Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo Region v. A.W., 2011 ONCJ 735

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 one or more of 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 . . . 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. Kitchener Registry No. 592/01 DATE: 2011·III·18 CITATION: Children’s Aid Society of Waterloo Region v. A.W. , 2011 ONCJ 735 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF THE REGIONAL MUNICIPALITY OF WATERLOO, Applicant, — AND — A.W. and D.T.N., Respondents. Before Justice Paddy A. Hardman Heard on 8 February 2011 Reasons for decision on motion for

summary judgment released on 18 March 2011 Jeff W. Boich ................................................................................. counsel for the applicant society Jean. D. LeDrew Metcalfe ................................................ counsel for the respondent mother, A.W. Walter W. Wintar ............................................................ counsel for the respondent father, D.T.N.

[ 1 ] JUSTICE P.A. HARDMAN:— The society has brought a motion seeking

summary judgement on a status review application dated February 2, 2010 regarding three children: S. born […], 2002, A1. born […], 2004, and A2. born […], 2005.

In that application, the society has sought crown wardship without access. [ 2 ] In her Answer dated March 10, 2010, the mother sought the following relief: • Termination of the proceeding • Placement of the children in her care pursuant to society supervision for twelve months • Access to the children • Costs [ 3 ] In his Answer dated June 9, 2010, the father sought the following relief: • Placement of the children in his care pursuant to society supervision • Access to the children if they are placed in the mother’s care or in the care of the society • Costs [ 4 ] The motion seeking

summary judgement of the application for crown wardship without access was first returnable on July 20, 2010. When the motion was finally heard February 8, 2011, the mother was present and represented by counsel who made submissions to the court. At that time, the mother conceded that there was an ongoing need of protection. [ 5 ] While counsel for the father made submissions regarding the motion, the father was not present. Counsel told the court that the last information he had was that the father was incarcerated in Toronto.

It seemed clear that he had not had any recent contact with the father to obtain instructions. Counsel acknowledged that, given the father’s situation, he is unable to put forward a viable plan. However, he reiterated the father’s interest in resuming access and made submissions to support placement with the mother with access to the father. The mother took the position that the father should not have access. BACKGROUND : Orders Regarding T. 2001-2004 [ 6 ] Shortly after her seventeenth birthday, the mother had a first child named T. born […] 2000 with a different partner.

According to the Statement of Agreed Facts executed by the mother February 14, 2006, the society became involved in May 2001 as a result of concerns that she was missing appointments with the Public Health nurse. Investigation revealed concerns about the mother’s failure to follow through with medical appointments for the child, instability, inappropriate caregivers, poor home conditions, domestic violence, and allegations of drug use.

When the mother was arrested and detained on criminal charges November 2001, the child was apprehended and ultimately placed with a family member December 2001 pursuant to interim terms of supervision until a final order of supervision continuing that placement on January 8, 2001. A further order of supervision continuing the placement was made July 30, 2002. [ 7 ] The mother’s whereabouts was not known between August and December 2002 and she did not follow through with the expectations of the supervision orders.

Then, despite having had a child apprehended from her care, the mother became pregnant and gave birth […], 2002 to S., one of the children before this court. In December 2002, the mother obtained a stable address until May 2003. [ 8 ] During this time the mother participated in individual counselling and a parenting program but failed to make herself available to meet with her Healthy Babies Healthy Children (HBHC) worker on a regular basis.

The father made himself available to the society “from time to time” but was incarcerated for part of the time period. [ 9 ] On December 1, 2003 a further supervision order was granted regarding T. continuing the placement with the relative. During the time of this order, the mother, who had S. in her care, only exercised access to T. three times, did not make herself available to the society and moved a couple of times.

Meanwhile, once again the mother became pregnant and on […], 2004, the mother and the father had A1.. [ 10 ] Finally, after almost three and a half years out of the mother’s care, the family members looking after T. were finally granted custody March 29, 2004. Toronto CAS Open File regarding S. and A1. [ 11 ] On May 12, 2004, the society made a referral to the Toronto Society due to information received from the police. Police had been called to an incident in Kitchener where the father had been drinking and taking ecstasy and allegedly tried to take S. and A1..

That dispute resulted in the mother leaving with the two children and three of the father’s friends. There was a concern that the mother did not leave voluntarily. According to the affidavit sworn October 6, 2006 by family support worker EM, there was also a concern that the whereabouts of both parents were unknown. [ 12 ] During this time, the Toronto society was concerned about drug and alcohol use, financial instability, and neglect and

parenting ability and attempted to put some supports in place. The supports included a High Risk Infants Nurse to follow A.’s medical needs and a Parent and Tots drop in support group. [ 13 ] In September 2004, despite having been working with the society in Toronto, the parents left without telling them where they were moving. Upon hearing that they may have moved to Waterloo Region, the society in Toronto made a referral October 6, 2004 to that society indicating concerns about domestic violence, longstanding transiency, neglect and lack of parenting ability.

