CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF THE REGION OF PEEL, Applicant, — v. —, 2011 ONCJ 486

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice should be attached to the file: This is a case under

Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to 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 . . . the 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) (publication of identifying information) or an order prohibiting publication made under clause 45(7)(

c) or subsection 45(9), and a director, officer or employee of a corporation who authorizes, permits or concurs in such a contravention by the corporation, is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than three years, or to both. Brampton Registry No. 20147/10 DATE: 2011·IX·12 CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Peel Region v. T.P. ., 2011 ONCJ 486 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF THE REGION OF PEEL, Applicant, — AND — T.P. and P.S., Respondents. Before Justice Manjusha B. Pawagi Heard on 31 August 2011 Reasons for Judgment released on 12 September 2011

CHILD PROTECTION — Form of order — Crown wardship — Grounds — Least restrictive option to protect child — Local children’said society had apprehended child (now 21 months old) after testing positive for drugs at birth and had been in society care ever since —Mother had already lost 3 previous children to Crown wardship because of her drug-and-alcohol abuse, her physical discipline andneglect of children and her relationship with abusive partners — Although she had access rights to those children, she had effectivelyabandoned them — Even her access to child in this case was inconsistent — Evidence of her attempts at drug rehabilitation wasuninspiring and she could only offer result of one undated urine test — Worse yet, parenting capacity assessment (conducted aftermother had taken two parenting courses) concluded that her borderline cognitive functioning crippled her awareness of events, hersurroundings and even her own feelings, that her perception was distorted, that she lacked ability to identify and communicate her needsand needs of any dependent person — No amount of support could be offered to this woman with any reasonable hope for change andimprovement in foreseeable future — On society’s motion for

summary judgment of Crown wardship without access, motion judgefound that there was no genuine issue for trial and granted society’s motion. STATUTES AND REGULATIONS CITED Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11 [as amended], subclause 37(2)(b)(i). Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99 [as amended], rule 16, subrule 16(1) and subrule 16(2). CASES CITED Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. B.(F.) and G.(S.), , 199 D.L.R. (4th) 554, 16 R.F.L. (5th) 237, [2001]O.J. No. 1586, [2001] O.T.C. 293, 2001 Cars​well​Ont 1413 (Ont. S.C.). Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v.

T. (Kathleen) and W. (Charles), , 101 A.C.W.S. (3d) 944, [2000] O.J. No. 4736,2000 Cars​well​Ont 4827 (Ont. C.J.). Irving Ungerman Ltd. v. Galanis (1991), (ON CA), 4 O.R. (3d) 545, 50 O.A.C. 176, 83 D.L.R. (4th) 734, 1 C.P.C.(3d) 248, [1991] O.J. No. 1478, 1991 Cars​well​Ont 370 (Ont. C.A.). Manjit K. Pannu ............................................................................. counsel for the applicant society Michael Suria ..................................................................... counsel for the respondent mother, T.P.

No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent father, P.S., whose whereabouts are unknown JUSTICE M.B. PAWAGI:— 1: NATURE OF THE CASE [1] This case is about a young child, C.P., age 21 months. He was born on […] December 2009. On 14 December 2009,when he was four days old, his mother Ms. T.P. placed him in the care of the Children’s Aid Society of the Region of Peel (the“society”) pursuant to a temporary care agreement. He has been in the care of the society ever since. [2] The society has brought a

summary judgment motion seeking an order for a finding that the child is in need ofprotection and for a disposition of Crown wardship with no access. His mother is not disputing the protection finding, but is disputingthat an order of Crown wardship can be made on a

summary basis. She is seeking an order that the issue of disposition be set down fortrial. His father, Mr. P.S., was deported to Jamaica but his exact whereabouts are unknown. He is not participating in these proceedings. 2: LEGAL TEST [3] Rule 16 of the Family Law Rules, O. Reg. 114/99, as amended, gives the court specific authority to use the

summaryjudgment procedure in family law matters, including child protection cases, “if there is no genuine issue requiring a trial or a claim ordefence.” [4] Justice Susan G. Himel of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice gives a thorough overview of the case law in CatholicChildren’s Aid Society of Toronto v. F.B. and S.G., , 199 D.L.R. (4th) 554, 16 R.F.L. (5th) 237, [2001] O.J. No.1586, [2001] O.T.C. 293, 2001 Cars​well​Ont 1413 (Ont. S.C.).

The case law is clear that the “genuine issue” must relate to a “material”fact, in the sense that the result of the proceeding turns on its existence or non-existence: see Irving Ungerman Ltd. v. Galanis (1991), (ON CA), 4 O.R. (3d) 545, 50 O.A.C. 176, 83 D.L.R. (4th) 734, 1 C.P.C. (3d) 248, [1991] O.J. No. 1478, 1991 Cars​-well​Ont 370 (Ont. C.A.); and that the responding party must not rest on mere allegations or blanket denials, but must provide evidence ofspecific fact showing there is a genuine issue for trial: See Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v.

