to provide, wherever possible, their own child and family services, and that all services to Indian and native children and families should be provided in a manner that recognizes their culture, heritage and traditions and the concept of the extended family. 1999, c. 2, s. 1; 2006, c. 5, s. 1 . [ 76 ] Where there is conflict between the Other Purposes of the Act and the Paramount Purpose of the Act , the Paramount Purpose must prevail. [ 77 ] On the facts of this case certain other purposes are not relevant.

There are no facts to support an issue with respect to cultural, religious and regional differences. There are no facts to support an issue with respect to Indian and native people entitlements. [ 78 ] The Society seeks an order pursuant to specific protection concerns encompassed by section 37(2)(b)(

i) and (ii) of the Act as follows: 37( 2) A child is in need of protection where, (

b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s, (

i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or (ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child; [ 79 ] The court in deciding what order is in the children's best interests must take into account specific enumerated relevant circumstances of the case as follows:

37(3) Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant: 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. 3. The child’s cultural background. 4. The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised. 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. 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. 7. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity. 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. 9. The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained. 10. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case. 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. 12. The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection. 13.

Any other relevant circumstance. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 37 (3) ; 2006, c. 5, s. 6 (3) . [ 80 ] Not all enumerated circumstances are necessarily relevant. That is a matter of fact. The enumerated circumstances are not necessarily co-equal. That is a matter of fact. [ 81 ] Finally, if a Crown wardship order is made the court must address the issue of parental access, access to others, and sibling access. The position of the Society, the position of father, the position of each of the two lawyers representing different children all involve some form of access order in the event a Crown wardship order is made.

Such an order is permissible under

section 65 of the Act with respect to this status review matter, with the restriction contained in Section 59(2.1) of the Act as follows: 59(2.1) A court shall not make or vary an access order made under

section 58 with respect to a Crown ward unless the court is satisfied that, (

a) the relationship between the person and the child is beneficial and meaningful to the child; and (

b) the ordered access will not impair the child’s future opportunities for adoption. 2006, c. 5, s. 17 (2) . DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS [ 82 ] The Society position of Crown wardship for all four children with access for father for the older girls and none for the younger boys is founded on a service provider-client relationship with the biological mother and father that began in 2006, when the three eldest children lived with the parents. The observed concerns were chiefly, domestic violence, marijuana and substance abuse affecting parenting, along with mother's anxiety issues.

These and other unresolved issues led to the commencement of court proceedings in December of 2008. That process continues to now. [ 83 ] However the social dynamic has changed significantly. The biological parents separated at about the time of the first apprehension in June of 2009 because of the same ongoing issues. The result of the separation was two-fold. Mother became disengaged from services and supports, finally becoming disengaged from her children. She has not participated in the court process or service process for years and has no plan of care to be considered.

[ 84 ] Father quickly entered into a relationship with a new partner and her immediate family. He did not disconnect from the Society. His new situation had improvements—better partner relationship, a suitable physical environment for the children, and reduced alcohol intake. Separate parental access with the children eventually became father access with all the children leading to a period of over one year when the two girls resided with father in a blended family environment. Access before and after this was substantially supervised for a dual purpose. To monitor parenting ability. To improve parenting ability.

This dual purpose approach continued beyond the time the Society made the decision to seek Crown wardship by the amended status review application of the 8 th of April 2010 now before the court. Despite this formal position the Society continued to take a dual approach, placing the two girls on extended access, eventually with court approval, for some 14 months from December 2011 to February 2013. The return of the two girls to Society care was also confirmed by a temporary without prejudice court order with access by the father to the children.

This is the status quo that at the time of trial conclusion was in existence, also for a period of some 14 months. [ 85 ] The lengthy history presented at trial shows two characteristics of the Society’s involvement with this family. [ 86 ] The court inquiry required by section 57(2) of the Act shows that the Society consistently made available, facilitated, or recommended a large number of services or assists for the children directly, and for father and step-mother.

These included access facilitation over years to help with learning child behaviour management skills, arranging a full CAAP assessment, engaging a psychiatrist and pediatrician for one or more of the children to diagnose and treat major psychological and emotional behaviour disorders. There was specific focus on third-party service providers to assist the learning process for child management and to address the alcohol issues of father.

Summed up, the Society position is that services engaged resulted in insufficient improvement, if any, for child behaviour management, and a black hole of uncertainty with respect to father’s long-time significant detrimental association with alcohol. [ 87 ] In argument the Society lists a variety of in-house and community services offered over a long period of time. That

summary is accurate. The argument that multiple referrals continued to be made without results or completion is also accurate. As previously stated the statements of father regarding participation and success in community provided services is not supported by meaningful evidence before the court, except, father continued to engage with Society personnel, engaged in blended family counselling, and one other program. There is no evidence of open obstruction or disengagement with child and family service workers by father. [ 88 ] The time period that the two girls resided with father is important.

