2019 SKPC 3, 2019 SKPC 3

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN FAMILY LAW DIVISION Citation: 2019 SKPC 003 Date: February 5, 2019 Location: Moose Jaw _____________________________________________________________________________ In the Matter of an Application Under The Child and Family Services Act of Saskatchewan And in the Matter of AGP, Born June 22, 2018 APG, Born July 28, 2016 DG, Born June 7, 2015 ZG, Born December 7, 2013 JG, Born October 27, 2012 Appearing: Ms. Destiny Gibney For the Ministry of Social Services Mr. Phillip Ventzek For the Parents HG and TP Note: The parents, children and relatives are identified by initials in order to protect their identities. JUDGMENT D. KOVATCH , J Background

[ 1 ] The Ministry of Social Services had a fairly lengthy involvement with the parents and their family. There were interventions and advice given regarding clutter, cleanliness and maintenance of the family home. In late January, 2018, the family moved out of their home located at 1224 5 th Avenue Northwest in Moose Jaw. Within days of leaving their home, the landlord entered the home and then called Moose Jaw City Police and the Ministry of Social Services. The home was in a horrendous state. The Ministry immediately apprehended the four older children, and placed those children in care.

At the time, the mother, HG, was expecting. She later gave birth to her child AGP on June 22, 2018. The Ministry apprehended this child at the hospital, and placed her in care. [ 2 ] Following the apprehension of the four older children in early February, the Ministry launched these proceedings. The Ministry seeks a temporary committal order with a number of conditions. The parents took the position that the children should not have been apprehended in the first instance, and that no order should be made and no conditions imposed.

The trial commenced on July 23, 2018, and ran for a total of seven days of evidence, followed by one half day for argument. The Evidence [ 3 ] The evidence began by each party entering a book of exhibits. Each exhibit book contained a fairly lengthy series of photographs taken of the home in late January or early February. The Ministry’s book of exhibits also contained a lengthy series of the Ministry’s contact logs and records regarding contacts and dealings with this family. I admitted these into evidence as business records of the Ministry. [ 4 ] The first witness called by the Ministry was Ms. Lauren Jarvis.

She has been with the Ministry since 2010. She was previously a child care worker and child protection worker. She has a Bachelor of Social Work and is employed as the assistant supervisor with the Moose Jaw region of the Ministry. She described the various records kept by the Ministry and the reproduction of those records for this case. The records indicated a lengthy involvement between the Ministry and this family. On various occasions the Ministry expressed concerns regarding the state and maintenance of the home. At different times, family supports were put in place.

For example, parent aids were made available to the family, and other counselling was provided. In the past, such measures obtained some success, but unfortunately that success was relatively short term in nature. Similar kinds of problems tended to reoccur. [ 5 ] In late January, photographs of the parents’ home were posted on social media. The Moose Jaw City Police were also called about the matter, and a number of calls were received by the Ministry. The Ministry sent one of its own workers to inspect and investigate the home. In Ms.

Jarvis’s opinion, the problems with cleanliness and maintenance of the home, had escalated significantly. In cross-examination, Ms. Jarvis stated that, it became apparent that despite the services provided, the Ministry and parents had not addressed or alleviated the problems. She concluded that one or both parents may have a mental health issue and that a mental health assessment was required. [ 6 ] In late January, the home was in an extreme state of disrepair, uncleanliness and untidiness. There were significant protection concerns.

The children were at risk of injury, disease and perhaps at other risk due to total and complete neglect. The decision was made to immediately apprehend all four children. The children were apprehended and placed with HG’s. extended family on February 8, 2018. [ 7 ] Under cross-examination, Ms. Jarvis agreed that on some prior occasions, one or more social workers had been in the home. She agreed that on a prior occasion social workers Mark Branning and Karen McEwen had approved the home, finding it quite appropriate. She also agreed that TP had supervised visits with his older daughter, C.

Before some of these visits, workers did a walk- through of the home and found the home appropriate. She also agreed that there was no report or earlier concern about a latch on one of the bedroom doors. She agreed that she was not in the homes that the parents occupied after the Fifth Avenue home. [ 8 ] The second witness was Mr. Brian Campbell. He is employed as an emergency duty worker with the Ministry. As such, he is called upon to investigate child abuse and neglect. He has a Bachelor of Social Work and other training from the Ministry. He commenced employment with the Ministry in September 2017.

On February 7, 2018, he attended at the Fifth Avenue home with Constable Ryan Lawrence of the Moose Jaw City Police. He estimated that since becoming employed by the Ministry, he has been in about 75 different homes. This was the worst home he had seen. [ 9 ] He indicated that they entered the home from the back deck and in to the kitchen area. It was very cluttered. He located mouse feces in the kitchen area. The fridge contained rotten food. A deep fryer with grease in it sat on the floor. There were many objects on the counters and on the floors. Many of these were difficult to move.