Waterloo Region Open File regarding S., A1. and A2. [ 14 ] It was not until October 15, 2004 that the Toronto society reported that there had been a referral April 28, 2004 from the mother that the paternal grandparents had taken S. to their home without her consent. She was concerned because the paternal grandparents had recently been arrested and charged for growing marijuana. The police had attended the grandparents’ home and found no protection concerns; and with the mother’s approval left S. there for a visit.

There was also a concern shared about the mother’s history of assaults, incarceration and substance abuse. [ 15 ] In December 2004, both A1. and S. came into care of the society due to concerns about drug and alcohol use, financial instability, neglect and domestic violence between the parents. On […], 2005 the parents’ third child A2. was born and immediately apprehended at the hospital. All three children were returned to the mother May 5, 2005 under interim terms of supervision.

Interim Supervision Order May 5, 2005 to Final Order February 14, 2006 (A2. only) [ 16 ] In July 2005, the father was charged with attempted abduction. Contrary to his court order, he attended the mother’s home and took the mother, A2. and A1. to Mississauga where he left them on the side of the road.

His expected release date was February 4, 2006. [ 17 ] Between May 2005 and January 2006, the society assisted the mother who was able to follow through in obtaining daycare for S. and subsidized housing September 2005 although she did not comply with the expectations of counselling and was not meeting as expected with HBHC or the worker. [ 18 ] Within two months of obtaining the subsidized housing, the mother was given a notice of eviction for November 30, 2005 due to garbage outside the unit, general disarray of the unit and concerns about drugs being sold in the unit.

The issues were resolved as she was allowed to remain there for the time being. [ 19 ] It was acknowledged in that agreed Statement of Facts signed February 14, 2006 that since May 2005 the mother allowed a non-approved male to watch the children contrary to the court order, demonstrated a pattern of a lack of follow-up with the medical needs of the children and frequently cancelled or missed appointments with her HBHC worker. [ 20 ] On February 14, 2006, the statutory findings and finding in need of protection for A2. were made as well as an order for nine months society supervision placing A2. with the mother.

Final Order February 14, 2006 to Final Order November 28, 2006 (S., A1., A2.) [ 21 ] Upon the return of the status review application reviewing the order of February 14, 2006 in November 28, 2006, seeking six months society supervision with the children placed with the mother, neither parent filed answer despite having been given an extension to do so. The endorsement of November 28, 2006 noted that neither parent appeared. The court was informed that the parents supported the application and an order was made based on the information filed with the application.

That was an affidavit sworn October 6, 2006 by family service worker EM who had received the file November 2005. As neither parent filed any responding material, the order extending supervision was based on this affidavit. [ 22 ] In follow up to the information in the Statement of Agreed Facts filed February 14, 2006, that worker noted that the mother was discharged in May 2006 from the HBHC program for her non-compliance.

She noted concern expressed by the Region’s in home childcare worker that the mother was not responding to her phone calls and messages and had not set up dates regarding immunization of the children. That affidavit also noted that the father’s residence in Montreal was confirmed by his probation officer. On May 9, 2006, there was a call from S.’s daycare indicating that he had only attended one day in April and had not returned in May.

The staff explained that if he did not return, S. would lose his spot. [ 23 ] On May 15, 2006, staff again called the family service worker to note that, despite the mother’s agreement to bring him, S. did not arrive at daycare that day and that this has been reported to the subsidy office. [ 24 ] In June 2006, there were referrals from Waterloo Housing regarding safety concerns in the mother’s unit and suspicions that the father was now residing with the mother. The mother cooperated in allowing the replacement of the screens.

The father’s probation officer in Montreal indicated that their last contact had been March 30, 2006 and could not say where the father was between appointments. [ 25 ] The affidavit set out that the society advocated on behalf of the mother to receive day care spots for A1. and S. and received confirmation that the spots would be available July 3, 2006. Further it is noted that between May and September 2006, the mother began to work cooperatively with the society, being available for home visits, following through with the children’s immunization, and signing consents to release information.

It is noted that the mother maintained contact with the society and advised in

advance changes in her contact information and her children’s daycare schedule. [ 26 ] On June 19, 2006, the mother told the worker that she had started the in home day care program. Further between July 4, 2006 and September 27, 2006 A1. and S. attended daycare consistently and the day care had no concerns about the children. [ 27 ] On August 1, 2006, the society received a referral from Peel CAS indicating that on Sunday, July 30, 2006, the father had abducted S. from a barber shop in Mississauga and the mother called the police.

There was an Amber alert and the child was located at a motel, sleeping in a room full of smoke with eight males drinking alcohol. The child was returned to the mother and the father was arrested for breach of probation. Concerns were reported about the child’s wellbeing in the care of the mother. [ 28 ] On August 3, 2006, the police told the worker that after an investigation, they concluded that there was no abduction and that the mother had “probably willingly” allowed access between the father and the child.

The detective indicated that the mother would be charged with mischief and filing a false abduction report. On that same day, the mother said that she did not willingly pass S. to the father but would not say more in explanation that day or in follow up August 11, 2006 about how the father came to have the child.

The child did not indicate being fearful of the father or being taken against his will. [ 29 ] It was alleged in the police report that while the mother initially said that the child was taken by the father from the boyfriend’s care while the child was having a haircut, she ultimately acknowledged as the father had said that she and her sister had attended the plaza with the three children and had spoken to the father. The father said that she kissed and hugged S. and turned him over to her so they could spend the day together.

