2016 SKPC 102, 2016 SKPC 102

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2016 SKPC 102 Date: September 2, 2016 Information: 72/14 Location: Yorkton _____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING UNDER THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF CC, born June 19, 2002 KC, born August 10, 2012 FG, born December 5, 2014 - and - MC Appearing: Donna Taylor For the Ministry of Social Services Richard Yaholnitsky For the mother The mother and children and relatives are identified by initials in order to protect their identities. DECISION AFTER HEARING R. GREEN , J

I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] MC is the mother of these children. The fathers - TA, LK and FG - did not appear at any point in this proceeding, and there was no suggestion that any of them oppose the orders sought by the Minister of Social Services (minister). In addition to a finding that these children are in need of protection under s. 11(

b) of the Child and Family Services Act , the minister seeks orders that:

(1) CC be committed to the custody of the minister until he is 18 years, under s. 37(3) of the Act ; and (2) that KC and FG be permanently committed to the minister under s. 37(2) of the Act . [ 2 ] Mr. Yaholnitsky candidly admits, on MC’s behalf, that these children are in need of protection. I agree, as there is more than enough evidence before me to show that she is not able to provide for these children’s needs, and that physical or emotional harm to these children has occurred or is likely to occur (s. 11(b)).

Despite that admission, MC opposes the orders sought by the minister and urges that the children be placed in the care of the minister for a temporary period of six months, under s. 37(1)(

c) of the Act . [ 3 ] The standard I am to apply in making this decision, regarding whether any order under s. 37(1) is appropriate, as urged by MC, is whether I am “satisfied that there is a realistic plan or a reasonable basis upon which to conclude that the necessary changes can occur within a reasonable time whereby the children can be safely returned to the care of their parent”. [1] II. HISTORY OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE MINISTRY SOCIAL SERVICES [ 4 ] MC has had a lengthy involvement with the Ministry of Social Services (Ministry), regarding her children which dates back to 2002.

That involvement includes an older daughter PC, whom was committed to the minister until the age of 18 years under s. 37(3) with MC’s consent on November 5, 2014. Because of that order, PC is not a subject of this application, but information about her is integral to MC’s dealings with the Ministry, and as a result is relevant to this application. [ 5 ] Child protection supervisor Wanda Nelson said the Ministry received 17 intakes/concerns about the care MC was providing to her children between 2002 and 2009, and another eight intakes from 2009 to 2012.

As a result, there were four parental service agreements signed between the minister and MC. After that, a temporary order and a supervision order were granted in 2010 and two temporary orders and a supervision order were granted in 2013 and 2014, each order placing conditions on MC. [ 6 ] The following

summary of the extensive involvement of the Ministry with MC and her children is taken, in a shortened and edited form, from the Parenting Capacity Assessment Report of MC by Registered Psychologist Francis Stewart dated December 5, 2014 (Exhibit P-1) [2] . This history is based on documents provided to Mr. Stewart by the Ministry. The date of Mr.

Stewart’s report is the date of birth of MC’s youngest child FG, and as a result there is no reference to that child in his report. [ 7 ] In February, 2002, when PC was 14 months of age, the daycare she was attending expressed concerns that MC was bringing PC sour milk and the daycare staff had to mention to MC that she needed to change the bottle nipples. [ 8 ] In September 2002, the Mobile Crisis Unit in Regina was called to MC’s home as there was a report that a number of adults in the home were drunk and the children were crying.

Employees from the unit attended MC’s home to find no partying in the home, but the front yard did have several broken beer bottles laying about and a lot of smashed glass. The backdoor was open and a small child was attempting to crawl out the door, and the worker noted that the home was very messy with clothes scattered and trash evidence (some open and some bagged). In the kitchen was 24 open beer bottles on the table and another 24 empty beer bottles on the floor. MC was located sleeping on the couch in the living room, and CC was crying from the crib while PC was “glued” to the television.

MC was caught by the worker using drugs, however MC denied this. [ 9 ] There had been ongoing concerns with MC’s use of alcohol and drugs, and four separate parental services agreements were signed between November 26, 2002 and September 18, 2006. There were a number of occasions where MC requested to put her children in care because she was stressed and felt suicidal. She appeared to have no family support, and often felt that she was unable to care for

her children adequately. [ 10 ] In September, 2006, MC once again called the Ministry asking for someone to get her children as she was having thoughts of suicide. MC signed another parenting services agreement and agreed to attend the Regina General Hospital to have a psychiatric assessment completed. However, MC did not attend at the hospital, but did make a different safety plan.