He testified the bathroom was extremely dirty – filthy. It was covered with and smelled of urine. The stairway to the upstairs was dark and cluttered. There was a huge stack of soiled diapers. Many contained fecal matter and smelled. The walls in the children’s bedrooms were covered with human feces and contained

children’s hand prints in human feces. Fecal matter was on every wall in the children’s bedrooms and there was finger painting with feces. The bedroom window on the child’s bedroom was boarded up. The door on the child’s bedroom contained a latch on the outside that would allow the door to be locked with a padlock or screwdriver from the outside. [ 10 ] Mr. Campbell indicated there was garbage everywhere. The house was definitely unsafe and extremely hazardous. It smelled. He then reviewed in detail the photobook that the Ministry had entered in an exhibit, and took us on a photo tour of the home.

As a result of Mr. Campbell’s viewing of the home on February 7, the children were apprehended. [ 11 ] Under cross-examination, Mr. Campbell indicated that he first became involved with the family on February 1 or 2. He attended to the family’s new home located on Clifton Avenue in Moose Jaw. He agreed that there were no feces on the Clifton Avenue home, and no apparent problem with the home. The home was in some disarray as people were moving in. Some work was being done on radiators in the home. [ 12 ] At this time, he spoke to the parents about how long they had been out of the Fifth Avenue home.

They indicated they had been out of that home for about a week. He asked the parents about the condition of the prior house, and they advised “it was spotless” when they left. They further advised that the landlord had a drug addiction. [ 13 ] Mr. Campbell agreed that he saw the four children at the Clifton home approximately a day before they were apprehended. At this time, the children appeared to be in good spirits. The children did not appear to be dirty or unkempt at that time. He stated that he knew HG from some time in 2011. He agreed that HG thought this was some kind of conflict of interest.

He also agreed that he did not return to the Clifton home or the parents’ subsequent home, following the children’s apprehension. Further, that when he spoke to the children, they did not express any concerns regarding their care. [ 14 ] Kelsey Marsh testified that she has a Bachelor of Social Work and has been employed by the Ministry since October of 2017 as a child protection worker. In February of 2018, she took on this file and had dealings with the parents. The parents denied there were any parenting concerns. They denied they left the house in any state of clutter or disrepair.

The parents refused to have a mental health assessment and refused other services. [ 15 ] She testified that since apprehension, the children were placed with an aunt and the grandparents of HG. The home they are in now is a good one and a good environment. [ 16 ] Ms. Marsh also testified that she apprehended AGP from hospital in June 2018. At that time, the parents were unwilling to cooperate with tests at the hospital. She indicated that she has visited the parents at the homes they have held subsequent to Fifth Avenue.

On a number of those visits, she found there was a lot of clutter in the home but no safety concerns. [ 17 ] Ms. Marsh testified that she still has a number of concerns about returning the children to the parents’ home. The parents were unwilling to work with Mental Health or have a mental health assessment. A referral was made, but there was no contact or appointments set up. She testified that in her view the parents need to learn much about household maintenance and childhood development. This has been impeded in that the parents have missed a lot of appointments.

She also has in the past recommended a parenting capacity assessment, but nothing has been done about this. [ 18 ] Under cross-examination, Ms. Marsh agreed that some of the parent teaching sessions may have been cancelled due to bad weather or due to illness of one or more of the parties. She agreed that HG had a difficult pregnancy with AGP. Further, that some of the parent teaching sessions may have been missed due to HG being in hospital. [ 19 ] Chris Storoszak testified that he is the registered owner of 1224 Fifth Avenue Northwest in Moose Jaw. He operated the home as a rental home.

It was rented to the parents for a period of approximately three years. The tenancy ended on February 1, 2018. On that date, he went to the home. No one was at home at the time. He knocked on the door. There was no answer. He said he had no key. I gather that he then broke through the door and entered the house. He found a horrendous mess. He took a number of pictures.

I gather that these pictures were later posted on social media and are substantially contained in one of the photobooks entered as an exhibit. [ 20 ] During his inspection or tour of the home, he located a screwdriver outside of the children’s bedroom. It was lying on the

floor. He testified that he picked up the screwdriver and inserted in the latch on the bedroom door. [ 21 ] Mr. Storoszak testified that there was about $36,000.00 in damage to the home. He denied that he had any drug addiction, and stated there was no advantage to him to do any of this. He indicated it was a considerable length of time prior to February 1 when he was previously in the home. He had back surgery during that time and was away from the home. [ 22 ] After seeing the home on February 1, he immediately called the Ministry, and the Moose Jaw City Police.

After that, he was in the home quite regularly with other individuals to obtain quotes and begin the work of clean up and restoration. [ 23 ] In cross-examination, Mr. Storoszak said that he gave the tenants receipts when they asked for them. However, he does not normally give rent receipts. [ 24 ] He testified that TP told him that the children broke the window. Further, that TP boarded up the window and said he would repair it. [ 25 ] Under cross-examination, Mr. Storoszak said that he was shocked and angry about the state of his home, when he made his entrance.