Despite her alleged complaint, no charge was laid against the mother. [ 30 ] On August 3, 2006, S. did however report being hit on the hand by the mother’s boyfriend when he was a bad boy and that it hurt him. The mother stated that she was aware of the slapping of the hand and would not allow it to happen further. On August 11, 2006, the mother and her boyfriend were strongly cautioned by the worker to refrain from physical discipline.

On August 18, 2006, the worker advocated for a housing change for the mother and the children due to concerns that the father knew the address. [ 31 ] While the father called March 30, 2006 asking about access, between that call and August 28, there was no further contact. Two further calls were received in August and September. [ 32 ] In closing, the worker identified concerns including the mother’s late cooperation with the society and the need for a period of time to assess the mother’s consistency in meeting her children’s emotional, medical and basic needs.

Further, there were concerns about the mother allowing unauthorized and unsupervised access between the father and the children, putting the children at risk, and the mother allowing her boyfriend to physically discipline the children. Final Order November 28, 2006 to Final Order July 30, 2007 [ 33 ] A status review of the order of November 28, 2006 was first returnable May 22, 2007. Both the mother and the father were present and given an extension of time to June 22, 2007 to file Answers. The matter was adjourned to a settlement conference July 30, 2007.

The endorsement for July 30, 2007 noted that neither parent appeared. Further, neither had filed any responding material. [ 34 ] Given the lack of attendance and filing of Answers, that court noted the parents in default and based on the affidavit sworn April 3, 2007 of family service worker EM and the Agreed Statement of Facts executed only by the society made an order of society supervision for six months placing the children in the mother’s care.

The evidence supporting the order included the information that between October 2006 and March 2007, the children had been attending daycare regularly, there were no signs of neglect, the home was clean and well-maintained and the mother had maintained contact with the worker regarding any changes or issues and made herself available regarding scheduled or unscheduled visits. The worker also noted that during this period the mother was able to identify the areas where she could benefit from support. [ 35 ] In […] 2007, the mother gave birth to her fifth child, A3., whose father was boyfriend AA.

The society worked with the mother regarding this child on a voluntary basis while the supervision order regarding S., A1., and A2. continued. [ 36 ] The worker attended and did not observe any concerns about the new child’s care. On March 14, 2007, the worker and a protection support worker attended to start the in-home parenting program.

The worker was advised March 14, 2007 that an HBHC worker would be attending March 26, 2007 to commence working with the mother. [ 37 ] Between October 2006 and March 2007, the father had monthly three hour visits where he always brought groceries and presents, and interacted affectionately although sometimes he was late and brought individuals with him, and the visits were chaotic at times. [ 38 ] In the conclusion of the affidavit, the worker mentions a concerning incident regarding unauthorized access between the father and S. and inappropriate discipline of the children, perhaps referring to the incident and disclosure in August 2006.

It is also noted that one reason for the extension was to allow the mother to obtain an order of full custody of the children with an access order provision for the father. Final Order July 30, 2007 to Final Order February 19, 2008 [ 39 ] The society brought a motion returnable January 15, 2008 to seek an interim order with extra terms to address an incident reported December 13, 2007.

On that date, despite the strong cautions given August 2006 about not using physical discipline and the mother’s undertaking, daycare staff discovered bruises on A1. and A2. which were caused by admitted physical discipline inflicted by the boyfriend who was living with the mother. AA took responsibility and was remorseful.

[ 40 ] The motion was adjourned to January 29, 2008, the return date of the status review application. On that date, no parents were present although the mother had been present and had left. An interim without prejudice order was made adding the terms to prohibit intimidation and violence by AA toward the children and have him attend the Caring Dads or a similar program. Further the mother was prohibited against allowing anyone including AA from living in the home without prior written approval of the society.

The mother was also not to permit AA any contact with the children except as authorized by the society. [ 41 ] Despite the absence of the parents and boyfriend AA who was given notice, the court extended time to file and adjourned the matter to February 19, 2008. On February 19, 2008, no answers had been filed and once again neither parent appeared. That court noted the parents in default and made the order that the three children were to be placed with their mother for nine months.

The information before the court included the affidavit of the family support worker EM sworn December 19, 2007. [ 42 ] In that affidavit, there is evidence of continuing cooperation by the mother with the society although the mother was discharged from the HBHC program in July 2007 due to her failure to follow through on her commitment to the program. There was no reported information or disclosures regarding unauthorized access by the father. [ 43 ] On November 8, 2007, the worker was contacted by the mother regarding a request by the paternal grandmother to take the children shopping.

After discussion with the worker and family members, the mother did not allow that access to happen and noted in the affidavit that “by her decision (the mother) demonstrated that she is able to protect the children from risk of harm”. [ 44 ] On December 12, 2007, the mother notified the worker that the father was incarcerated.

She also noted that the children had been away from daycare since they were sick but would be attending the next day. [ 45 ] That next day, December 13, 2007, the society received a referral from the staff at the daycare that A1. and A2. had bruises on their arms and were saying that they were hurt by the mother’s boyfriend AA. The society attended and confirmed the bruising which to the worker looked to have occurred some days ago. The children said that they had been smacked because they had “stole” a box of crackers without asking.

