In the Matter of a Hearing under the Child v. Family Services Act, 2016 SKPC 127

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2016 SKPC 127 Date: September 30, 2016 Location: Moose Jaw _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: In the Matter of a Hearing under the Child and Family Services Act And in the Matter of the Child N.C. born [...], 2015 Appearing: Robert Fielding For the Ministry of Social Services No one appearing for either parent The parents and child are identified by initials in order to protect their identities. DECISION AFTER EX PARTE HEARING C.

SNELL, J INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] On the date set for this hearing counsel for the mother, K.C., filed a consent to the making of a finding that the child be found in need of protection and that the child be permanently committed to the Ministry of Social Services, pursuant to s. 37(2) of The Child and Family Services Act. Counsel advised that the mother would not be attending the hearing. He then requested and was granted leave to withdraw. [ 2 ] Mr.

Fielding advised the court that a worker with the Ministry had received a text message from the father, T.C., who advised that he had been coughing all night and therefore would not be attending the court hearing set for September 14, 2016.

[ 3 ] Mr. Fielding requested that I proceed with the hearing ex parte . He advised that the matter had been adjourned on a number of occasions and that the father has known about this date for a considerable period of time. The father had private counsel early on in the proceedings, then fired him but was not provided with assistance from Legal Aid. However, he has been part of the proceedings for some time and could have sent someone to appear on his behalf today. Mr. Fielding noted that it is now over a year since the child was born and apprehended. [ 4 ] I granted the request to proceed ex parte.

I heard the evidence of Ms. Barber, a child protection worker with the Ministry of Social Services. Ms. Barber described the background information and present situation with respect to the child’s relationship to her parents both through personal involvement and the introduction of business records of the Ministry.

She provided the Ministry’s reasons for requesting a permanent order, which are that there is no parent who is in a position now or in the foreseeable future to parent N.C. and there is a foster family who wishes to adopt her who have already adopted her biological sister. [ 5 ] I have reviewed all of the documents filed by the Ministry and found that Ms. Barber’s

summary of the Ministry’s contacts with N.C. and her parents since N.C.’s birth was quite complete and accurate, as I have outlined below. HISTORY OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL SERVICES PRIOR TO THE BIRTH OF THE CHILD [ 6 ] K.C. has had three children. The eldest is 16 years old. Ms. Barber believed that he was brought up by K.C. until he was a toddler, at which time K.C. gave him up to her parents. Ms. Barber thought there was another child who was also given up to her parents.

The Ministry has had involvement with only one other child, M.C., who is six years old. [ 7 ] M.C. was previously made a permanent ward of the Ministry and she has been adopted by her foster parents. CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE APPREHENSION [ 8 ] On [...], 2015 K.C. gave birth at home to N.C. She brought the baby and the placenta to the Moose Jaw Hospital in a garbage bag. [ 9 ] K.C. reported that she didn’t want the baby and had tried to have an abortion in Regina, but said she was turned down, so she then went to Montreal for an abortion, but then changed her mind.

She advised that she used hydromorphone during the pregnancy. [ 10 ] As Moose Jaw did not have the necessary facilities, N.C. was brought to the Regina General Hospital. She was born addicted to hydromorphone and also had Ritalin in her system. Both K.C. and the father, T.C., attempted to visit the baby in the hospital, but they were not permitted to do so due to security concerns about possible drug use. N.C. was apprehended on August 12, 2015. [ 11 ] Once N.C. was out of the hospital and in a foster home the Ministry attempted to have the parents sign a family support contract.

Although they refused to sign the form and refused to have drug tests as part of the contract, the Ministry did allow them to have supervised visits. However, no unsupervised visits were permitted. [ 12 ] There were many opportunities given to both K.C. and T.C. to provide samples for drug testing throughout the last year, but neither of them ever provided a sample.

On some visits there was a concern that K.C. had been consuming drugs; she dropped the baby when she was two months old because she fell asleep. [ 13 ] With respect to the visits with the child, K.C. has been relatively involved, keeping about two out of three appointments set up each week. T.C. wasn’t very attentive when he did attend a few visits, and by his own choice has had no contact with the child since

October 25, 2015. [ 14 ] K.C. has been offered educational services to assist her in acquiring the proper skills to parent N.C., but she has never attended any of the sessions which have been arranged for her. [ 15 ] In addition to K.C.’s drug use, there have been other issues regarding her stability. K.C. has been charged with threatening a mental health worker. In May of 2016 she was incarcerated for assaulting T.C. and the visits with N.C. were discontinued. However, after her release in July of 2016 the visits began again.

Educational sessions were offered again, but she did not attend any of them. [ 16 ] N.C. is now living with the same couple who adopted M.C. They are also interested in adopting N.C. CONCLUSION [ 17 ] It is clear that N.C. is in need of protection. Her mother recognizes this and has admitted it. While her father doesn’t admit it, he has, by his own choice, not had any involvement with her since October, 2015. He clearly has neither the ability nor the interest in parenting her.

He has done nothing to attempt to establish a bond with her. [ 18 ] The Ministry has presented sufficient information to show that its concern about ongoing drug use and domestic violence in the relationship, given the information acquired since N.C. was born, and the previous involvement of the Ministry concerning M.C, is well founded. [ 19 ] I find that the child, N.C., is in need of protection within the meaning of s. 11(a)(

I) and 11(

b) of The Child and Family Services Act. [ 20 ] In light of the fact that N.C. is in a loving home and has foster parents who wish to adopt her, which would allow her to have a sibling relationship with her older sister, M.C., and in light of the consent filed by K.C., I find that it is appropriate to make an order of permanent committal so as to allow the adoption to proceed. ORDER [ 21 ] I hereby order that the child, N.C., be placed in the care of the Ministry of Social Services and be permanently committed to the Ministry of Social Services pursuant to s. 37(2) of The Child and Family Services Act.

Dated at the City of Moose Jaw, in the province of Saskatchewan, this 30 th day of September, 2016. _________________________________________ C. Snell, Judge of the Provincial Court of Saskatchewan