Kathleen T. and Charles W., , 101 A.C.W.S. (3d) 944, [2000] O.J. No. 4736, 2000 Cars​well​Ont 4827 (Ont. C.J.). 3: DECISION

[ 5 ] I find that there is no genuine issue requiring a trial in this case and I grant the society’s motion for

summary judgment for the reasons given below. 4: REASONS 4.1: Past Parenting [ 6 ] Ms. T.P. has three older children who were made Crown wards on 12 March 2009 because of her abuse of alcohol and drugs, her use of physical discipline on the children, her neglect of the children, and her being in a relationship involving domestic violence. The children are presently 10, 9 and 7 years old. She was having supervised access to these children through the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto but it is presently suspended.

She was required to meet with her worker there to get visits restarted but she did not attend that meeting. She denies that the visits have not been restarted because she failed to attend a meeting, but she gives no alternative explanation. 4.2: Inconsistent Attendance at Access [ 7 ] She has supervised access to C.P., initially twice weekly for two hours per visit. She has not been consistent with attending scheduled access visits. The reasons that she has given for missing visits include transportation problems and family issues. Different strategies were implemented, including having Ms.

T.P. attend one hour before the start of the visit, but her attendance at access remains inconsistent. 4.3: Drug Use [ 8 ] C.P.’s urine was tested shortly after his birth and it was positive for marijuana. Ms. T.P.’s hair analysis test in March 2010 showed that she regularly used marijuana. This test was considered a baseline and a second test was requested in order for Ms. T.P. to demonstrate she had stopped using. Ms. T.P. never attended for a second test.

She completed a 14-day residential program for drug abuse at the Jean Tweed Centre on 14 December 2010, but did not attend for the after-care program that was the next step and that would have included a portion on parenting skills. She filed one urine test on the day of the

summary judgment motion showing negative drug use. The test is undated and consequently counsel for the society asked that it be given little weight. But even if I accept the submission of counsel for the mother that it was taken a few days ago, a single day’s test is not sufficient to refute the history of drug use, which is not disputed and which contributed to her three older children’s becoming Crown wards and C.P.’s being placed in care shortly after his birth. 4.4: Negative Parenting Capacity Assessment [ 9 ] The assessment report of psychologist, Dr. Betty Kershner, dated 5 July 2010, concluded that Ms.

T.P.’s cognitive functioning was in the borderline range (5th percentile), and the assessor noted that this actually may be an overestimate of her ability to function in daily life due to the large amount of support she required and received to complete the testing. The assessor noted that C.P. (age five months at the time of the assessment) presented as being possibly developmentally delayed and would require extra attention and monitoring that Ms. P. does not have the capacity to provide. Ms. T.P. presented in the assessment as confused and apathetic and unable to tell a story with a time line that made sense.

The assessor noted that Ms. T.P. was unresponsive to C.P.’s cues and only asked him what was wrong, as if a five-month-old baby was capable of responding. [ 10 ] The assessor made the following conclusion about Ms. T.P.: Her strength is her ability to meet the minimal requirements for physical survival.

Unfortunately, she lacks appropriate awareness of events and her surroundings, her perception is distorted, she lacks awareness of her own feelings and those of others, the ability to communicate effectively, the ability to identify and communicate her needs and the needs of any dependent person, the ability to address problems and seek effective resolution, and the motivation to gain insight. She lacks judgment. She withdraws, gets “lost,” idealizes, trivializes, minimizes and denies.

She presents with a thought disorder. [ 11 ] In my opinion, there is no support or supports that can be offered with any reasonable expectation for change and improvement in a timely fashion. 5: CONCLUSION [ 12 ] Ms. T.P. has raised no genuine issue for trial. Ms. T.P. deposes she has the support of various family members or friends but does not specify what concrete assistance they will be providing. A family group conference was held in February 2011, but did not result in any plan being presented for C.P.’s care. Ms.

T.P. deposes she has “access to support programs” through the Jamaican Canadian Association and through her church but does not specify what those support programs are and which ones she intends actually to use. She did complete two parenting courses (one on 23 October 2008 and the second on 25 March 2010). And to Ms. T.P.’s credit, she got a job on 4 July 2011 and she now has a basement apartment. However, the parenting capacity assessment concluded that there were no supports that could be offered to Ms.

T.P. that could reasonably be expected to lead to change and improvement in a timely fashion and this is borne out by the fact that she completed those two parenting courses prior to undertaking the parenting capacity assessment.

6: ORDER [ 13 ] Order to go for

summary judgment pursuant to subrules 16(1) and (2) of the Family Law Rules for statutory findings, protection finding pursuant to subclause 37(2) ( b )(

i) of the Child and Family Services Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C-11, as amended, and disposition of Crown wardship as requested in the society’s notice of motion returnable on 31 August 2011. [ 14 ] Order to go dispensing with service on the father [Mr. P.S.] as per the society’s notice of motion returnable on 31 August 2011.