The children were consistent when jointly interviewed by the society and the police. [ 46 ] The mother told the society and the police that she was not aware of the bruising on her children and cried when she saw the bruising and said that it was bad. She told them that she was not at home at the time of the incident and did not approve of that sort of discipline. [ 47 ] The worker was present when AA was interviewed by the police. He admitted physically disciplining the children after they had been pushing each other on the stairs and he was afraid that they would get hurt. He said that he felt bad afterward.

He told the police that while the mother was not home at the time, he did show her the bruising when she returned and she had told him that he went overboard.

He also said that they treated the injuries for several days. [ 48 ] Despite the bruising to the children and the fact that the children were kept home from daycare all week for allegedly being sick, the mother refused to acknowledge that she had known about the bruises. [ 49 ] As a result of this new protection concern, the final order dated February 19, 2008 continuing society supervision for nine months with the children placed with the mother contained additional terms requiring the boyfriend AA to attend parenting counselling, the Caring Dads Program or a similar program and to refrain from any form of physical violence or intimidation towards the children or in the presence of children.

Further, the mother was not to allow anyone including AA to reside within the home without prior written permission of the society and was not to permit AA contact with the children unless previously arranged and agreed to by the society. Final Order dated February 19, 2008 to Final Order August 4, 2009 [ 50 ] In the Status Review first returnable November 18, 2008, once again the society sought a further extension of supervision. The mother was not present as she was in hospital having her sixth child, her second with boyfriend AA.

Although that court extended time to file answers to December 5, 2008, none were filed and a further extension was given on December 9 to December 31, 2008. While the father was present, the mother did not attend. On the return date January 6, 2009, the father did not appear and had not filed so he was noted in default. Despite the two extensions, that court gave the mother a third extension to file. On the return date January 6, 2009, the mother was given a fourth extension to February 17, 2009.

By Answer dated February 3, 2009 and finally filed February 4, 2009, the mother sought termination of the supervision once she obtained a custody order under the Children’s Law Reform Act.

In the Statement of Agreed Facts ultimately signed August 4, 2009, there are a number of facts acknowledged. [ 51 ] Filed with the court as well was correspondence dated March 5, 2008 from social services indicating that the mother’s financial assistance through Ontario Works had been put on hold on that date as the mother had failed to attend for a scheduled interview to update her file. [ 52 ] On March 24, 2008, the day care reported that A2. had a bruise on his head and the mother was cautioned about supervision.

The mother reported struggling with A.’s behaviour and said that he was causing injuries to A2.. [ 53 ] On May 13, 2008, the society received a report of an arrest at the residence of the mother and neighbours complaining about drug use at the mother’s home, lack of supervision, injuries to a child and people in and out of the home. The police concluded that the mother was not directly involved in the domestic violence that had occurred in her home.

However, the mother was cautioned about controlling the people attending the home. [ 54 ] On June 3, 2008, the mother lost her drives for the children to day care due to their inconsistent attendance and her failure to inform the drivers. The drivers were reinstated June 11, 2008 and the children began attending consistently. On June 11, 2008, the police arrived at the house to arrest two people that the mother had allowed to sleep over. Again she was cautioned.

[ 55 ] On June 13, 2008, social assistance advised the society that the mother had failed to bring the required documentation, was not receiving her assistance and was likely to be evicted. The mother was evicted and moved into a friend’s home. [ 56 ] On July 25, 2008, the mother was discharged from the In Home Parenting program due to lack of follow through and not meeting with the worker. On August 13, 2008, again the mother moved, this time because the children witnessed some domestic violence in the friend’s house where they were staying. The mother moved them to another friend’s house.

Ultimately the mother obtained a clean one bedroom apartment but concerns and investigations continued: children’s injuries, the mother’s association with inappropriate friends and the inability of the mother to provide consistent, clear and honest information. [ 57 ] During this time, on September 26, 2008, the worker contacted the father to caution him about contacting the mother to try to get access. While he had been released from jail February 5, 2008, he had not contacted the society since March 2008.

On October 9, 2008, the daycare advised the society that A2. had been assessed by Kidsability and that there were concerns about his development. [ 58 ] On October 16, 2008, the mother was found to be driving with her children in the car while her licence was suspended. On November 17, 2008, the mother went into labour with her sixth child and left the children with her boyfriend. As the boyfriend AA had completed both the Play and Learn and the Caring Dads programs, the society was content. [ 59 ] On November 19, 2008, the mother was seen picking up her children at the daycare with a friend.

The children had no booster seats and the children buckled themselves in. [ 60 ] On December 3, 2008 the mother told the society that the father had been contacting her and she was helped with a safety plan and the father was cautioned. On […], 2008, A.A2. was born, the mother’s sixth child. [ 61 ] On January 9, 2009, the society was advised that the father was in custody again and that prior to custody he was not working or in school, living a transient lifestyle and at high risk of reoffending.