MC’s mother decided to care for the two children and, on December 28, 2006, MC moved to Yorkton to reside with her mother, who was still caring for MC’s two children. [ 11 ] In the summer of 2007, the Ministry became involved with MC again as she was not doing well mentally, and was suicidal. Her children were removed from her home and placed with her mother to allow MC some time to receive some help emotionally.

The Ministry’s file documents from a case conference held on November 27, 2007 indicated that: MC has expressed that she is frustrated with her kids and has said that she should just give them back, that they are better with her mother Zelda, than they are with her. She struggles with not knowing how to help them, which causes anxiety for her as a mom ... We were able to get funding through Kid’s Sport for the kids to play soccer on Monday evenings. As well, we tried to make connections with boys and girls clubs, but MC has not taken

part in any of these activities. [ 12 ] On December 13, 2007, MC entered into another parental service agreement with the Ministry and continued to have family support involvement. An inter-office memo dated January 26, 2008 stated: ... currently, family support is involved with MC as she is again struggling with parenting her children and often indicates that she doesn’t want them or she cannot give them the life support they deserve. MC is seeking medical help for herself as well as she feels she is bipolar. At times, MC is doing well and is managing her personal life well.

MC is so overwhelmed with her children and their emotional needs that she shuts them out and wishes they were not there. [ 13 ] When the parental services agreement ended on March 31, 2008, MC seemed to do quite well for the next six months. She was feeling positive about herself and expressed a willingness to parent the children by herself.

MC was also attending counselling at Mental Health in Yorkton, which helped to reduce her level of agitation and frustration that she was experiencing with her children. [ 14 ] However, this all changed again in October 2008 when the Ministry began receiving phone calls from the children’s school counsellor indicating that the children were coming to school with dirty clothes and faces, and that they were tired and hungry. The school counsellor and the community worker attended MC’s home on October 27 because they were concerned about her. They stated that they saw MC the previous day and MC was “visibly high”.

PC also indicated to the school counsellor that her mother was drinking a lot, and leaves her and her brother home alone with no food to eat. MC was also convicted of five charges with respect to theft and possession of stolen property, and received a year’s probation as a result. At that time, she requested and received court ordered in- patient treatment with respect to her drug and alcohol abuse. [ 15 ] On February 3, 2010, MC was arrested for theft and breach of probation. She received a 30 day jail sentence on the theft charge.

At that time, there was a bed reserved for MC at the Calder Centre for her substance abuse treatment. MC did attend for alcohol treatment in May, 2010 at the Calder in-patient treatment centre, but was discharged after ten days; the centre asked her to leave because MC was having a conflict with her counsellor. MC did eventually complete treatment through the Metis Counsel of Saskatchewan, and then later went on the methadone program. [ 16 ] On September 29, 2010, the police attended to a set of railway tracks where a group of kids were encouraging two five year old boys to fight.

CC was in attendance with a stolen bicycle. The Ministry had received four other reports of concerns for the well being of PC and CC. These concerns regarded MC being high at home and vomiting, PC being aggressive at school and threatening suicide, CC had not changed his clothes in a week, and PC had disclosed to a friend that she had to sleep with her uncle who was “kissing her on the lips, down there, and on her bum”. MC also admitted to using morphine and prescribed drugs.

PC stated that her mother was hitting her with broom sticks, belts and her bare hand. [ 17 ] The Ministry’s case worker attended to MC’s home with the police to serve her with an apprehension notice. There was a male in MC’s home who tried to hide a metal object. When the police told him to drop it, it was noticed that it was knives used to smoke pot on the stove. After this, MC once again began to show improvement; she had continued attending the methadone program and she was working with a family support worker to strengthen her communication and parenting skills. The Ministry believed that she was

providing her children with safety and was meeting their basic needs. Therefore, her file was once again closed on September 30, 2011. [ 18 ] MC continued to struggle with substance abuse and parenting issues throughout 2012. There was still suspicions of MC continuing to use drugs, and comments were made by the children saying that they would hide her bong. The police attended her home and saw a hot knife and other paraphernalia, and in the fall of 2012 the children were apprehended because of marihuana use.