Further, that he was concerned about the children (because of the state of the home) and reported the matter to the police. He denied that he wanted the parents to lose the children. He said the parents need help. [ 26 ] Eric Bereti is employed as a project manager with a disaster restoration company. He was hired by Chris Storoszak to clean up the Fifth Avenue home. He indicated they cleaned up a huge amount of garbage, cleaned out the fridge, etc. He said they scraped the walls to scrape feces off the walls and then sprayed them with an anti-microbial cleanser.

Later they mopped the walls. [ 27 ] He indicated there was a large stack of dirty diapers on the floor. It was his view that this stack had been built over quite some period of time, as the floor was rotten below those diapers. There were bug zappers that were full of insects and fly strips with a large number of dead flies stuck to them. [ 28 ] He briefly reviewed the pictures of the home, and indicated that the pictures were an accurate depiction of what he found. He further opined that the damage was not quickly created.

This was a long time and ongoing problem. [ 29 ] Counsel for the parents cross-examined regarding Mr. Bereti’s lack of professional qualifications. He did this in an attempt to challenge the opinions of Mr. Bereti. In my view, Mr. Bereti’s opinions were substantially based upon his own observation and common sense, knowledge and experience. [ 30 ] Frances Hammel-Kampus is a child psychologist. She presented her CV and spoke of her professional training. She was hired by the Ministry to interview the two older children, JG and ZG. [ 31 ] She is a child psychologist and was present as an expert witness.

She was retained by the Ministry after the children had been placed in care, to interview the two older children. She advised that she did not prepare any report or formal assessment on the children. That was not her mandate. Her mandate or directive was to engage the children in play therapy and conversational discussion, and advise of any disclosures made by the children. She advised she was directed “to give the children an opportunity to speak and be heard.” [ 32 ] On July 13, she met with JG. He was age five, and had been in kindergarten. He showed her the lego and was building a lego house.

He described his home and how he sleeps in a bunk bed with his brother in the other bunk. During the course of this conversation, he said: “My house broken. Poop in it. Daddy lock door on us. Two doors.” He said they live at Grandma’s. Later, he said they will go back from Grandma’s house after they fix it. He also spoke of a bad man coming to the house, but Ms. Hammel-Kampus stated she was not able to ascertain what this was about or whether it was a story. At another point, JG said “Mommy and Daddy leave us.” He also spoke about saying some bad words or swearing.

[ 33 ] Ms. Hammel-Kampus described JG as fairly excited and animated during the discussion. He freely volunteered the information. [ 34 ] Later, she met with ZG. He engaged in the play and discussed his toys with the witness, but did not make any statements regarding their home or living arrangements. [ 35 ] Under cross-examination, she indicated that she did not notice any particular problems with either of the children. She agreed that sometime children are not truthful, and that sometimes they mimic others. Mr. Ventzek suggested to her that the parents should have been present for this interview.

She disagreed. She said it is best to have a child one on one, and with no outside influences or interference. [ 36 ] The next witness was EE. He testified that he is the grandfather of HG, and the great-grandfather of the children involved here. Since apprehension, the children have been staying at his home. He resides there with his wife and their daughter NE. [ 37 ] He described a conversation he had with the child, JG. He indicated the conversation took place in February or March of this year.

EE testified that JG said to him: “Grandpa, sometimes I poop on the floor.” He asked JG why would you poop on the floor. JG said that he was locked in his room and had to go. EE, speaking of these court proceedings and giving evidence of the proceedings, said that it was sad it had to come to this. He said: “HG and the kids need help.” He was cross-examined about a picture of him and others at TP and HG’s home for a birthday party. He testified the living room, where the picture was taken was fine. However, the kitchen was a mess.

Also, the house had a bad smell. [ 38 ] CE testified he is the father of HG, and the grandfather of the children. He said that his relationship with HG has often been strained. He said he was torn about being present in court to testify. He said she needs help to parent. He testified that he saw the pictures of the house on Facebook, and then went to the house. He hadn’t been to this house prior to them leaving and the pictures being posted. When he saw the house, “it was bad.” He was then involved in discussions with the police and the Ministry of Social Services.

He testified that he was sure this would make things worse with his daughter. [ 39 ] Under cross-examination, he testified that it was probably two or two and a half years since he was in the Fifth Avenue house. He didn’t see HG or the children very much. Mainly, he saw them at parties at the grandparents’ homes. [ 40 ] NE said she is the daughter of EE. HG is her niece. The children are currently in her care, and have been in her care since February. She lives with her parents. [ 41 ] She also testified that she was apprehensive about testifying in court.

She didn’t think this matter should get this far, and was worried that HG would be upset about her testifying and hold it against her. She said that all she wants is for the children to be safe and happy. [ 42 ] NE indicated that prior to the apprehension, the children would frequently come to her home for weekend visits. When they came, they were often dirty, with dirty hair and had not been bathed. Often they were very hungry. Sometimes they smelled. She indicated that she was very reluctant to raise these concerns, because HG would get mad.

