North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services v. R.M., 2018 ONCJ 766

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

Part III of the Child and Family Services Act and is subject to one or more of subsections 45(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 . . . 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) or 76(11) (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. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE CITATION: North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services v. R.M. , 2018 ONCJ 766 DATE: 2018-01-24 COURT FILE No.: 40/16(00) BETWEEN: North Eastern Ontario Family and Children’s Services Applicant, — AND — R.M. and K.A. Respondents Before Justice M.R. Labelle

Heard on January 9th, 2018 Reasons on motion released on January 24, 2018 Ms. Sonia Mignault.............................................................. counsel for the applicant NEOFACS Ms. Lucia Mendonca .................................................. counsel for the respondent mother, R.M. Ms. Lisa Barazzutti .................................................................................. counsel for the children No one appearing on behalf of the respondent, father, K.A.

RULING ON MOTIONS LABELLE J.: Overview [ 1 ] This child protection proceeding involves four (4) children with a child protection proceeding in two different jurisdictions and this Court is essentially asked to determine where the matter should proceed and whether or not the children should be returned to the Respondent mother’s care in this jurisdiction, pending the trial of this matter. [ 2 ] The children are K.L.J.A., born […], 2005, S.M.V.A., born […], 2006, R.G.M.A., born […], 2007 and K.E.M.A., born […], 2009 (hereafter referred collectively as “the children”). [ 3 ] On January 1 st , 2016, the Respondent mother relocated with her four children to Fauquier, Ontario in the judicial district of Cochrane.

Prior to her relocation, the Family and Children’s Services of St. Thomas and Elgin (hereafter referred to as “the St-Thomas agency”) had been involved with the family. [ 4 ] The children were apprehended by the North Eastern Ontario Child and Family Services (hereafter referred to as “NEOFACS”) from the Respondent mother, R.M. in June of 2016 while she was residing in this jurisdiction.

Following their apprehension, the children were placed with the Respondent father, K.A. in Tillsonburg, in the jurisdiction of the Oxford CAS with the mother receiving supervised access to the children in Tillsonburg. [ 5 ] On November 1 st , 2017 the children were apprehended from the Respondent father by the Oxford CAS and were placed in foster care in that jurisdiction, with all four (4) children originally in the same foster home. [ 6 ] On November 6 th , 2017 Justice Graham of the Ontario Court of Justice in Woodstock made a temporary Order placing the children in the care and custody of the Oxford County CAS. [ 7 ] It now appears that the children are currently living in four (4) separate foster homes and that one of the children has started harming herself.

History of proceedings [ 8 ] On October 8 th , 2015, Justice O’Dea of the Ontario Court of Justice in St. Thomas made an order placing the children with the Respondent mother for a period of six (6) months subject to the supervision of the St-Thomas agency and subject to certain terms and conditions. [ 9 ] A Status Review Application was commenced by the St-Thomas agency which was originally made returnable on April 7 th , 2016 in the Ontario Court of Justice in St.

Thomas together with a motion to transfer the said Status Review Application to the Ontario Court of Justice in Kapuskasing, as the Respondent mother and the children were now residing in this jurisdiction. [ 10 ] On April 7 th , 2016 an order was made by Justice O’Dea transferring the child protection file to this jurisdiction in the Ontario Court of Justice in Kapuskasing. [ 11 ] On May 5 th , 2016 the Respondent mother and her new partner signed a safety plan with NEOFACS after disclosure had been made by the children with respect to issues of adult conflict in the home and the Respondent mother’s mental health. [ 12 ] On June 15 th , 2016, the children were apprehended by NEOFACS as they felt that the Respondent mother had shown little motivation to deal with her mental health issues and also because there was a smell of burnt marihuana in the home when the NEOFACS worker attended. [ 13 ] Since the children were already scheduled to spend the summer with their father in Tillsonburg, NEOFACS placed the four children in the care of the Respondent father, K.A. [ 14 ] On August 23 rd , 2016 Justice Boucher made a temporary order placing the four (4) children with their father, K.A. in

Tillsonburg subject to Society Supervision.