When KC was born in August 2012, PC was described as being the caregiver of KC. [ 19 ] On April 27, 2013, the file documents noted that the police had been dealing with CC all evening out in the community. The police finally picked him up and took him home. When they walked in the door of MC’s home, MC was in the back room. The constable stated that the stove element was on and appeared as though hot knifing was just taking place or was about to occur. PC was sitting on the kitchen table and KC was in the stroller in the kitchen.

MC voluntarily agreed to have the children taken to her mother’s home by the emergency duty worker. MC was also asked to start providing drug screens as there had been several different reports of drug use in her home. Mr. Huber, a former case worker, stated that MC was faithfully providing drug tests, but it was later realized that MC was providing urine samples belonging to another individual. [ 20 ] During the early morning hours of August 9, 2013, MC contacted the RCMP because her children were missing.

MC informed the RCMP that she asked PC and CC where her cellular phone was and she was told they had lost it outside. She then sent the two children outside with a flashlight to look for it. MC then layed down on the couch and when she went to look for them, they were gone. MC informed the RCMP that she looked for her two children for approximately two hours before calling the police. The RCMP were called by MC at 3:00 a.m. The two children were later located at the home of their friend.

They stated they were afraid to go home. [ 21 ] A community care team meeting was held on September 10, 2013 regarding MC and her children. It was noted that MC runs short of food and appropriate clothing for her children, and instead choses to buy wall decals. KC was very restless and MC believed that he may still be experiencing withdrawal from the methadone. PC was also showing signs of depression and was displaying over sexualized behaviour. [ 22 ] On September 13, 2013, the RCMP brought CC to the Ministry office as MC was refusing to let CC return home.

MC was apparently also making statements regarding threats of suicide in front of her children as well as making threats to harm CC. On September 17, 2013, MC had been threatening to kill herself again in front of the children. It was determined that the children should be apprehended immediately. When the children were apprehended, MC once again began threatening suicide because of the apprehension. MC was also making threats to harm the Ministry’s workers and it seemed that she was becoming more unstable.

On September 24, 2013, there was another community care meeting where it was reported that MC had made threats to kill the Ministry’s worker, Jana, and had spoken of coming to the Ministry office with a gun. [ 23 ] As a result, MC was charged with uttering death threats and plead guilty. She was released on an undertaking pending sentencing.

The Ministry then recommended PC, CC and KC be placed in the custody of the Ministry on a temporary basis, with MC to: undergo a drug and alcohol assessment, work cooperatively with her addictions counsellor, actively seek mental health counselling, and undergo a parenting capacity assessment. In January, 2014, CC was placed into two different foster homes before being moved to an emergency home through Ranch Ehrlo. He was then moved to Dale’s House Group Home in Regina. [ 24 ] In February, 2014, MC received a six month conditional sentence for her charge of threatening the Ministry’s staff members.

FG (Sr.) and his daughter moved in with MC that month, and concerns came forward regarding drug use by FG (Sr.). FG (Sr.)’s daughter eventually moved back to Alberta, and FG (Sr.) went to jail within the next month. CC was then removed to the Four Directions Group Home on March 3, 2014. MC’s mother and PC moved to Regina in May, 2014. As of the date of the psychologist’s report (December 5, 2014, the date of FG’s birth), all three children continued in the care of the Ministry. FG has been in the care of the Ministry since his birth. III.

THE COURT ORDERS REGARDING THESE CHILDREN [ 25 ] The conditions placed upon MC under the three temporary orders and the two supervision orders (Exhibits P4, P8, P9, P10, and P11) between 2010 and 2014, included conditions requiring MC to work cooperatively with Ministry staff and program staff, at any

of the programs or services that MC was referred to, and, as well, required her to address her addictions issues and seek a safe home environment for the return of her children. [ 26 ] Most relevant to this application is MC’s response to the last two orders: a three month temporary order regarding the children PC, CC, and KC on July 9, 2014 (Exhibit P10) and a six month Supervision Order regarding CC dated November 5, 2014 (Exhibit P11). [ 27 ] Under the temporary order (Exhibit P10), child protection worker Shawna Smith said her performance was as follows: 1.