She also testified that JG and ZG needed a lot of dental work. [ 43 ] She testified that since the children came to live with them (following apprehension) that JG peed in a corner in one closet. Also, that he went poop outside. She said that JG told her there was a screwdriver in the door at his other house, so he couldn’t get out. She indicated that she talked to JG and made sure he knew the doors would never be locked, and that he could go to the bathroom at any time. [ 44 ] NE testified that they had the children with them for a couple of days when TP and HG were moving.

Then, shortly after the move, the Ministry brought the children back to her and placed them with her.

[ 45 ] She described a difficult incident with HG regarding the baby. She said she took the baby to the doctor at the hospital. HG called and was very upset and indicated that she should not have taken the baby to the doctor or the hospital. [ 46 ] NE indicated they would continue to care for the children as long as need be. The children were enrolled in Westmount School. DG is now enrolled in pre-kindergarten. [ 47 ] She testified that if the children were returned to their parents, she is worried that things would go back to the way they were before.

She simply wants the children to be healthy, happy and have friends. They shouldn’t have to worry about what people think of them. She also wants to stay involved in the children’s lives. She indicated she was concerned that HG will hold it against her because she testified in court, and will prevent them from being involved with the children. She agreed that HG has stated her involvement with the children would not change.

However, in the past HG has gotten mad and said the children could not come over. [ 48 ] Under cross-examination, it was suggested that young kids, growing kids, eat all the time and are always hungry. The witness denied this was the case, and said when the children came over, they were very hungry. She did agree with counsel, that HG had indicated that they could not deal with the children’s teeth until those children were five years of age. [ 49 ] She was also cross-examined on the number of occasions that she was in the Fifth Avenue home. She indicated that she was not there many times.

When she was, it was usually quite a mess, and always quite dark. There were always dirty dishes and bags of garbage by the bathroom door. With respect to the party in November of 2017, she advised she came in through the front porch, and it was very cluttered. The living room was okay, but smelled like sour milk. [ 50 ] She described the normal routine in her home. She agreed there was a time when one or more of the kids had a rash and that HG suggested it was because of the detergent.

The witness indicated that she didn’t believe the detergent was the cause of the rash. [ 51 ] The Ministry closed its case, and the matter was adjourned for the parents to present their case. The first witness called by the parents was the father, TP. He is the father of the children and the spouse of HG. At the outset, he testified that he suffers from some short term and partial long term memory loss. This is the result of a car accident. [ 52 ] He testified that until February they resided at the Fifth Avenue Northwest home in Moose Jaw.

Prior to that, they lived on Hochelaga Street East. [ 53 ] He indicated that on average, there was some disarray in the home, but it was always safe and the children were well fed. He said sometimes the homes were cluttered. He pointed to an incident when they lived on Hochelaga. He said they had three days to move. The Ministry was involved and saw things at one or both homes. They were concerned by the amount of clutter. However, in a day the parents had everything cleaned up and back to normal. [ 54 ] TP said they lived at Fifth Avenue for about five years, commencing in about 2014.

They had the basement, the main floor and the upstairs. There were two bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs. The two older boys were in one upstairs bedroom and he and HG and the baby were in the other room. [ 55 ] He said that when they did a walkthrough of the Fifth Avenue home, prior to assuming possession they noticed the latch on the upstairs bedroom door. That latch was on the door prior to their moving in. He did not put it there. He also testified that he never a put screwdriver in that latch. [ 56 ] He indicated he often had to retighten the handles on the boys’ doors.

Further, that the house shifted, and the doors were often tight or sticking. Once, because of the doors sticking, the boys could not get the door open and had an accident. The boys removed the diaper and finger painted with poop on the wall. About a year later the same situation arose. At this time, he got a pail and brushes and he and JG cleaned up the whole mess. Things were normal after that, and this never happened again. [ 57 ] TP testified that at move in, the bedroom window in the boy’s bedroom was cracked. It was winter, so the landlord, Chris, did not want to fix it at that time.

They waited, but he never did fix it. In the summer, a bird hit the window and broke it. At that time,

TP put a board over the window. No one from the Ministry mentioned or discussed the boarded up window. [ 58 ] He said that during the summer, the windows had to be open a lot. There were a lot of crabapple trees just outside the house. These attracted a lot of bees, wasps and flies. As a result, they put up a fly trap or fly paper. They would take the traps down when they were fairly full. He was pretty sure that they took down all the fly traps prior to moving out. [ 59 ] In the basement, he had all of his computer stuff. He often went down there to smoke, and kept all of his cigarette butts in a container.

He testified that container of cigarette butts may have been knocked over during the move out. [ 60 ] He indicated that the home had bi-weekly garbage pick-up. However, they only had one garbage bin. Often, this was inadequate, as a result of which they would stack plastic bags of garbage on the deck. He bought a utility trailer that he would occasionally use to haul away this excess garbage. He asked the city for a second bin, but was advised they could only have one per household. There were a lot of water and plumbing problems in the home. The basement had a moisture problem with moisture build up.