At this time the issues requiring Society involvement intensified. Society personnel focused on helping father and step-mother to learn child behaviour coping and management techniques. There were appropriate referrals to specific community helpers like Haldimand and Norfolk REACH. Parental acceptance and engagement was, as throughout, not dismissive, but lukewarm and not sufficient. [ 89 ] The Society position and involvement with accompanying plan did not remain static or unresponsive to change. As the family scene changed so did the Society’s approach.

Father separated from a mother in crisis, a mother who had been the day to day primary caregiver for the children. He found a new more supportive, much less problematic partner with relatively better child care skills. The Society approved and arranged for in-home access with professional assistance, developed a plan reflective of improvements in father’s situation, returned two of four children as a measured response to that improving situation.

Similarly when recommended services were not engaged or not fully engaged, when child behaviour on supervised access involving all four children was more often than not, chaotic, with physical risks from time to time and the children displaying behaviour consistent with future diagnoses—in short, significant regression in circumstances—the two girls were removed from father's care but significant access in the home continued. [ 90 ] A proper reading of the evidence discloses that the Society personnel were responsive to change, both good and bad, from the parental point of view.

That responsiveness was characterized by a long term concerted effort to provide appropriate services. [ 91 ] Father argues that those services provided directly by the Society were deficient, both in quantity and in quality. He argues that workers had non-consistent attitudes as to how father was to demonstrate his proper parenting ability and that different management approaches by different workers led to confusion by father as to how he was to proceed. In fact the overall management approach was consistent over a period of years. The issues were clearly identified.

The service providers’ solutions were offered. The monitoring of access with suggestions for change occurred. The consistent theme was for father to accept help from professionals to learn parenting skills, put them into observable practice with feedback from professionals, avoid parental conflict over parenting decisions, remain hands-on without delegating too much parenting authority to step-mother, monitor the four children constantly, and learn techniques to avoid parental frustration with problematic child behaviour.

This was the program over the course. [ 92 ] The examples of Society inconsistency argued by father show two things. 1) On the scene infrequent access decisions that went against the plan—e.g., giving in to a child's wish to have food or drink in an unacceptable location in the home—were minor in nature and a response to either a need for father-worker privacy or a rare de-escalation

tool. 2) Father’s argument fails to take into account the necessity that the Society approach be tailored to changing circumstances. [ 93 ] Father’s position that the alcohol abuse issue identified by the Society is over-emphasized is probably true, but without sufficient third-party assessment independent of the Society's suspicions and the father's assertions, there is insufficient evidence to make clear finding on that issue. It is not that there is no alcohol issue, clearly there is, open and notorious in the early years, less so in the later years, particularly when the two girls resided with him.

Alcohol was not a fuel for domestic abuse as before, there was no repeat of loss of driving privileges (previous 10 year ban), but despite his protestations that he would quit drinking to get the kids back, he never quit daily drinking and still continues to consume alcohol on the higher end of the scale.

There is no professional alcohol assessment other than a brief one time self-report assessment with a counsellor, so there is no definitive evidence or a professional opinion as to how his current significant alcohol use does, or does not, contribute to his propensity to be frustrated by difficult child behaviour, multiplied by four. [ 94 ] However there is evidence his ongoing out of presence of children alcohol use likely contributed to ceding his parenting role to step-mother.

It is clear that the continued alcohol use by father is a questionable part of his parenting, but it is not co-equal with parenting ability issues at all. [ 95 ] It is problematic that the father had the opinion that the alcohol safety plan addressed the issue of his alcohol use or abuse. That is, in the event he was intoxicated to the extent his good parenting was compromised, a telephone call to a third-party service provider would make everything safe for the children. It would in the immediate sense, as it did the one time that option was used. But the proper solution involved more than a contingency plan.

It required father to seek help to understand his historical alcohol history to avoid the issue as it related to parenting. [ 96 ] The Society argument and father's argument view the family patterns related to the children, of residency of girls, and access to children, from 2009 to the second apprehension in 2013, very differently. [ 97 ] The Society characterizes the sum total of father-multiple child interaction as chaotic, lacking consistency, lacking sufficient father involvement, lacking proper engagement with necessary service providers, not understanding the needs of four problematic children with reasonably similar, but not identical, difficult to parent behaviours. [ 98 ] Father argues that the sum total of the evidence reveals a parent with a step-parent meeting the minimally acceptable standard for parenting, denying the characterization of father and his partner described by the Society.