Regarding the condition that she attend appointments and work cooperatively with her addictions counsellor and follow through with any recommendations with that counsellor, Ms. Smith said she did not comply with this condition as she attended one session and the worker then tried to make appointments with her but eventually closed the file; 2. Regarding the condition that she work cooperatively with her addictions counsellor and medical personnel to reduce her dosage of methadone to a level where she could effectively parent, she did not do this as there was no change in her methadone levels; 3.

Regarding the condition that she provide weekly drug screens as requested by her Family Services Worker, this was done, but Ms. Smith was not sure if the screens were dirty; 4. Regarding the condition that she work actively with the Mental Health counsellor and follow through with any recommendations, she said MC did not comply; 5. Regarding attending for a parenting assessment to be done by a psychologist, she did comply with this; and 6. Regarding working cooperatively with her Family Services Worker, Ms.

Smith said the worker tried to have her cooperate but there was not a lot of cooperation from MC. [ 28 ] Regarding the Supervision Order (Exhibit P11), Ms. Smith said: 1. Regarding a condition that MC attend appointments and work cooperatively with her Addictions Counsellor, she did not do this; 2. Regarding a condition that she provide weekly drug screens, Ms. Smith said she did provide some clean screens but her last screen provided was in December, 2014 on the six month order which commenced on November 14, 2014; and 3.

Regarding a condition that she utilize the services of a Family Support Worker as directed by her Family Services Worker, she did meet with the Family Support Worker but did not engage with that worker and did not cooperate with that worker. IV. INFORMATION ABOUT THE CHILDREN [ 29 ] Child protection worker Erin Huser described a number of the different placements that CC has had while in the care of the Ministry.

She described how the boy was placed at Four Directions Youth Home near Regina, but this placement eventually broke down and he was kicked out of the home, and then returned to Ranch Ehrlo on an emergency basis. He then ran from Ranch Ehrlo to be with MC. There also was an occasion where he ran away from Ranch Ehrlo and was found with his father (LK) at the Keeseekoose First Nation. This eventually led to CC being placed with his aunt in Yorkton.

That is where CC is now residing. [ 30 ] In summarizing CC’s situation, child protection worker Shawna Smith said that CC has had an extensive history of going back and forth between places and families. At the Four Directions Youth Centre, he exhibited bullying behaviour and went away without leave frequently. She said that CC longs to be with his family, and what he wants is some form of stability in his life and to have supports for himself. [ 31 ] Ms. Huser testified that KC was first apprehended on August 31, 2012 at the hospital, because he was in withdrawal from prenatal methadone exposure.

After a few weeks, KC was returned to the care of MC, but then was apprehended again on September 21, 2012 over concerns about drug use by MC. KC has now been in the care of the Ministry for approximately 34 months, since September of 2013.

[ 32 ] Regarding the child KC, Ms. Huser said that it is suspected that this child suffers from autism and is currently receiving services from speech and language therapy and occupational health therapy and autism services. Regarding FG, he has been referred to various therapy services at the local Health Region, including speech and language therapy, and it is hoped he will respond to the therapy provided. Ms. Huser says that KC and FG are both happy children which appear to be doing well in foster care in Melville, despite their medical concerns.

Regular visits with these children have been arranged with MC. [ 33 ] Regarding family resources to care for the two younger children, Ms. Huser says that the children’s aunt in Yorkton is an approved foster parent but already has three foster children that are disabled children and CC in her care, and as a result is not in a position to take KC and FG. V.

EVIDENCE ABOUT THE MOTHER (MC) Evidence from the child protection workers [ 34 ] Child protection supervisor Wanda Nelson said, in considering the Ministry’s involvement with MC from 2002 to the present, that she did not think that the Ministry was able to provide any further services to MC than had been provided already. The services provided to her included: family services support and programming, mental health programming, addiction services (both from the local health region and the Yorkton Tribal Council), parenting support, and programming from the Kids First Organization. [ 35 ] In

summary, Ms. Nelson said that she accepts, as I do, that MC loves her children, but she does not think that MC will be able to make the necessary changes in her behaviour, nor does she think that she has or will have an appreciation of the effects her behaviour have on her children, so as to allow her to successfully care for her three children. She said, if the children were returned to MC, her concerns are: 1. Regarding CC, whom she says he is an angry young person who is acting out by taking drugs and alcohol and becoming involved in criminal activity, Ms.

Nelson believes that, if he was returned to MC, he would likely quit school and become further involved in the youth criminal justice system; and 2. Regarding the two younger children KC and FG, Ms.