They constantly ran a de-humidifier down there. On another occasion, kitchen pipes froze and broke, resulting in water to the basement. [ 61 ] TP testified that the landlord, Chris, was never in the home. He would call and they would arrange to meet him outside of the home or elsewhere to pay rent. Chris never provided receipts. One night, Chris came by the home late at night for rent. It was approximately 2:30 a.m. The kids were woken up by his pounding. The kids were really upset by this incident.

It was the witness’s belief that this was the bad man incident referred to by JG. [ 62 ] He testified that JG’s speech was delayed, and that he would get frustrated and would have difficulty speaking. JG often mimicked swear words that he would hear. He said they would take JG for speech therapy. [ 63 ] He indicated that sometimes one could smell sour milk from receiving blankets. Further, the house would sometimes smell of mould or mildew because of the damp basement. Sometimes there was the smell of feces from dirty diapers in the garbage.

However, he denied there was any problem in this regard. [ 64 ] He said they often took the kids to NE and Grandma’s when they went out for shopping or other appointments. He described the normal daily routine for the family and the children and indicated they never intentionally took the children anywhere when they were dirty. They also sent clean clothes and blankets. [ 65 ] TP indicated that they moved out of the Fifth Avenue home around January 25, 2018. The children had been at NE and their grandmother’s for one and one-half to two weeks prior to that.

On moving day, he and HG were involved together with her mother, T and her brother, R. He testified that he didn’t think T was upstairs on moving day, nor was R. He didn’t know if T or R were downstairs. T and R were mainly on the main floor. They got everything out on the moving day. There was some garbage left in the living room. Garbage was put in boxes and left in the living room. Boxes were left near the back door. Some dishes and stuff were still left in the kitchen. Upstairs a lot of things were left behind. They were done about 3:00 a.m. Then they had to take the U-Haul back.

There was no way to move the rest of the stuff. He indicated that originally they had asked if they could have until February 5 to move. They needed until the end of the month to get the money to take stuff to the dump. [ 66 ] The largest part of TP’s evidence was a step by step review of the two picture books that were entered as exhibits. For the most part, he indicated that the pictures were not an accurate reflection of the how they left the home on January 25. He indicated that all of the clothes were in garbage bags and the garbage bags were stacked in various quarters in the house.

All of the garbage had been picked up and bagged. Most of the garbage was stacked on the back deck. He indicated that some items like a box spring set from a bed had been moved outside prior to the move, and someone must have moved it back into the house. He indicated that the huge stack of dirty diapers were all in plastic bags that had been stacked on the back deck.

Further, that the feces that was smeared all over the walls in two of the upstairs bedrooms was not on the walls prior to their leaving the home on January 25. [ 67 ] He did indicate that they left quite a number of things behind, and they intended to return to the home between January 25 and February 1, in order to remove these other items, and to do further clean up. However, they were not able to return to the home to remove further items or do clean up.

[ 68 ] During the course of his evidence, he indicated that he and HG had the utilities in their names. This included the power. They advised of the move, and the power was disconnected on January 25. Apparently, they were in the dark for most of the evening and night of the 25 th , doing the move out. [ 69 ] He testified about installing a digital key pad at the front door. He said the landlord had a key and the code. He said they returned to the home on February 1, and found the front door had been kicked in. [ 70 ] Immediately after moving out of the Fifth Avenue home they moved to 1204 Clifton Avenue.

The children were apprehended in February. They finished moving into Clifton on February 7 and the kids came back to that home that very day. The next day, being February 8, representatives of the Ministry and the City Police arrived and the children were apprehended. Because of prior existent problems with the Clifton home, they only resided there for one month, following which they moved to a home in Caronport. They introduced some pictures of the Caronport home. The picture showed that home to be fairly neat and tidy.

They have since moved back to a home on Coteau Street West in Moose Jaw. [ 71 ] TP testified that they have received some parenting classes from a woman named Michelle. They are not opposed to taking parenting classes, but do not want to be involved in group sessions. They have signed an agreement to have a family support worker. He testified they had agreed to everything the Ministry has asked for. However, they want to know who would be doing the parenting study. He said this information was not provided by the Ministry. He indicated they would participate “if it is deemed necessary”.

He said he was fine learning stuff, but not providing information. He also indicated he would attend for a mental health assessment if that was deemed to be needed, but he did not want any disclosure of the Ministry’s file to the person doing the mental health assessment. As I understand it, he felt this was to be an unbiased assessment, and if the Ministry made disclosures, for some reason the assessment would not be unbiased. He also indicated they would agree to a parenting capacity assessment but that the assessor should not have any access to the Ministry’s file.

Lastly, he testified that he is permanently disabled because of a back problem. [ 72 ] Under cross-examination, the witness indicated that they had a 20-foot box U-Haul truck for the move. Later, on February 1, they came back to get things from the yard. At that time a notice was posted to the front door and it was broken. He again indicated that the state of the house on February 1 was not as they left it on January 25. Further, that on January 25, all of the garbage was in bags on the back deck. [ 73 ] He was cross-examined regarding the possibility of a mental health assessment.