His access attendance was excellent over the years and continues to be so. He has never been openly hostile to Society involvement over years. The good domestic situation now has a long-term track record. Alcohol is consumed in moderation, and is not a poor parenting factor. [ 99 ] It is clear the situation of each child, particularly the girls, has not been linear, not always going in the same direction. The 2009 apprehension showed that the kin placement was not particularly problematic regarding child behaviour.

While there is little evidence on this over one and one half years of placement, the length of the placement and the lack of information supports the conclusion that the children behaved adequately in that placement. An allegation of inappropriate physical discipline in the home toward one child, made by mother, with the kin’s refusal to cooperate in the Society investigation, might mean that there were some observable child behaviour issues. The evidence from this time has little weight. Since that kin placement the four children have never resided together.

They did see each other together on access over a period of years, until the children's collective behaviour required that father see the boys and girls separately. The result is that the only observations of all four together have taken place in father's presence. The exception—one meeting in a foster home which the foster mother described as chaotic and uncontrollable, and not ever repeated. [ 100 ] What is the true characterization of father’s parenting abilities? He has shown a pattern over the years of taking a secondary role when under stress.

This was particularly so when he was with the biological mother prior to June of 2009. But he has behaved similarly, to a lesser extent, with his new partner. Despite attempts to rewrite history at trial it is clear that step-mother over a meaningful period of time with the girls in residence felt overwhelmed, under supported by father, in conflict with him over parenting style, and suffering from anxiety and depression. Her relationship with the girls was difficult and often argumentative, more so with R.A.C. than A.M.C..

It is noteworthy that there is a direct correlation between the emotional and behavioural difficulties with each child and the amount of time spent in residence with father. It is noteworthy that A.M.C.’s bulimia and self-cutting behaviour began when residing with father and step-mother. [ 101 ] Father argues that the assessments and beliefs of various Society workers were at times at odds with one another and confusing to

father thereby affecting his parenting ability. There are two problems with this argument. If true, father is still left with the lack of parenting ability. It is implicit in father's argument that Society workers’ inconsistency in involvement and approach should favor return of the children to him. This is not a contest to determine whether the Society or father is more culpable. The winner does not get the children. The issue to be decided is what is in the best interests of each of the four children, particularly with respect to future residence.

At this stage, after more than five years from the commencement of the first application, the imperative issue is permanent placement of each child in a proper home environment containing the characteristics said to be necessary for their life progress detailed by the child psychologist and the pediatrician in written evidence before the court. [ 102 ] If not true, father’s progress or lack of progress, is related to his own ability to learn, internalize and then change positively, his parenting behaviour.

The complaints about the confusing and contradictory attitudes and input to parents by various Society workers, is not a fair characterization of their involvement. [ 103 ] It is argued that the term “chaos” in chaotic visits was never defined. But it is clear from notes and comments of father and step- mother they knew well, as any other person would, what was chaotic in the access visits.

A large proportion of the 56 exhibits filed at trial were access notes and affidavit material related to parent-child interaction, clearly setting out a pattern of child conduct of potential physical danger—the wheelchair, the gasoline fire, the trampoline, the wood stove—more problematic child on child interaction and child on parent interaction, resulting in the conclusion that even in a supervised and mentoring environment there was an out-of-control attitude and interaction which frequently required supervisor intervention, with father withdrawn from parenting with a “do what you want” giving up in frustration attitude, and a step-mother feeling put upon, unfairly treated, especially by the girls, and a general lack of parental control. [ 104 ] This scenario cycled up and down over months, and over single visits.

The general conclusion to be reached is that, unsupervised, unaided, father and step-mother could not adequately parent these four children. The decision by the Society to separate each girl into a home without siblings, and to keep two connected boys from residence with their female siblings, demonstrates how hard it is to have even experienced foster parents cope adequately with the combined four children dynamic. [ 105 ] That dynamic appears to be this.

By history and learned behaviour, in the context of diagnosed issues for three of the four children, the stresses on day to day parenting are such that a high degree of consistent good parenting skill would be required to parent the four children in one home on a minimally acceptable standard. [ 106 ] In this context chaos was not required to be defined, the father and step-mother were observing it regularly, and there was no failure of meeting of minds as to what that chaos consisted of among the various adult participants.

There was no lack of understanding at the time of what constituted a good access visit, an in between visit and a chaotic visit. [ 107 ] In that evidentiary context father’s argument that he was confused and hampered in his parenting by confusing worker input is again rewriting history. [ 108 ] Father argues that the Society workers’ express primary concern was the chaotic nature of the visits. That primary concern then changed to management of children. All without answers as to how issues were to be addressed. In fact there should be no confusion.