Nelson thinks that MC would be incapable of providing the level of support and supervision these two apparently high needs children require, as MC gets upset and frustrated with her children, as she has been both suicidal and depressed in the past, and as addictions are an ongoing issue for MC. [ 36 ] Child protection worker Erin Huser said that, during the six month temporary order on November 14, 2013 (Exhibit P9), MC attempted to reduce her level of methadone. At the birth of FG, her level was 60 millilitres per day, and Ms. Huser said she attempted to reduce this to 45 millilitres.

She said at the birth of KG, the methadone in her system resulted in MC falling asleep. [ 37 ] MC’s long term exposure to methadone was also raised as a concern by child protection worker Shawna Smith, who noted that MC’s long time and ongoing consumption of methadone is a concern based on the effects it has upon her. Ms.

Smith, as well, expressed concerns about MC’s behaviour during visits with the two youngest children in 2015, when the workers at the supervised visits said MC had to be reminded about her supervision of the young children who tended to wander off during the visit. [ 38 ] As of October, 2015, Ms.

Smith’s concerns about MC’s ability to parent were: (1) her defensiveness in responding to suggestions about how she could improve her parenting ability; (2) that MC did not recognize when a situation was unsafe; (3) that the partners she had chosen (especially including FG (Sr.)) had endangered her with domestic violence and she did not recognize the effect this had on her children;

(4) MC did not recognize the effect of her emotional abuse on CC nor the effect on the child of going back and forth between herself, the care of the Ministry and MC’s mother; and (5) that MC had not been able to provide stability for any of her children. [ 39 ] Child protection worker Chelsea Ryczak was first involved with MC and her children in November, 2015, when she set up and supervised some of the visits between MC and the children. She said the visits with CC went well, but regarding the visits with the two younger children, she said the Ministry workers present had to constantly remind MC to supervise and check on the children and to

take them to the washroom. Further, a family services worker had to feed the children. She, as well, said that FG Sr. was incarcerated in Dauphin as of the date of the hearing, for at least two years. Evidence on behalf of the mother (MC) [ 40 ] Dorothy Alexson, a counsellor and facilitator at Prairie Spirit Connections in Regina, testified in support of MC by telephone. She as well provided a letter of reference for her, which appends a description of the organization and its programs (Exhibit D2). [ 41 ] Ms. Alexson has been working with MC since April of 2016.

She is the facilitator in a group that MC is participating in, which is based on First Nations’ spirituality and seeks to explore childhood experiences and trauma and to unite the body, mind and spirit. She said that MC has completed the first part of the group, and is now moving on to the second. The group progresses between issues with the person’s mother, then father, and explores grief, loss and family and domestic violence. The focus of the group is growing up and establishing a plan for change. [ 42 ] When asked what MC’s goals were, Ms.

Alexson said she wasn’t sure, but she did know that MC intended to cut down on her methadone use and to eventually get off it. She said that MC was tired and listless at the start of the group, but changed during the course of it and is now fully engaged in the group. She said that MC is ready and willing to help herself overcome her life long struggles, and that MC speaks about reuniting with her children and establishing a healthy balanced home life. MC is, as well, taking personal counselling with Ms. Alexson. [ 43 ] In her letter of reference for MC, Ms.

Alexson describes her as “extremely bright and fully engaged in group” and as “ready and willing to help herself overcome lifelong struggles”. The letter, as well, says that MC “is determined to deal with issues that will enable her to be a mother to her children”. [ 44 ] In cross-examination, Ms. Alexson was asked whether she believed that anyone can overcome their difficulties and achieve whatever goals they want to and she said she did believe this. [ 45 ] In her testimony, MC said she has lived in Regina since March 1, 2016.

She has a bachelor apartment as she cannot afford more, but hoped that, if she had her children back, she could receive more assistance through Family Allowance and Social Services payments. She said she has been addressing her methadone dependency, and is now at 60 millilitres per day, despite being as high as 70 millilitres when she gave birth to FG. [ 46 ] MC tendered a letter from the Parliament Methadone Clinic, which she attends.

This letter says that MC has been a client since April 11, 2016, that she keeps her appointments with the doctors and counsellors, that she is always happy to talk about her children, and that the writer - Director, Marv Zehner - believes she would be a good mother to her children if given the opportunity. [ 47 ] MC says she is looking for work, which is hard to find. She hopes to find a job cleaning.