The Respondent mother was to have regular telephone or skype access to the children together with supervised access at least every four (4) weeks for two consecutive days subject to supervision by the society, with such supervised access to take place in Tillsonburg, some considerable distance from the Respondent mother’s home in this jurisdiction. [ 15 ] NEOFACS sought the assistance of Oxford County CAS to supervise the children while in the care of the Respondent father and during the supervised access visits with the Respondent mother. [ 16 ] The matter continued to proceed in this Court in Kapuskasing for 16 months and NEOFACS never sought to transfer the file to Oxford County until after November 1 st , 2017, when the children were apprehended from the care of the Respondent father in Tillsonburg. [ 17 ] Following the apprehension of the children from the Respondent father in Tillsonburg, the matter was brought before the Ontario Court of Justice in Woodstock with Justice Graham making a temporary order placing the four children in the care of the Oxford CAS on November 6 th , 2017.

Facts [ 18 ] The Respondents, R.M. and K.A. are the biological parents of the children. [ 19 ] The Respondent parents had been involved with the Children’s Aid Society in Oxford since 2010 as a result of concerns regarding domestic violence, inappropriate physical discipline and their inability to address the children’s medical and special needs. [ 20 ] In May of 2011, the children were apprehended due to emotional harm from continued exposure to domestic violence and inappropriate discipline in the home. [ 21 ] The Respondent parents separated and on January 22, 2014, the four children were placed in the care of the Respondent mother subject to a 12 month supervision order. [ 22 ] In March of 2015 the Respondent mother and the children relocated from Oxford to Sparta, Ontario. [ 23 ] In April of 2015 the St.

Thomas agency became involved with the family when it had been reported by the children’s school in Sparta that the children were attending school without having had any breakfast and not wearing clean clothes, as well as inappropriate behavior by the children at school. [ 24 ] On October 8 th , 2015 the Court granted an order placing the children with the Respondent mother for a period of six (6) months subject to various terms and conditions. [ 25 ] On December 22 nd , 2015 NEFOACS received a referral from the St.

Thomas agency, given that the Respondent mother and the children were moving to Fauquier, Ontario in this jurisdiction. NEOFACS was requested to supervise the family on their behalf for the duration of the Supervision Order.

The child protection concerns indicated to NEOFACS at the time were domestic violence issues, substance abuse, mental health issues, lack of motivation to follow through with recommended services and difficulty of the caregiver to provide consistent boundaries and appropriate discipline as well as the physical condition of her home. [ 26 ] On June 15 th , 2016 NEOFACS apprehended the four (4) children from the care and custody of the Respondent mother in Fauquier, Ontario in the judicial district of Cochrane alleging that the Respondent mother lacked motivation to address her mental health issues and also as a result of the smell of burnt marihuana in the home. [ 27 ] On August 28 th , 2016 a temporary order was made by Justice Boucher placing the children with the Respondent father in the jurisdiction of the Oxford CAS. [ 28 ] On November 1 st , 2017 the Oxford CAS apprehended the four (4) children from the Respondent father as a result of concerns of physical abuse and commenced a Child Protection Application in their jurisdiction. [ 29 ] On November 6 th , 2017 Justice Graham of the Ontario Court of Justice in Woodstock made a temporary order placing the four (4) children in the care of the Oxford CAS. [ 30 ] Although the four (4) children were originally placed together in foster care, they have since all been separated and are living in different foster homes, with one child in Etobicoke, one in Borden, one in Wasaga Beach and the fourth at an undisclosed location.

Motion by NEOFACS [ 31 ] The Applicant, NEOFACS brings a motion (Tab 9 of Volume 2 of the Continuing Record), seeking the following: (

a) Pursuant to section 48(3) of the Child and Family Services Act, the Court file with respect the children, namely Court File Number 40/16(00) at Kapuskasing, Ontario be transferred to the Ontario Court of Justice located at 415 Hunter Street, Woodstock, Ontario. (

b) The Court File with respect to the said children, namely Court File Number 40/16(00) be adjourned to a future date in the Ontario Court of Justice in Woodstock, Ontario. [ 32 ] The Respondent mother, R.M. brings a motion (Tab 7 Vol. 2 of the Continuing Record), seeking the following: (

a) An Order pursuant to

section 51 or

section 64 of the Child and Family Services Act that the children, be placed in the care