The chaotic nature of the visits was founded in the children's behaviours and lack of parental ability to manage. [ 109 ] This single core issue was to be addressed by: - acceptance of service providers like the crisis worker who was refused - learning from access supervisor guidance and if necessary intervention to avoid moving from crisis to crisis - parents acquiring skills to de-escalate situations by being proactive early rather than simply reactive after the fact. [ 110 ] In fact these parenting skills unlearned, coupled with other issues like an overwhelmed step-mother and a father prone to parenting withdrawal under stress, resulted in a generally downward cycling of parent-child interaction and parenting situation in early 2013 when the girls were apprehended from father. [ 111 ] The argument is made that the challenging and defiant to parents behaviour of the two girls was not unusual in a home with two preteen girls, getting used to a step-mother and step-sibling, whose authority was often child-challenged, particularly by an antagonizing

R.A.C.. This could be characterized as normal. However it is the level and consistency of bad behaviour, coupled with the ongoing lack of adequate parenting response that separates the circumstances of this family from the “not unusual”. After the fact evidence of diagnoses for three of the four children assist in understanding that dynamic. [ 112 ] Father argues that if there was lengthy access to all four children, some of it not supervised, and the placement of the girls in residence with father was appropriate for a period in excess of one year, it should still be appropriate now under Society supervision.

This argument is connected to the other argument that Society workers over time changed various expectations and concerns. [ 113 ] This argument has to be seen in the context of the evidence as a whole. Over five years the family situation changed dramatically as previously set out, and not in a linear way. The Society position did not remain static or unchanged. That is true. But change occurred as a response to change in family circumstance. Improvement led to greater parent-child involvement, including residence with father.

Deterioration led to less parent-child involvement, including termination of residence of children with father, and a more restricted access regime, although still generous and in father's home. It is in this context that the changes in concern and the changes in expectations must be seen.

It is not only appropriate but necessary for the Society to fulfill its obligation to the children, and then the parents, in accord with the primary and secondary purposes of the Act that there be changed response to changed circumstance. [ 114 ] On the evidence it is simply not true that the expectations were not clear and the indicators of how father and step-mother could meet those expectations were not clear. These were clear in each segmented circumstance, but as circumstances change so did the specific expectations and implementation strategies.

The overall expectation remained the same, minimally adequate parenting of difficult children. This never changed until the apprehension of the two girls from father's care after almost four years of engagement without success. At that time the focus changed to continuation of relatively generous access to maintain the parent-child connection until a court imposed resolution. [ 115 ] The argument that the Society minimized negative access factors not within parental control in assessing parenting is not made out.

Those enumerated factors—number of people in household, small physical residence, varying ages of children, child behaviour connected to later diagnosed illness and conditions—were all part of the recognized family situation. [ 116 ] In addition this argument fails to take into account that all of these factors were actually present and formed part of the family dynamic along with the parental issues of lack of father's support for step-mother, step-mother's emotional issues and anxiety, father's parenting withdrawal and the conflict in parenting styles between the two.

The enumerated factors were not fictitious, but real. The Society did not minimize them as argued. Society workers were on scene for almost all access over the period of time involved. The crisis worker was offered but rejected. The history shows that the Society did not minimize the enumerated issues but recognized them as good parenting issues and responded appropriately. RESOLUTION Findings: [ 117 ] This is a combined trial with respect to findings and resolution, where the findings sought on the status review by the Society have already been made in the order being reviewed.

Nonetheless there is still an onus on the Society to present sufficient evidence to make out the findings case. All positions before the court, the least intrusive being father’s, return of children under supervision, presuppose that some finding that these children are in need of protection will be made so that a requested order under

section 57 of the Act will be made. [ 118 ] The evidence is overwhelming that the facts and circumstances of the family after the final order of the 11 th of February 2009, while different in many respects from the facts and circumstances leading up to that order, are sufficient to support the findings sought by the Society. Post-February 2009 to the present the focus has changed to the father's parenting and the focus has narrowed to two general issues—father’s alcohol use and his general ability or inability to parent.

The concerns are based on the evidence related to the parental ability to control and direct the collective chaotic lives of four children, all with significant behaviour issues and personal issues that make that task especially hard, particularly when they are together in one social environment. The evidence based on length of time of parenting, the parenting outcomes revealed in evidence and previously discussed, satisfy the criteria for both findings.

There is a failure to adequately care for, supervise, and protect each child and that failure represents a pattern of neglect, creating a real risk that a child is likely to suffer physical harm from father's action or inaction.