He indicated that he would have a mental health assessment done “if the court deems it necessary”. Further that he didn’t see it as necessary as he has no issues. He further indicated that he doesn’t trust people associated with government. He grew up in the system, and still does not trust professionals. He did indicate he would follow a court order. It was suggested that his lack of trust and inability to disclose make it difficult for professionals to help. Further, that professionals are required to hear and evaluate what the social workers are saying.

In response, he indicated that some of these professionals are bias in favor of the Ministry. “They put words in my mouth”. He indicated he took matters up with a supervisor and the ombudsman. He said he doesn’t know how to answer the allegation of unfair generalization towards professionals. [ 74 ] He again indicated that some garbage was left behind in the home, but it was not left in disarray, and the pictures were not indicative of how the house looked.

When challenged as to how the house got to look like that, he indicated that the landlord, Chris, could have destroyed the house, or perhaps his ex-spouse. [ 75 ] When asked to explain how the small handprints in feces appeared on the walls, he stated that many people have small hands. He reiterated that someone came in and spread this stuff through the house after they moved out on the 25 th . He reiterated that all of the mess had been swept up, and redistributed subsequent to the move. [ 76 ] He was asked how the poop could even be placed on the wall and said “I have no clue”.

He had indicated that all of the diapers were in garbage bags and stacked on the back deck. It was suggested that the diapers would be frozen solid. He indicated that a bag must have been brought in to thaw. Then poop placed on the wall. He indicated this was a possibility. [ 77 ] The next witness was the mother, HG, who testified that she is TP’s spouse, and the mother of the children. She has lived with TP for about 10 years. Her father is CE. She indicated that there was only one occasion when her father and her grandfather showed up with a U-Haul and helped them do some moving.

On that day, as the parties were moving, things were in disarray.

[ 78 ] She testified that they moved into the Fifth Avenue home shortly after ZG was born. Prior to moving in, she and TP and others viewed the house. The latch was already on the door for the upstairs bedroom. However, that latch was never used and that door was never locked. The door did get stuck on a couple of occasions. She also indicated that the door handle would often loosen and sometimes fall off. They would then use a screwdriver to open the door. She also indicated that on a couple of occasions, the door got stuck and would not open.

On these occasions, JG took off a dirty diaper and the boys painted the walls with poop. They bought brushes and cleaning agents, and the boys had to clean the walls. This happened only twice. [ 79 ] HG indicated that during the summer there were a lot of flies because of crabapple trees located around the house. They used a lot of sticky tape traps for the flies. She indicated that these were thrown out very regularly and that these traps were only used during the summer months. [ 80 ] She described the yard. She also described the basement as being cold and damp, with a number of leaky pipes.

The laundry area was in the basement. She indicated that some clothes were left in the basement in a laundry basket and that there were some garbage bags of clothes left there. [ 81 ] She advised that TP has an older daughter, C. TM is C’s mother. Social worker, Mark Branning, was allowed access to inspect the home before C came for visits. [ 82 ] She advised there were a lot of water problems and pipes breaking while they were there.

One of these incidents occurred just before Christmas in 2017, and another such incident occurred in January of 2018. [ 83 ] It was clear that she did not like the landlord, Chris Storoszak, and referred to him as “a slumlord.” She described numerous problems with the house, and indicated that he did not properly repair or maintain the house. On a number of occasions he came to the house late at night to collect rent, and “was looking for a fight”. She described the same incident where Chris came late at night and disturbed the children.

It is her belief this is whom JG is referring to when he referred to “a bad man”. [ 84 ] HG was asked about JG’s reference to the Fifth Avenue house as “a poopy house”. She testified that her grandparents and aunt frequently referred to this house as a poopy house or a “shitty house” and she believes JG was mimicking their terms and their reference to the house, as opposed to indicating there was poop in the house. She said there was no odor from poop in the house. The previous tenants had pets and sometimes there would be a gross pet smell.

There was frequently the smell of mould or mildew as a result of pipes bursting and the damp and wet basement. [ 85 ] Fairly often she took the children to their grandparents’ home to be cared for while she and TP went shopping or did other errands. She said she never refused to take the children to the grandparents. She denied that she ever took them with soggy or dirty diapers, or ever took them when they were unbathed or had matted hair or smelled.

She described the kids as “never ending bottomless pits” and that is why they often indicated they were hungry when they arrived at their grandparent’s home. [ 86 ] She testified that they moved out on January 25 or 26. They left a number of things in the house when they had moved out. They went back on February 2 to retrieve those items, and found the front door was broken. She took some pictures of the front door which were entered as exhibits.

She indicated that the landlord Chris Storoszak, had a key and the code to enter the home. [ 87 ] When they moved out, her mother, her brother R, and she and TP were present for the move. All of them “were everywhere” in the house to get things together and to move out. She testified that they cleaned things up, wiped things down and swept up. Things were clean except for some boxes by the back door. They had taken all of the garbage out and put it on the back deck.