and control of the Respondent mother on a temporary basis subject to a Supervision or a Non-Supervision basis. (

b) In the alternative, an Order that the Respondent mother have unsupervised access to the children with such costs for theaccess visits to be the responsibility of NEOFACS. (

c) In the further alternative, an Order that the Respondent mother have supervised access to the children at her home inOpasatika, Ontario, the costs of such access to be the responsibility of NEOFACS. (

d) An Order that the Ontario Court of Justice in Kapuskasing, Ontario remain seized of this matter. THE LAW AND ANALYSIS Transfer of Proceedings [33] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.T. and D.H., 2010 ONCJ 456 , [2010] O.J. No. 4423 (OCJ), Justice Sherrreviewed the legal test to be applied by the court when an order is sought transferring a matter to another jurisdiction. [8] The test to determine whether a child protection proceeding should be transferred to another territorial jurisdiction is set out insubsection 48(3) of the Act.

Territorial jurisdiction is defined in subsection 48(1) of the Act as a children aid’s society’s territorialjurisdiction. Subsection 48(3) reads as follows:

(3) Transfer of proceeding.— Where the court is satisfied at any stage of a proceeding under this Partthat there is a preponderance of convenience in favour of conducting it in another territorial jurisdiction,the court may order that the proceeding be transferred to that other territorial jurisdiction and becontinued as if it had been commenced there. [9] “Preponderance” is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 4th ed., (St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Co., 1951), as follows: Greater weight of evidence, or evidence which is more credible and convincing to the mind.

That whichbest accords with reason and probability. [….] [15] The onus to establish that there is a preponderance of convenience to hear the proceeding in another jurisdiction is on the partyseeking the transfer. See Children’s Aid Society of Prescott-Russell v. B.B. and M.B., [1991] O.J. No. 2540 (Ont. Gen. Div.). [16] Any assessment of the “preponderance of convenience” is to be weighed considering the best interests of the child and notnecessarily the wishes or convenience of any of the parties. See Children’s Aid Society of Halton Region v. Katherine C, , 111 A.C.W.S. (3d) 510, [2002] O.J.

No. 382, 2002 Cars​well​Ont 317 (Ont. C.J.), where the court found that the transfer request,which was made on the eve of trial, would unduly delay the case and was contrary to the child’s best interests. [34] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. A.T. and D.H., Justice Sherr ordered the transfer of the Status Review Proceedingsfrom Toronto to Lindsay, despite the fact that the father was living in Toronto, the delays which would be caused by the transfer and thefact that the Court in Toronto had case managed this case for a lengthy period of time and was familiar with the issues.

The mother, theprimary care giver to the children, and the children were residing in Lindsay and had demonstrated an intention to remain in thatcommunity. Also, the child, who was 12, was presumed to have a right under subjection 39(4) of the CFSA to attend at the hearing andthe best child evidence with respect to the child was in Lindsay. [35] In another matter, Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.D., M.M., and K.M.,

(2016) ONCJ 31, Justice Stanley Sherr deniedthe request to transfer a Child Protection file to Brampton from Toronto, despite the fact that the child had resided in Brampton with hisfather since his apprehension, attended school and counselling in Brampton and that most of the evidence from services providers wouldcome from people residing in Brampton.

The preponderance of convenience was Toronto, given the delays which would be caused by atransfer, the case had been actively case managed in Toronto, the child had established a relationship with the society in Toronto and thedistance between the two courts was not significant. [36] In Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. L.H., [2012] O.J. No. 2227, Justice Spence having considered thepreponderance of convenience test transferred the proceeding from the Ontario Court of Justice in Toronto to the Superior Court ofJustice in York.

In that case, the children, age 13 and almost 11, had been living with their father in York region for almost four (4)years and the 13 year old would have the presumptive rights at subsection 39(4) of the CFSA. The best evidence with respect to thechildren’s progress was in York and a transfer would not delay the proceedings.