There is an organization called Carmichael Outreach in Regina which helps people find employment which she said she is connected to. [ 48 ] In addition to methadone, of which her goal is to get off this in the future, she says that she has smoked marihuana three to four times since she was in Regina. Regarding her past addictions to alcohol, she said that she barely drinks at all and can stop at two to three drinks, at which level she will not get sick.

She very much enjoys attending Prairie Spirit Connection, and has learned a lot about herself by being in the group. [ 49 ] Regarding her two youngest children, KC and FG, she visits with them once a month, and is quite complimentary of the foster parents who are caring for the two children in Melville. She knows that both KC and FG call that foster mother by the name “mom”, and she has no problem with this. Regarding CC, who is currently staying with his aunt in Yorkton, she is fine with this, and wants to maintain ongoing visits with CC.

[ 50 ] MC says some further support she has in the Regina community is an anti-poverty advocate named Bonnie Martin, who will help her to try to find a better apartment to live in and a job to work at. [ 51 ] Regarding the Assessment done by Mr. Stewart, she said she gave truthful answers to him and only spent four hours speaking to him, which in her view was not enough time to assess her ability to parent. She was concerned, in particular, with a multiple choice questionnaire that she was given, which dealt with the her addictions issues. MC said she disagreed with Mr.

Stewart about how this was to be done, I gather about whether she was to answer as she would have at a given time in the past or in the present. She did not believe the test was fair, and she was upset that she was not given another opportunity to do it. In total, she disagreed with the conclusions Mr. Stewart reached in his assessment of her. [ 52 ] In cross-examination, MC said her goal is to get off methadone within two years, and that she wants to have another child after she is off methadone.

Regarding the child PC, she acknowledged that she is out of the care of the Ministry now - effectively on the run from the Ministry - and says that she may be with a friend or boyfriend in Regina although she is not sure. Regarding CC, she thinks that he is in school now, although she did not appear to be certain about this, and she does not appear to believe that CC is into drugs and alcohol, as the Ministry workers believe. VI.

THE PARENTING CAPACITY ASSESSMENT REPORT REGARDING MC [ 53 ] Registered Psychologist Francis Stewart prepared a Parenting Capacity Assessment Report of MC (Exhibit P-1), which in my view is of significant importance in this case.

This psychologist has testified as an expert witness in the Court of Queen’s Bench of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan, on issues which include child custody and access, family violence, parent competency assessments, child sexual abuse, psychological assessments, First Nations (residential school issues), and PTSD and trauma. I am satisfied that Mr. Stewart is an expert in the area of parenting capacity, and can give opinion evidence on this application, through his report.

That report was filed with the consent of MC, who did not require that Mr.

Stewart attend in court for the purposes of cross-examination. [ 54 ] The assessment was based on 32 sources of information. [3] These included an interview with child protection worker Erin Huser, a review of the Ministry’s file documents regarding MC and her three older children, three interviews with MC, a 2 1/4 hour observation session of MC with CC and KC at the Ministry of Social Services offices in Yorkton, the administration of various psychological assessments and inventories to MC, and the review of a multitude of documents provided by the Ministry together with court documents from the various court orders. [ 55 ] Regarding the issue of family supports for MC, Mr.

Stewart says: MC stated that she does not have a close relationship with anyone in her family. She stated that she only talks to one of her stepsisters, Jackie on rare occasions. She also commented that she talks to one of her stepsisters, Tracy, occasionally on Facebook, but has no other relationships with any other members of her family. She stated, “I am not close to anyone in my family. Some, I haven’t talked to in years.” [4] [ 56 ] Regarding Mr.

Stewart’s clinical interviews with MC, he wrote: The overall results of MC’s interviews indicate that she perceives very little problem with her ability to parent her three children safely and responsibly. Her responses indicated that she is taking responsibility for having her children apprehended by the Ministry of Social Services, but the reason she provided for that responsibility did not encompass the full array of problems that led to the continuous involvement by the Ministry of Social Services over the past 12 years.