She too went through the exhibit book picture by picture, and in virtually every case denied that they left the house in the state, as shown in the picture. [ 88 ] In another part of her testimony, she testified that she was “heavily pregnant” and avoided going upstairs and avoided bathrooms. At a different point, she said that it was their intention to return to the home to remove the last of their belongings, “and clean the house”. She said it was very chaotic, and they were there to move very late into the night. [ 89 ] She indicated that she was upset that the children cannot come home.

She does not know why they cannot come home. She testified they are willing to take parenting classes provided they are not in a group setting. She indicated that if they were in a group

setting, they would be required to share personal information. Later she testified that they had not agreed to the mental health assessment because the Ministry wanted to disclose their file and pictures to the individual doing the assessment. This would make the assessors biased. They did not agree to the parenting capacity assessment, as the Ministry had not made known to them the name of the assessor. They wanted to get information on the proposed assessor, and approve or disapprove of that individual. Since the children were apprehended, they had executed one parenting services agreement, but that is all.

There was no case plan that had been signed to or agreed to. [ 90 ] She also testified briefly about a Facebook post that she had made during the court proceedings. In that Facebook post, she launched a rather scalding attack on her father and grandfather. She testified that she was upset because they “didn’t have the balls to tell her they would be here” to testify. [ 91 ] During cross-examination, HG was quite defensive and aggressive.

When asked about specific pictures of the inside of the house, she spoke of the cleaning that was done and said: “It sure wasn’t like that.” However, at another point, she said she was three months pregnant with AGP. She said she was “heavily pregnant” and “was huge.” She said she was sick the entire time and spent a lot of time in hospital. She also said TP did most of the packing.

At a different point in her evidence, she said she couldn’t remember a lot about the house because it was a year ago, and “you can’t expect me to remember every detail.” She also indicated they left a lot of stuff behind, and this upset her. They planned on coming back to move more things and clean up. On moving day, they finished up at around 5:30 in the morning (of the following day.) [ 92 ] When asked about why they didn’t participate in the parenting capacity assessment, she said they kept asking for the name of the person who would do the assessment.

They weren’t given this “full disclosure” so they could do their research and ascertain if the person was unbiased. When asked about not participating in the mental health assessment, she said the Ministry wanted them to sign a form authorizing release of information from their file to the assessor. She said they never agreed to that. They didn’t want this person to be influenced or biased by disclosures from the Ministry. Following her cross-examination, I suggested this trial was happening because they didn’t want to meet or comply with the conditions imposed by the Ministry.

She denied this and said they didn’t want to agree the children were in need of protection. Further, the Ministry should never have apprehended the children when the children hadn’t been with the parents in the house for some time. [ 93 ] Following HG’s evidence, the parents closed their case. Analysis [ 94 ] The parents’ counsel really only advanced one argument. He argued that the house was left in good condition when the parents moved out. Someone had entered the house between move out and the house being discovered on February 1, and this individual or individuals were responsible for the state of the home.

As a result, the children should not have been apprehended, and should now be returned to the parents without conditions. [ 95 ] There are a great number of pictures showing the state of the house on February 1 and after. There is abundant testimony from various individuals about the state of the house on February 1 and after. To describe the state of the house on February 1 and after, one must resort to descriptive terms like: horrendous, appalling, disgusting, unsanitary, filthy and unlivable.

I have no hesitation in saying that if the parents had any hand in putting that home in that condition on February 1, then the children were in need of protection. If the parents had any hand in putting that home in that state, the workers involved had to be seriously concerned that these parents were not able to provide a safe, suitable, sanitary and livable home for these children, and the children were in need of protection.

As a result, the factual question for determination by the court is simply whether it was the parents who put the home in this condition, or some unknown intruder. [ 96 ] The evidence put forward by the parents simply cannot be accepted as believable. I would find as a fact that the house was left in a deplorable condition by these parents. The Ministry was quite correct in assessing that these parents were not capable of providing any suitable or proper housing for the children, and the children were in need of protection. I make these findings for the following reasons.

There are a number of internal contradictions and inconsistencies in their evidence. TP testified that HG’s mother and her brother R and HG herself were not upstairs to pack and move things out. He moved things out of the upstairs. At one point in her evidence, HG indicated that she was “heavily pregnant” and that she was not upstairs much or in the bathrooms to clean. Nevertheless, she went through the picture book at some length and testified that the upstairs and indeed the whole house was all cleaned when they left. [ 97 ] Both testified that the move and cleaning went very late into the night.

It is unclear whether the power was on or off. TP

testified that the power was off. HG testified that the power was on. I question what kind of cleaning anyone could do on a January night without any power and light. [ 98 ] HG clearly testified that they intended to come back at a later date, to remove the remaining items that they had left in the house and to clean up. If everything had been left clean and spotless, as they had testified, why would it be necessary to return to clean up? [ 99 ] They testified that in various rooms, they swept garbage to a corner. In various rooms, they stacked up boxes with clothes or other items to be removed.

In some areas, like in the kitchen and near the back door, supposedly there were some garbage bags. Over the years, I haven’t been involved in many household moves. However, the parents’ evidence just does not make any sense to me. I would have thought that one would move everything out of the house, and then would have cleaned while being completely unobstructed by furniture, boxes, garbage, etc. [ 100 ] But most importantly of all, to borrow a phrase more frequently used in the criminal law, “there is no air of reality” to the parents’ evidence or the theory advanced in argument by their counsel.