This transfer was made despite the fact that the motherresided in Toronto and “the Toronto society and the court in Toronto have greater familiarity with this case, and its history, and it wouldbe cumbersome to begin anew with another court.” [37] In Children’s Aid Society of the Regional Municipality of Halton v. K.C.,

(2002) CanLII 61145 (Ont. C.J.), Justice Wolder,applying the preponderance of convenience test, denied a motion by the Child Protection Agency to transfer a child protectionproceeding to a neighbouring county where the mother was residing. The Court noted that the society had known for some time of theRespondent move to another jurisdiction but chose at the eleventh hour to bring a motion to transfer the proceedings. Having the casetransferred to the neighbouring county would only provoke needless delay that are not in the best interest of the children. Variation of interim order in the context of a Status Review Proceeding

[38] In Children’s Aid Society of Algoma v. C.B. and J.B,

(2011) ONCJ 676, Justice Kukurin dealt with various motions,including a motion for temporary custody in the context of a Status Review Proceeding, where the child had been apprehended from thematernal grandmother. [39] Justice Kukurin indicated at paragraph 7 of that decision, “it is well to keep in mind just where this case is, procedurallyspeaking, who has the evidentiary onus, what the test(

s) is/are for interim care and custody at this stage, what is the authority for, andwhat criteria apply, to determinations of access, and what evidentiary standard applies to the various motions”. He held at paragraphs15 to 17: [15] The specific provisions of the CFSA that deals with interim care and custody until a status review case is completed is section64(8).

Interim care and custody 64(8) If an application is made under this section, the child shall remain in the care and custody of the person or society having charge ofthe child until the application is disposed of, unless the court is satisfied that the child’s best interests require a change in the child’s careand custody. 2006, c. 5, s. 22. [16] This subsection establishes a presumption or, at the very least, a legal bias in favour of maintaining the placement of the childwith the person having charge of the child, until a final disposition in the status review application.

However, the continuation of thisplacement is not written in stone. The status quo can be changed by the court, on an interim basis, but only if the court is satisfied thatthe child’s best interest require the change. [17] I have, in other cases, set out my views on what section 64(8) of the CFSA means in practical terms. Some judicial difference ofopinion exists with respect to that meaning. A succinct but comprehensive elucidation of what section 64(8) means can be found in arecent decision of Murray J. [40] In Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. S.G. and C.K.S.,

(2011) ONCJ 746, Justice Murray indicated at paragraph 23: The moving party must first establish that there has been a material change in circumstances related to the child’s best interests. If therehas been such a change, then it must be demonstrated that it is necessary, in protecting the child’s best interests, to change the existingorder before trial of the status review application. The Act sets out certain factors in addition to continuity of care, which may berelevant in assessing a child’s best interest.

Marihuana use by parent [41] NEOFACS also suggests the possible use of marihuana as one factor for their position in not wanting the children return to theRespondent mother. [42] Courts have stated that the small use of marijuana is not in and of itself a protection concern, in the absence of evidenceindicating that this amount of marijuana is impairing the ability of the mother to parent. See: Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. T.R.,2009 ONCJ 384 , [2009] O.J. No. 4192 OCJ.

The position of the parties NEOFACS position on both motions [43] NEOFACS takes the position that when considering the preponderance of convenience, this matter should be transferred toWoodstock, Ontario. They argue that the children are in the jurisdiction of the Oxford CAS or close to it.

As well, Oxford CAS have along history with the family and that they will likely give evidence at the trial of this matter, making travel to this jurisdiction difficultand costly. [44] With respect to the Respondent mother’s motion to have the children placed with her or in the alternative in this jurisdiction,they argue that the Respondent mother is unable to bring her motion before this Court as a result of the commencement of Child Protection Proceedings in Oxford county and the temporary Order of Justice Graham dated November 6th, 2017, placing the children inthe care of the Oxford CAS. [45] In the alternative, NEOFACS argues that the Respondent mother has not met the test at section 64(8) of the Child and FamilyServices and disagrees that the children should be returned to this jurisdiction and placed with the Respondent mother, pending the trialof this matter.

The Respondent mother’s position on both motions [46] The Respondent mother disagrees that this matter should be transferred to Woodstock. She argues that the children wereoriginally apprehended by NEOFACS in this jurisdiction and placed by them in the care of their father in the jurisdiction of the OxfordCAS. Now that the children have been apprehended from their father in the jurisdiction of the Oxford CAS, some 16 months after thecommencement of proceedings in this jurisdiction, it would be unreasonable and unfair and not in the best interest of the children to havethis matter transferred to Woodstock.