The probation officer said that the father had substance abuse issues and there would be safety concerns if he were unsupervised with his children. [ 62 ] On January 22, 2009, the worker overheard A2. say to the mother not to hit him and she was cautioned about not using any physical discipline with the children. [ 63 ] On February 9, 2009, the society learned that the police had been called to the home of CT who was babysitting the children on February 6, 2009 where five people were intoxicated and one male passed out who needed medical attention and had to be taken to the hospital.

The babysitter CT was extremely intoxicated. The police noted that three children had been present throughout this incident and that as the mother could not be reached, the children were placed with a family member. The police report indicated that S. lived with CT although that was not confirmed. [ 64 ] February 11, 2009, S. said that he liked to go to CT’s home and spent a lot of time there. He also said that he liked spending time at “daddy’s” home but had not been there for a long time. He said that he spent a lot of time at “nanny’s” home.

The same day, there was another referral about drug use and trafficking in the mother’s house and concerns about the mother yelling at the children and driving the children unbuckled in the car. The mother denied the drug use. [ 65 ] On February 20, 2009, the police called the society about further domestic violence between CT and her partner CN and said that S. had been there but was taken away prior to the police arrival. The mother was informed that CT and CN were no longer approved as caregivers for her children.

On March 6, 2009, the mother advised the society that she and the children were moving to Toronto in two weeks but on March 10, 2009, the maternal grandmother said that she had not heard that they were moving. [ 66 ] On March 12, 2009, the Toronto society called the local agency to say that they were working with the paternal grandmother HBN who had severe mental health issues and that she had been caring for her son’s children. The worker said that the children should not be unsupervised there and they had been.

She said that the paternal grandmother had been hospitalized three times in the last three months for psychiatric breakdowns and having brief psychotic episodes. HBN was reportedly talking to herself, religiously preoccupied, yelling excessively and throwing things off the balcony. HBN was said to have been threatening to kill people and was using marijuana. The police said that she had been charged for having a grow operation in 2004. The worker said that the grandmother had been in a care giving role as this was observed by a worker on March 3, 2009.

There were issues as well with the father who had recently been found with heroin, was in jail and had outstanding theft charges. [ 67 ] The society in Toronto told the worker that the father in this matter lived with his mother HBN and that on the day the worker attended the home to take the grandmother to an appointment, HBN was trying to get hold of the father to come home and look after the children. The father’s address was known to be that of his mother’s.

The father had been incarcerated from February 8, 2009 to February 26, 2009. [ 68 ] On March 12, 2009, the worker called the daycare and learned that A1. and A2. had not been in day care for two weeks. They said that the mother called the first week and said that they had diarrhoea. On that same day, the boyfriend AA called the daycare and said that the boys would be in attendance the next day. When the school was called, the worker learned that S. had not been at the school for twelve days but that the school had not been successful at locating the mother.

On this same date, the worker tried to call the mother numerous times but there was a message saying that the contact numbers were out of order and the mailbox full. [ 69 ] On this day, March 12, 2009, the worker attended the house. When AA opened the door, the worker briefly saw A1. and S. in the home but when AA told the mother that it was the worker, the mother started screaming for the worker to get out of her house and for AA to close the door. Although the worker asked the mother to calm down and let her see the children, the mother refused and AA closed the door.

For a long time the worker was ignored as she knocked on the door. Then after five minutes, the mother opened the door and stormed out saying that she would not talk to her. The worker told her that she would have to call the police as she needed to see the children. The mother refused to talk to her and went back into the house. [ 70 ] The worker then called the police and while she was on the phone, AA holding an infant seat opened the door. AA, the

mother, S. and A1. then stormed down the stairs; although the worker tried to speak to them, they got in the car and left. When the worker informed the police, they said they would try to locate the car and would come to the scene. [ 71 ] When the police arrived on the scene, the mother returned. The worker observed three children leaving the car and AA holding the infant seat. The children seemed distraught and confused. The mother shouted at them to go inside. [ 72 ] The mother at first wanted to talk outside.

She told the worker that she was mad that the worker had come to her home and that she had moved to Toronto and did not live there anymore. The worker entered the home with the assistance of the police and observed only four children in the home: S., A1., A3. and A.A2.. When asked where A2. was, the mother said that he was with a friend R in Toronto.

At the request of the police, the mother tried to locate A2. on the telephone to allow the worker to speak to them but was unsuccessful. [ 73 ] When asked about school and daycare, the mother said it was her right not to send her children to daycare and that S. was in school in Toronto. When asked what school, the mother replied that he had not started yet. The mother was unable to provide an explanation about why the children were not in daycare or school. [ 74 ] The worker observed that nothing had changed in the apartment to indicate that the mother had moved.

The children’s toys, clothes, laundry, shoes family pictures and more remained in the home. There were no signs of packing. When asked about this, the mother said that these were her mother’s things from storage which she was not able to further explain. [ 75 ] When the worker raised the concern that she had sent her children to the father’s home and allowed HBN who was not an approved caregiver to care for the children, the mother denied that she had sent the children to HBN’s home and denied that was the father’s residence.