[ 119 ] It should be made clear that there is no evidence of direct physical harm to the children by father in the traditional physical abuse sense. The harm is not inflicted by father in that way. However the harm is connected to father’s inadequate childcare skills, and the inability over years to upgrade those skills sufficiently, creating a risk of physical harm. It is most easily seen in the self-harm behaviour of A.M.C., but it is present globally for the children.

In everyday language that caring failure, the providing failure, the protection failure is the chaotic nature of day to day living in father's home to such an extent it requires state agency intervention to protect the children. [ 120 ] The findings sought are made for each child pursuant to section 37(2)(b)(

i) and (ii) of the Act . DISPOSITION [ 121 ] The required disposition must be one of return to father under supervision or Crown wardship, with or without access in keeping with

section 57 of the Act , as limited by

section 70 of the Act . In making a disposition the least disruptive alternative is mandated. [ 122 ] The circumstances of this case that must be taken into account are the relevant considerations set out in section 37(3) of the Act . Some are more relevant than others. Consideration 3.- cultural background, and Consideration 4.- Religious faith are not at all determinative on the facts of this case. [ 123 ] Consideration 1.- The child’s physical mental and emotional needs and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs. This consideration takes priority in determining the disposition.

Since February of 2013 A.M.C. has been diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, likely founded in situational life experiences. Until that time her parenting history was that she spent most of her life with biological mother and father, then in foster care, then in father's care. In December of 2012 she was diagnosed with ADHD. Beginning in father's care in 2012 she demonstrated symptoms of bulimia and self-harm activity including cutting. The cutting activity has continued in foster care.

She is observed as being depressed at times, with low self-esteem and concern over her family and living situation, with separation issues. She has a regime of prescribed medications for the diagnosed issues. [ 124 ] R.A.C. was diagnosed with ADHD in November of 2012. The concern is significant and problematic behaviour, interfering with essential tasks and causing difficulty with social relationships. She demonstrates negative instigating behaviour in sibling interaction and argumentative and provoking behaviour particularly with step-mother. [ 125 ] B.M.C.’s situation is not as defined as the others.

He has no formal diagnosis with respect to behaviour or illness. However he is viewed as someone with difficult to manage behaviour. He melts down frequently, demonstrating behaviour risky for himself and others physically. This behaviour is not age-appropriate for him and is particularly challenging to good parenting. He is oppositional, defiant, prone to using very inappropriate language with caregivers and others. [ 126 ] A.R.C. was diagnosed with ADHD in March of 2013. He has significant behaviour issues in the foster home and at school. He exhibits as prone to meltdowns and being hyper active.

He requires positive reinforcement and a special plan at school, focusing almost entirely on behaviour at the expense of academic progress. [ 127 ] Plans developed by the Society, doctors, school personnel and third-party service providers are common for all. A need for care in a home environment that is positive with substantial behaviour monitoring and behavioural management, ranging from self-harm watch—A.M.C.—to day to day behaviour control—the boys.

Coordination between various adults including home caregivers, school personnel and service providers is essential and needed long-term. [ 128 ] Consideration 2.- Child’s physical mental and emotional level of development. This issue is intertwined with the previous one. While there is no specific physical infirmity or traditional development issue for any child, all children have severe, ongoing mental and emotional issues as discussed. It is clear this is not minor or transitory for any of them. Rather intense on-going interventions will be required for the foreseeable future.

It is important that each child develop a positive relationship with a parent or parental figure in a family environment. Consideration 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. Consideration 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. [ 129 ] The relationship with biological mother has been non-existent for two years or so.

The haphazard relationship between A.M.C. and mother appears non-positive with respect to A.M.C.’s emotional stability, evidenced by her reactions and comments to such mother interaction with her. [ 130 ] The relationship with father has been ongoing since the first apprehension of all four children five years ago, including placement of the two girls with him for over a year, terminated by the second apprehension about a year-and-a-half ago. The difficulty is that father’s abilities and children's needs are not a good match.

Substantial continued involvement over years including in-home access to all children, girls residing with him, has not resulted in improvement of the children’s circumstances. [ 131 ] In fact, behaviour escalated eventually when the girls returned to father’s care with home access to the boys, partly open, partly supervised.

With justification, based upon deteriorating circumstance, the girls stopped residing at father’s, access has been reduced in time and in number of children present at each access visit. [ 132 ] This is not to say that behaviour and negative child interaction with siblings and others has markedly improved with these changes. It has not. But there is containment of the situation, implementation of professionally advised mechanisms and procedures implemented by skilled professional figures in foster care.

With respect to interaction with father it is unfortunate but true that lesser interaction is correlated with improved interaction. [ 133 ] It cannot be argued by father that the

[…]