This would cause delays as the matter is in the early stages in Woodstock and close to trial in thisjurisdiction. [47] With respect to her motion that the children be returned to her on a temporary basis, she argues that the children were takenfrom her in this jurisdiction in the context of a Status Review Application noting child protection concerns that are really no longerapplicable. She acknowledges having mental health issues and is seeing a psychiatrist and taking her prescribed medication. Sheindicates that she is involved in a good relationship and has been able to maintain full time employment.

She refers to the most recent

affidavit of the NEOFACS worker who indicates that on December 19, 2017 she met with the Respondent mother, who was calm and expressed her frustrations with the process, while maintaining her composure. The NEOFACS worker was advised by the Respondent that she was working on a full time basis and had a worker at Kapuskasing Counselling but had yet to meet with her. The NEOFACS worker also observed the home having received extensive upkeep and being clean, although with some clutter. It was also indicated to the worker that the three sisters would share a room in the basement, with K. having his own bedroom.

There were no concerns or safety hazard noted by the NEOFACS worker. [ 48 ] With respect to the smell of burnt marihuana in her home, the Respondent mother explains that her partner and his father had been smoking in an adjacent room/apartment. She indicates that she has reduced her marihuana consumption and does not indulge in the home or in the presence of the children. The Children’s Lawyer’s position on both motions [ 49 ] The Children’s Lawyer agrees with the Respondent mother that the file should not be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Oxford CAS.

She maintains that when considering the preponderance of convenience and the best interest of the children, the matter should remain in this jurisdiction. The transfer to Woodstock would delay proceedings and she further argues that when looking at the history of proceedings, the matter has always followed the mother, as she was the primary care giver and the children were always in her care. [ 50 ] She further expresses serious concerns that the four children have now been separated by the Oxford CAS and that one of them has started to harm herself.

In effect it appears that children are in four separate foster homes. She maintains that a consideration of the preponderance of convenience and the best interest of the children favours the return of the children to this jurisdiction and that the matter proceed in this jurisdiction. She also indicates that the best interest of the children require that the children be kept together in this jurisdiction with their mother or in foster care, as there is no other reasonable alternative for the children.

Analysis and application of law to present case Transfer of proceedings [ 51 ] It is clear from the cases reviewed that the preponderance of convenience test is a fact driven assessment always having in mind the best interest of the children. [ 52 ] NEOFACS argues that the preponderance of convenience militates in favour of a transfer to Oxford County for the following reasons: (

a) Oxford CAS has a history with the family; (

b) The Respondent father, from which the children were apprehended on November 1 st , 2017, resides in that jurisdiction; (

c) All four children are currently in that jurisdiction or close to it, given that they are currently in foster care in four separate residences in Etobicoke, Wasaga Beach, Borden and an undisclosed location; (

d) The matter in this jurisdiction would be delayed given the need to amend NEOFACS’ pleadings as a result of the apprehension of the children from their father in Tillsonburg. (

e) Should the matter proceed to trial in this jurisdiction, the Oxford CAS will provide most of the evidence given their history with the family and the fact that they have been supervising the children for the last 18 months or so in Tillsonburg. This would create unnecessary difficulties and cost to have workers from the Oxford CAS to testify. [ 53 ] The Respondent mother and the Children’s Lawyer argue that the preponderance of convenience, having regard to the best interest of the children’s favors the matter remaining in this jurisdiction for the following reasons. (

a) The children were originally apprehended from the Respondent mother in this jurisdiction and placed with the Respondent father in the jurisdiction of the Oxford CAS; (

b) The Respondent mother has been the primary care giver to the children and the children have resided with her since the parties separation in 2014; (

c) The child protection proceedings have always followed the mother historically; (

d) The children, who have always been residing together, are now residing in four different foster homes in different cities in Southern Ontario; (

e) The matter could proceed to trial more expeditiously in this jurisdiction. [ 54 ] In my view when I consider the above reasons and the preponderance of convenience test and the best interest of the children, the matter should proceed in this jurisdiction. The fact that the children were apprehended from the Respondent mother in this jurisdiction and that the matter is very close to trial in this jurisdiction are the most important factors which militate in favour of having this matter remain in this jurisdiction.