The mother said that she took the children to her friend R’s home and maybe she took them to HBN’s home. The mother was very argumentative and could provide no explanation about why the children were sent to Toronto for a period of time when she was their primary caregiver. [ 76 ] The worker told the mother that all three children had to be in Kitchener tonight and at school and daycare in the morning. The worker reviewed the terms of the supervision order and cautioned the mother. The police also cautioned the mother not to drive without a licence.

The police told the worker that the mother has been caught many times driving without a valid licence. The caution was repeated to AA who said that he would go and get A2. from Toronto. [ 77 ] The next day, March 13, 2009, the worker confirmed that all the children were in daycare and school. When the worker spoke to S., he made a clear disclosure of missing school because he was with his father and staying in his father’s home with his uncles H and J. He could describe the sleeping arrangements and playing with the dog. He was able to recall going to Chinatown with his father to get candy.

He said that his mother drove him along with A1. and A2. to Toronto and to his father’s and that the mother and friend R picked them up. He told the worker that they fight with words not like in “nanny’s” house where people fight with fists. [ 78 ] During the interview, S. began to cry and could not stop. When asked why, he made clear disclosure of the mother telling him that the children would be taken away if he said that he say his father. He said that the mother told him not to tell the night before after the police had left. He also said that the mother and AA yelled at him and were very rude to him.

He told the worker he wanted to be with his father. The worker said that it was clear from continued conversation that the mother had scared him by saying that if he told the truth he would never see her or his father again and would be taken away forever. The worker had significant concern about S.’s wellbeing as he was distraught and frightened and needed a long time to calm down. [ 79 ] On that same day, the worker attended the daycare. The worker observed A2. to run away from her when he saw her outside the daycare.

When the worker interviewed A1., the first thing he said was that he would go to the CAS and not see his mother or father ever again. The child told the worker that his mother, the worker and the police got into a big fight because she let them see their father. He too was able to articulate the sleeping arrangements and details of all the things that they did with their father. He also said that his mother drove the children there and that the mother and friend R picked them up. A1. said that the mother had spoken to the father. He also kept saying that he did not see his father, only in the worker’s office.

When the worker reviewed the difference between the truth and a lie, A1. told the worker that: mommy said that if the cops see us going to Daddy, I will go to Children’s Aid and Mommy would go to jail with AJ and daddy...Children’s Aid has mean people I don’t want to go to Children’s Aid so I can’t tell you I saw my daddy. Mommy tried to trick you that I don’t go to daddy’s [ 80 ] The worker said that it was clear that A1. was extremely intimidated not to tell anyone he was with his father.

A1. was confused and upset. [ 81 ] While neither were able to provide clear time lines about their time with their father, S. did tell the worker that he had clothes at his father’s and that is why he did not take a bag. [ 82 ] Having verified that the mother had arranged for the children to see the father contrary to a court order thereby putting her children at risk of harm, the worker apprehended the three children. [ 83 ] When the worker at the Toronto society interviewed the paternal grandmother HBN, the grandmother was “not forthcoming” but acknowledged that the children had been there for part of the time but denied the longer visits.

She said that it was the mother who had dropped them off and left. She said that A2. had stayed longer and that the mother had called to say that she would pick him up because the society said that he couldn’t be there and that the mother had no knowledge of this. She said that she had not seen the children since July 2008 as she had moved and the mother did not have her address. [ 84 ] Uncle H who is ten years of age initially denied seeing his nephews but the Toronto worker thought that he had been coached. He then however disclosed that they had been there the weekend and the week previously.

[ 85 ] The return of the apprehension was March 17, 2009 but the matter was adjourned to April 7, 2009 to allow the parties to retain counsel. Despite being served with the amended SRA seeking society wardship, both parents required an extension of time to file Answers. The father was noted in default June 16, 2009. On August 4, 2009, the mother executed an agreed Statement of Facts supporting an order of six months society wardship for the three children with access by the parents.

CURRENT INFORMATION : Final Order August 4, 2009 to MSJ date [ 86 ] The status review application before the court seeking crown wardship was served on the mother but on the return date she had not filed any answer nor appeared and was noted in default. As the father had not been served, the matter was adjourned to February 23, 2010.

The matter was further adjourned to March 16, 2010 to hear a motion by the mother’s previous counsel to set aside the order noting the mother in default and extending time to file. [ 87 ] Despite the children having been in care for almost one year, the mother acknowledged in her affidavit filed in support of the motion that she did not read the documents carefully, did not consider getting counsel and did not recognize the urgency of the situation.

However, the worker EM stated in her affidavit that she had spoken to the mother several times in November 2009 and December 2009 explaining crown wardship and making it clear that this was her final chance to file a plan of care. The worker also said that she had encouraged her to get legal aid and explained the urgency. The worker also pointed out that it had been the mother’s routine not to engage in the court process, generally not attending court hearings. [ 88 ] Time was extended to May 6, 2010 to file Answer.

On June 15, 2010, the father was also allowed to file Answer and participate. [ 89 ] In her affidavit sworn December 24, 2009 to support the application for crown wardship, the worker EM reviewed the issues the society has had since the children were taken into care. In her subsequent affidavit sworn March 15, 2010 to contest the motion to set aside the noting of the mother in default, EM provided further updates. The Mother : Access [ 90 ] Access for the mother was initially set up for twice a week for two hours each visit at the Kitchener Family Visiting Centre but attendance became an issue.