Throughout her interview, MC failed to consider the long term impact that her own behaviour has had on her children’s well being. At times she seemed to be evasive, and at other times minimization, and rationalization were employed when discussing some of the concerns that the Ministry may have about her parenting. Further, MC believed that the concerns expressed by the Ministry were not valid. MC also indicated that she has undergone some treatment, but is

not entirely clear if she believes that the treatment she has had would be extensive enough to keep her children safe from physical and emotional harm. There was some indication from MC’s own statements that she has been difficult to deal with at times and has been asked to leave various programs that she did not enter. [5] [ 57 ] Regarding the area of addictions, Mr. Stewart summarizes: The combination of all 9 SASSI-3 scales suggest that there is a very high probability that MC has a moderate to severe substance dependent disorder.

Not only do the individual scales scores tap into relatively subtle and deep seeded characteristics of substance dependence people, individuals with similar profiles typically have difficulty recognizing the full ramifications of their substance usage.

On the one hand, MC may have been able to acknowledge extensive alcohol and drug usage in her past, but she likely finds it difficult to see the extent which her usage dominated her life, and the extent which her alcohol and drug use may have negatively impacted her life and the lives of others with whom she has been involved. [6] [ 58 ] Most significant of this application, is the opinion Mr. Stewart gives at the end of the assessment: The writer was asked to assess MC’s capacity to parent her three children ... effectively, responsibly, and safely.

MC’s history of involvement with the Ministry of Social Services, child protection, and the fact that so many of these concerns continue to be present at the time that this assessment was conducted, quite strongly suggests that MC is not able to assume the role of a full-time parent where she can responsibly, reliably, and safely care for her three young children. From all of the information obtained during this assessment, MC seems to have been able to make very little progress in terms of her ability to parent her three children effectively since her first involvement with the Ministry in 2002.

In fact, as recently as August, 2013, MC was refusing to participate in any further programming offered by the Ministry and she stopped providing samples to assess for her drug usage .... CC’s behaviour seems to have settled substantially since he was placed in Four Directions, and the severe behavioural problems that he was exhibiting while residing with his mother have subsided. Finally, there seems to be some evidence that MC is simply not attuned to the emotional needs of KC.

Despite MC’s perception of herself as a competent parent who believes that she can now parent her children without further assistance, the reality is that MC’s three children have been subjected to a history of poor parenting that included drug and alcohol abuse, physical forms of discipline with the children, and neglect of their physical and emotional needs. MC does not seem to recognize the shorter long-term implications of her choices, or how her parenting of her three children could have had long-term harmful effects on them.

This writer seriously questions MC’s ability to change her parenting behaviours to such an extent that she could provide a reliable, consistent, and safe care to her three children. Her own lifestyle issues and problems presents a significant barrier in her ability to do so. As such, the writer recommends that the Ministry of Social Services continue to act as guardians for MC’s three children, and alternative planning for the children’s long term care be considered. Based on the ages of the three children, the following recommendations are suggested: 1.

The writer recommends that the Ministry of Social Services consider placing CC into the long term care of the Ministry. It appears that MC has maintained the vast majority of her access visits with CC, and both CC and MC seem to be obtaining some satisfaction from these ongoing visits. The writer therefore recommends that MC’s current

schedule of access be maintained with CC. Having CC move home permanently with his mother does present an ongoing risk that he will once again engage in illegal activities, present with severe behavioural problems, and so on. The risk becomes much more substantial if MC becomes overwhelmed with any aspect of her life and history repeats itself by having her neglect his needs. ... 3. This writer recommends that MC not be permitted to parent KC on an ongoing, full-time basis, and that the Ministry consider alternative planning for his permanent care.

The writer even questions how much benefit KC may be actually obtaining from ongoing visits with his mother. It appears that MC is strongly attached to him, but the reverse may not be true. Again, it does not seem that she is totally attuned to KC’s needs. At the present time, MC’s access to KC can likely continue on a regular basis. Whether her access to KC continues after the point of KC’s long term care plan has been implemented by the Ministry, should only be a decision to be made by the Court in conjunction with recommendations from the Ministry of social Services. [7] [ 59 ] Mr.

Yaholnitsky, on behalf of the mother MC, did not seek to question or to cast doubt on the conclusions reached in that report, but rather to suggest that portions of the report on pages 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 39 - 42, 48, set out the deeply held personal and addiction issues that have prevented MC from being an effective parent to her children.

He submitted that the programming and supports she has in Regina, and in particular the Prairie Spirit Connection program, has made changes in her life, which will, and have already, produced change in her life in such areas of concern from the past such as locating appropriate housing, seeking community supports and welcoming help in parenting.