To accept the parents’ position, I would have to accept that some unknown party, or more likely parties spent hours moving tons and truckloads of garbage into that home. I would have to accept they unpacked and distributed tons and truckloads of garbage throughout the entire home. I would have to accept that someone went out onto the back deck, located garbage bags full of dirty and soiled diapers, returned those dirty diapers to the home and built a pyramid of them into the hallway and bathroom area.

I would have to accept that these unknown individuals then allowed these dirty diapers to thaw sufficiently and then used their hands to finger print with human feces all over two bedroom walls. This is all completely unbelievable and there is no way that I can accept any part of the parents’ theory of this case. As a result, I conclude that the parents left the home in this situation. The children were in need of protection, and an order must be made in these proceedings. The Conduct of This Case by Counsel [ 101 ] I know counsel for the parents to be a very hard worker.

In some other cases he has done good work for parents. As a result it is with a great deal of reluctance that I advance the following comments. However, I feel so strongly about the conduct of this case, that I must advance these comments. [ 102 ] It is my view that counsel did no legal analysis of the parent’s position in this case. Perhaps even more importantly, he completely abdicated from his responsibility to provide legal advice to the parents. HG testified that she was very upset that the Ministry apprehended the children after the children had not been residing in that home for some time.

She thinks the Ministry should not have done that. I believe the parents decided they wanted to fight the Ministry in this case on the basis that the children should not have been apprehended after the Ministry officials discovered the state of the house. They also wanted to fight because they did not want to comply with the Ministry’s conditions.

Counsel simply accepted that position and mouthed their arguments. [ 103 ] During the course of argument, I pointed out to counsel that section 17(1) of The Child and Family Services Act , SS 1989-90, c C-7.2 [ Act ] provides that: “if an officer or peace officer concludes, on reasonable and probable grounds, that a child is in need of protection and at risk of incurring serious harm, …” the officer may proceed to apprehension. As a result, the most important question in this case is not who put the house in the state that it was on February 1.

The most important question is: Did the officer have reasonable and probable grounds, upon viewing that house, that the children were in the need of protection? I suggested to counsel then and reiterate that given the pictures and what the officer viewed on that day, clearly the officer had those reasonable and probable grounds. Further, if I did not conclude that this house provided reasonable and probable grounds for an apprehension, I don’t know when I would ever reach such a conclusion. [ 104 ] I also pointed out to counsel provisions like section 17(3) and

section 37 of the Act , that allowed the Ministry or the Court to determine that a child “is no longer in need of protection,” and return the children to the parents. [ 105 ] I go through all of this to say that in my view, these parents should have been advised that there was no real prospect of the court accepting their position. Further, that the focus of their defence should be on the steps that they were taking and were willing to take to establish for the Court and the Ministry that these children were no longer in need of protection, and could be returned to the parents.

It appears that legal counsel did not advise the parents to use services of the Ministry to resolve or alleviate problems. The parents took virtually no steps to alleviate or correct the problems. No evidence was lead that would allow the Court to conclude that the children are no longer in need of protection. In my view, this was very wrong and mishandled.

Conclusion and Order [ 106 ] These children are in need of protection, and an order under

section 37 of the Act must be made. In my view, if these children are to be returned to the care of these parents, the parents must admit they have significant problems; they must accept and begin to utilize the services that the Ministry makes available to them and they must learn how to maintain and provide a better and more adequate home for their children. Denying the problems and battling the Ministry is not going to get their children back. [ 107 ] The Ministry has requested a three month temporary committal. In my view, that order is too short.

It is not reasonably foreseeable that the parents could take appropriate or remedial steps in the three month period in order to have the children returned to them at the end of three months. I intend to make a six month temporary committal order. If I am wrong in this assessment, and the parents can take such remedial steps in a shorter period of time, then the Ministry will clearly be legally entitled to return the children earlier and as soon as appropriate remedial steps have been taken. [ 108 ] There will be an order pursuant to section 37(1) (

c) of the Act that the children remain in the care and custody of the Minister for a temporary period not exceeding six months. During that time, the parents shall: 1. Participate in a mental health assessment and any further follow up counselling and assistance as may be directed by the Ministry; 2. Participate in a parenting capacity assessment and such follow up counselling and assistance as may be necessary; 3. Work with social service workers, parent aid or such other services as may be provided; 4. Regularly exercise access to the children; 5.

Provide representatives of the Ministry access to their home so that the Ministry can be assured that a safe and livable home is available for the children; 6. Participate in parenting classes or assessments as may be recommended; and 7. Secure and maintain a safe and stable residence. [ 109 ] Counsel may draft an order with these conditions and other standard conditions contained in a temporary committal order for my perusal and execution. Dated at the City of Moose Jaw, Province of Saskatchewan, this ___ day of February, 2019. _____________________ D. Kovatch, J