In the month following the society wardship order, the mother attended five of the eight visits scheduled. In September, she attended five out of nine, October three of nine and November four out of eight scheduled visits. [ 91 ] In December 2009, the number of visits was reduced to once each week. Despite the reduction, the mother had attended one out of the two scheduled visits in December as of the date of the affidavit. [ 92 ] In December the mother ended up attending three out of five visits but in January she was at all four although late for one.

In February, the mother attended three out of four but was also late for one. Observations of her access continue to confirm the ongoing concerns of the mother’s angry reactions to the children. She had been observed not interacting with the children and not responding to their needs. [ 93 ] In her affidavit sworn June 28, 2010, the worker EM noted that while the mother attended four out of four visits in March 2010, in April the mother failed to show up for a visit without cancelling ahead of time and the boys had to be returned to the foster home.

Further the mother was thirty minutes late for one of the other visits. In May 2010, the mother cancelled one of the four visits, calling the day of the visit to say that her daughter had chicken pox. In June 2010, the mother attended three of the four scheduled visits.

On June 17, 2010, boyfriend AA called the visiting centre to say that the mother would not be attending due to court. [ 94 ] Except for one occasion, it was the mother’s boyfriend who called the society, not the mother, to provide the excuse for not coming: family emergencies, a funeral, children sick, car trouble, welfare appointments, court hearing and counselling.

On three occasions the mother did not attend or call and the children had to be returned to the foster home. [ 95 ] In her affidavit of September 30, 2010, the worker EM noted that in July 2010 the mother attended four out of five scheduled visits and was thirty minutes late to arrive for two of the four visits. In August 2010, the mother attended three of the four visits but once again was late for two.

Then in September she attended three of the four visits scheduled and again was late to arrive at two of the four. [ 96 ] The worker also noted that on July 22, 2010, the supervisor of the daycare expressed concerns about A2. presenting with very angry and very sad behaviours on days of his access visits. She was told that he hid in the classroom under the table saying that his mother did not come to visits.

The supervisor told the worker that A2. knew his visiting days and was anxious about his mother being there. [ 97 ] In her affidavit sworn December 17, 2010, the worker noted that the mother attended four out of four October visits but was late for one and attended four out of four November visits but was late for two. As of the date of the affidavit, the mother had attended two of the two December 2010 access visits.

Access Concerns [ 98 ] There were also concerns about the mother’s parenting during the access including her inability to direct and interact with the children. The mother was reported to be stern with the children and was observed yelling at them. The staff had to constantly intervene to redirect the children and address their behaviours as the mother was not responding to the children or their behaviours. Staff would have to intervene when the children were crying as the mother did not respond or comfort them.

Often the mother would not intervene or help parent the children, sometimes taking cell phone calls or sitting on the couch not responding to her children. When she did respond, it was to yell and shout at them.

The mother was seldom observed talking to S. or reading a story to the children. [ 99 ] When confronted about the issues in access, the mother said that A1. did not know how to behave and she “had things going on”. [ 100 ] In her affidavit sworn September 30, 2010, EM noted that her review of the access notes still revealed that the mother continued to be stern in access, yelling and getting easily angry and frustrated. She again noted that staff had to intervene to redirect the children and address the children’s misbehaviour as the mother did not respond to the children or their behaviours.

She also noted that the mother frequently greeted and departed from the children with verbal greetings only and that there is very little sign of attachment or affection shown by the mother toward the children. [ 101 ] In her affidavit sworn September 30, 2010, the supervised access worker SM provided information regarding her observation of two access visits, August 5, 2010 and September 2, 2010. [ 102 ] On August 5, 2010, she observed A.A2. running around with a round candy in her mouth while AA followed her without re-directing her. SM said that she asked A.A2. to take out the candy while playing.

She also observed that both A.A2. and A3. had a rash on their bodies that was red and had blood at the surface. The supervisor observed the three boys all playing independently while the mother and AA watched. She noted that the mother and AA cleaned up on that date and the mother gave the boys a kiss goodbye. [ 103 ] On September 2, 2010, AA called the access centre to state that they were running ten minutes late. Although the visit was to start at 3:30 pm, the mother and AA did not arrive until 3:48 pm. The mother and AA did not greet the children.

The mother spent most of the visit talking in a raised voice and stated to A1. “you had better not be like this today” when she became frustrated when he tried to take the “timbits” from her when she arrived. The boys played independently as well as with each other during the visit. The supervisor observed the mother sitting in a chair in the corner and AA on a cell phone for the majority of the visit. The mother said goodbye verbally to all three children. [ 104 ] Another supervised access worker RB also provided evidence to the court by way of an affidavit sworn December 16, 2010.

She indicated that she had supervised eleven group access visits between the mother and the children starting September 23, 2010 with the last one being December 9, 2010. Each visit had been scheduled for 3:30pm to 5:30 pm. The mother was late for five of the eleven visits, three times calling ahead to say that she would be late. RB noted that typically boyfriend AA, A.A2. and A3. attended. [ 105 ] In all of the visits, all greetings were verbal only. On occasion, the siblings greeted each other with a hug. On September 23, 2010, the mother told the boys in a firm tone when they arrived to sit down.