Respondent mother’s motion for interim custody [ 55 ] Counsel for NEOFACS suggests that the Respondent mother is unable to bring her motion in this jurisdiction given the apprehension of the children from their father in Oxford county and the temporary Order of Justice Graham in Woodstock on November

6 th , 2017. [ 56 ] I do not agree with that suggestion.

I find that it would be unreasonable and devoid of any common sense to suggest that the Respondent mother is no longer able to proceed in this jurisdiction in the context of a Status Review Application, as a result of the apprehension of the children from their father, something that she cannot be blamed for and has no control over. [ 57 ] In my view, the apprehension of the children from their father in another jurisdiction and the interim Order of Justice Graham may supersede or replace the temporary order of Justice Boucher placing the children with their father in Tillsonburg but it does not nullify or supersede the child protection proceedings in this jurisdiction. [ 58 ] In my view, the recent apprehension of the children and the interim order of Justice Graham placing the children in the care of the Oxford CAS are merely factors to consider in the context of the Respondent mother’s motion for interim custody in the Status Proceeding in this jurisdiction. [ 59 ] The children having been apprehended from the care of their father in another jurisdiction and placed in separate foster homes clearly constitute a material change in circumstances from the interim order of Justice Boucher, placing the children together in the care of the Respondent father. [ 60 ] As well, other important factors that emerge from the evidence are as follows: (

a) The Respondent mother has always been the primary care giver to the children before the apprehension of the children from her in this jurisdiction in June of 2016; (

b) The child protection file has always followed the Respondent mother when she moved to another jurisdiction; (

c) The child protection reasons leading to the apprehension of the children in June of 2016 was principally as a result of the Respondent mother lacking motivation to address her mental health issues together with the smell of burnt marihuana in the home when they attended; (

d) The Respondent mother is currently in a stable relationship, has been working full time, is seeing a psychiatrist and is taking her prescribed medication; (

e) The NEOFACS worker confirms that the Respondent mother is residing in a clean home and that she has the space available for her children in her home; The worker did not note any safety hazard or other concerns with the home; (

f) Although the children had been placed together in foster care following their apprehension from the Respondent father, they are now in four separate homes with one child harming herself. Conclusion [ 61 ] Having considered all of the affidavit evidence in this matter, the submissions of the parties and the applicable law together with the factors in

section 37 of the Child and Family Services Act and the factors for and against the transfer, I make the following findings: (

a) The preponderance of convenience having in mind the best interest of the children militates in having this matter remain in this jurisdiction and the matter proceeding to trial as soon as possible; (

b) Also, the Respondent mother has established a material change in circumstances as a result of the apprehension of the children from the Respondent father; (

c) The best interest of the children require that they be placed together in the care of the Respondent mother in this jurisdiction. [ 62 ] Accordingly there will be an interim Order to go: (

a) That NEOFACS’ motion to transfer this proceeding to the Ontario Court of Justice in Woodstock is denied. (

b) The Respondent mother’s motion is granted and she will have interim custody of the children, subject to supervision by NEOFACS in this jurisdiction subject to the following conditions: (

i) The Respondent, R.M. shall meet with a Child Protection Worker and allow the children to meet with the worker as often as deemed necessary, both in and outside the home and in private, as deemed necessary by the agency; (ii) The Respondent, R.M. shall refrain from the use of alcohol and/or illegal drugs and shall not be under the influence of such substances while in a child-caring capacity; (iii) The Respondent, R.M. shall refrain from the use of inappropriate physical or verbal discipline, including swearing, yelling, name calling and the use of derogatory comments to the children; (iv) The Respondent, R.M. shall participate in individual or group counselling to improve her mental health, her anger issues, stress management capabilities and other personal issues affecting her as recommended by the agency; (

v) The Respondent, R.M. shall take her prescribed medication and will follow her doctors’ advice and direction to improve her mental and emotional health; (vi) The Respondent, R.M. shall ensure that the children attend school daily; and

(vii) The Respondent, R.M. shall notify in advance the agency of any change of address or employment Released: January 24, 2018 Signed: Justice M. Labelle