IN THE MATTER of a hearing under THE CHILD v. FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2014 SKPC 110

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2014 SKPC 110 Date: May 20, 2014 Location: Moose Jaw _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: IN THE MATTER of a hearing under THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF C.R.G., born [...], 2014 Appearing: Lyle Phillips For the Ministry of Social Services Unrepresented For the Mother, S.G. The mother and child are identified by initials in order to protect their identities. JUDGMENT M. GORDON, J [ 1 ] The child C.R.G. was born [...], 2014. The mother is S.G., the father is unknown.

The child was apprehended at birth. The birth registration was filed as Exhibit P-1. The child is currently on apprehended status and is in foster care in the home of D.A. [ 2 ] C.R.G. was born addicted as S.G. used drugs during her pregnancy. According to Ms. Jillian Gay, the current child protection worker, the Ministry has offered S.G. the opportunity for drug treatment and addictions counselling. The Ministry has made

S.G. aware that she needs to deal with her addiction problem and find suitable housing before C.R.G. will be returned to her care. [ 3 ] The Ministry gave notice dated February 24, 2014 and the first return date in Court was March 18, 2014. The mother was not able to be located at this time and the matter was adjourned. Ms. Gay served S.G. with the notice of these proceedings on April 4, 2014 and advised her that the Ministry was seeking a six month temporary order with certain conditions. The last contact with S.G. was a telephone request on April 23, 2014 for a visit.

A visit was scheduled for the next day but the mother did not attend. [ 4 ] Ms. Karen Young testified that she had the care of S.G.’s first child for two years and is the alternate care person for S.G.’s second child. She has not had much to do with the child that is the subject of these proceedings. [ 5 ] There is no issue that the child C.R.G. was in need of protection on the date of apprehension. The issue is what is the appropriate disposition under s. 37 of the Act .

Section 37 of the Act reads in part as follows: 37

(1) Subject to subsection (2), if the court determines that a child is in need of protection, the court shall make an order that the child: (

a) remain with, be returned to or be placed in the custody of his or her parent; (

b) be placed in the custody of a person having a sufficient interest in the child; or (

c) remain in or be placed in the custody of the minister for a temporary period not exceeding six months. [ 6 ] The Act emphasized that the Court “shall consider the best interests of the child and may consider the recommendations of the worker”.

The Court may also impose any terms and conditions that it considers appropriate and include provisions respecting access to the child. [ 7 ] Sections 3 and 4 of The Child and Family Services Act also provide direction to the Court as follows: 3 The purpose of this Act is to promote the well-being of children in need of protection by offering, wherever appropriate, services that are designed to maintain, support and preserve the family in the least disruptive manner. 4 Where a person or court is required by any provision of this Act other than subsection 49(2) to determine the best interests of a child, the person or court shall take into account: (

a) the quality of the relationships that the child has with any person who may have a close connection with the child; (

b) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development; (

c) the child’s emotional, cultural, physical, psychological and spiritual needs; (

d) the home environment proposed to be provided for the child; (

e) the plans for the care of the child of the person to whom it is proposed that the custody of the child be entrusted; (

f) where practicable, the child’s wishes, having regard to the age and level of the child’s development; (

g) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity; and (

h) the effect on the child of a delay in making a decision. [ 8 ] It has been held that in determining what type of order is appropriate, the Court ought not to consider whether the children would be better off in care of persons other than their parents. The Court is to consider whether the children “... are receiving a level of parenting care that is below the minimum standard that will be tolerated by society” (see Saskatchewan Minister of Social Services v. E. (S.) , [1992] 5 W.W.R. 296).

[ 9 ] In this case there is no person of sufficient interest that has come forward pursuant to s. 23 of the Act . As I have indicated, I am satisfied C.R.G. is in need of protection. I am satisfied that a six month temporary order pursuant to s. 37(1)(

c) is appropriate. My reasons are as follows: (

a) The mother has not resolved her addiction problems. The child was born an addict. (

b) The mother is not capable of caring for her other two children at this time. (

c) The mother was aware of these proceedings and did not attend and did not have counsel attend. (

d) The mother did not attend her last requested visit with C.R.G. in April. [ 10 ] This order allows the mother the opportunity to make significant changes in her life and have her child C.R.G. returned to her care. If the mother takes some initiative and starts to make these changes, I encourage the Ministry to be receptive to any request for appropriate access. M. Gordon, J