VII. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE ORDER ? [ 60 ] Having found these children to be in need of protection, I must now make an appropriate order under s. 37 of the Act . The relevant portions of that

section are: 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.

(2) If, in the opinion of the court, none of the orders described in subsection (1) is appropriate, the court shall make an order permanently committing the child to the minister.

(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the court may, if it is of the view that: (

a) a child is in need of protection; and (

b) by reason of the age of the child or other circumstances, it is unlikely that an adoption plan would be made if the child were permanently committed to the minister; order that the child be placed in the custody of the minister until the child attains the age of 18 years.

(4) In making an order pursuant to subsection (1), (2) or (3), the court: (

a) shall consider the best interests of the child; (

b) may consider the recommendations of the officer mentioned in subsection 36(2); and (

c) may consider the recommendations of a chief, a chief’s designate or an agency that appears in court pursuant to subsection (11).

(5) In making an order pursuant to subsection (1) or (3), the court may: (

a) impose any terms and conditions that the court considers appropriate; and (

b) include in the order a provision respecting access to the child. [ 61 ] In considering the “best interests of the child”, s. 4 of the Act requires me to 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. [ 62 ] Based on the evidence of Child Protection Supervisor Wanda Nelson and the submissions of Ms. Taylor, for the minister, it was clear that, given the age of CC, a family to adopt him is not available. That, however, is not the case with the younger children. Although the foster parents currently caring for KC and FG in Melville cannot adopt these children, the minister submits that an adoptive family could be very likely found for these two children. [ 63 ] Having considered Ms.

Alexson’s evidence and her letter of reference for MC, and MC’s testimony, I am satisfied that MC is a bright person who has participated fully in the programming at Prairie Spirit Connections in Regina. I as well accept that there are positive developments in her life, as of the hearing date.

Lastly, I am satisfied that MC loves her children and wants the best for them, and I note no suggestion to the contrary by anyone at the hearing. [ 64 ] All that said, I am not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that there is a realistic plan, or a reasonable basis upon which to conclude, that the necessary changes in MC’s life can occur within a reasonable time whereby the children can be safely returned to, or placed in, her care. Taken together, I have reached that conclusion based on the evidence, set out in this decision, of :

(1) MC’s history with the minister’s employees since 2002 (a period of 14 years); (2) the circumstances necessitating the minister’s involvement;

(3) MC’s response to the many agreements and court orders; (4) the history of her personal, mental health and addictions issues; (5) the significant needs of her three children; (6) the evidence and recommendations made by Child Protection Supervisor Wanda Nelson, on behalf of the minister; and (7) the opinions, which I accept, of Mr. Stewart in his detailed parenting capacity assessment of MC. [ 65 ] Nor am I satisfied that the decision on a long term plan for these children should be delayed through another temporary order.

Section 4(

h) of the Act (above) requires me to consider such a delay in assessing the best interests of these children. The words of Justice Grotsky in L.M.G. (Re) [8] are in my view directly applicable to the best interests of these children, and in particular to the two youngest who have been in care of the minister for 34 months (in the case of KC) and since birth (in the case of FG): On the whole of the evidence I am satisfied that the longer a young child is in temporary care, and, the longer a decision for a long term plan is delayed, the more such delay will harm the child and work to his/her detriment.

It is fundamental that a child have a stable, consistent, nurturing home environment. This will enure to the child’s benefit. The lack of a stable, consistent and nurturing home environment can only have a negative impact and effect on the child’s proper development. [ 66 ] As a result of the conclusions I draw above, taken together with my assessment of what is in the best interests of these children, and considering the likelihood of the two younger children being adopted in contrast to the oldest child, I order that:

(1) Pursuant to 37(3) of the Act , CC be placed in the custody of the minister until he is 18 years of age, with reasonable access to MC to be arranged through an appropriate representative of the minister; and

(2) Pursuant to s.37(2) of the Act, KC and FG be permanently committed to the minister. R. Green, J [1] As set out by McIntyre J. In Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) v. E.K.S. (SK KB), [1996] SJ No 386(QB) at par 49. [2] At pages 8-12. [3] Set out at pages 3 and 4 of the assessment. [4] At page 6. [5] At pages 28 and 29. [6] At page 31. [7] At pages 60 to 62. [8] [1992] SJ No 67 (Sask. QB) at p. 8.