While the mother provided meals for the majority of the visits, she needed support with follow through regarding the children’s behaviour. RB noted a number of concerns from those visits: • The children did not follow the mother’s direction and the worker had to intervene in more than one visit. The mother had difficulty keeping the children in the visiting area. • On her own, the mother sometimes lacked suggestions for what to do with the boys. At some visits, the mother sat back and watched the children play, not joining in. On one occasion, a rather violent movie was shown.

On another, the mother put on a children’s movie but no one ended up watching it but the mother on her own. • The mother provided candies and allowed the children to walk around with them in their mouths, requiring the worker concerned about their safety to tell the children to sit down until they had finished eating the candies. • The mother yelled at one of the boys for throwing out his dinner before finishing it and became angry when one of the boys hit her as she did not see it as an accident. • The mother appeared to expect that the boys should look after their younger sisters as opposed to either herself or AA. • The mother continued to yell and give orders although this behaviour was observed reduced at some visits.

Both AA and the mother yelled at the girls for going up on the stage area of the gym. The mother yelled at A1. for whining about elastic bands that S. had taken from him. The mother often yelled at the children for doing something wrong but did not offer positive praise when they were doing something well.

She ended up in a yelling match with A1. as he had not responded to a request to pick up crayons. • On occasion, the mother and AA tried to introduce structure into the visits but sometimes the visits were spent trying to keep the children in the room. • The mother appeared unable to respond to the children’s non-verbal and verbal cues.

On one occasion, she seemed unaware that one of the girls was crying until it was drawn to her attention. [ 106 ] The worker RB in conclusion noted that the mother continued to struggle with managing the behaviour of the boys, often requiring support from the staff or AA, and in some cases using the boys to assist with the younger girls. She noted that the mother seemed to have limited knowledge of child development. She was not observed to involve her children to set up games or assist in routine or structure. She typically would just tell them to do something or allow them to do whatever they wanted.

She noted that over the visits she had not observed the mother to display empathy towards the children with the exception of one incident where A3. fell running.

[ 107 ] In conclusion, RB noted: ...the activities with the boys have been inconsistent and minimal. Discipline continues to be a struggle or a non-investment for (the mother). Frequently all three boys are left to play throughout the visiting centre unattended by (the mother) or (AA). (The mother) appears to be able to provide an adequate level of supervision to ensure that they remain within sight. [ 108 ] In her affidavit sworn December 17, 2010, the worker EM confirmed that the concerns observed during earlier visits continued.

The worker noted that on November 29, 2010, a supervised access worker CD advised her that access visits were becoming more and more difficult. She was advised that the mother appeared to be more frustrated and struggled more with providing attention to each child specific to their age and development. She also noted that the boys appeared quite restless as well. Cooperation [ 109 ] The worker noted that the mother was difficult to engage as she was often not home for scheduled and unscheduled visits and made no effort to initiate contact with the worker herself.

Despite being encouraged to contact the child service worker to learn more about the children, their care and progress at school, the mother never made that contact and has never shown any interest in following through. Indeed the mother had not even asked EM for updates about the boys. In July 2010, the summer student was unable to contact the mother despite many attempts. [ 110 ] On July 29, 2010, the mother was not home when EM attended for a scheduled visit so she left a letter of expectations.

In August 2010, having unsuccessfully trying to contact the mother by phone, EM attended the daughter’s daycare in order to get in touch with the mother. Then the mother was again not home for scheduled visits August 20 and 25, 2010. [ 111 ] Further, a summer student MC attended the home September 2, 2010 and the mother refused to meet with him.

Instead she told him to come back at 3:30 pm but when he did, a friend of the mother told him that the mother was at the visit with the boys and not at home. [ 112 ] While the mother was home for scheduled visits September 15, 2010 and September 22, 2010, she called September 29, 2010 to reschedule the appointment scheduled for that day. [ 113 ] The worker noted that while the mother presents well and generally communicates with her respectfully, she has discovered that on many occasions the mother was relating false information to her. [ 114 ] In her affidavit dated, December 17, 2010, EM stated that it has continued to be difficult to engage the mother as she has not made herself available to meet the worker.

When the mother called on September 29, 2010 to cancel the appointment scheduled for that day, it was rescheduled for October 5, 2010 and took place as scheduled. However, from October 5 to October 21, 2010, the worker was unable to contact the mother as her phone was unavailable. On October 21, 2010, the worker contacted the mother at the access centre and was able to

schedule a home visit. The worker noted that any contact between herself and the mother is initiated by the worker. [ 115 ] The worker has stated in her affidavit that throughout this time she has continued to encourage the mother on multiple occasions to contact the child service worker to obtain information about the children, their medical and dental care, their progress at school, their adjustment in the foster home, or any question or concern that she may have. However, the mother has not.

Further, despite suggesting many times that the mother start a communication book with the foster parents to communicate information about the children and despite her agreement on October 25, 2010 to do so, the mother has still not started a communication book. [ 116 ] On November 24, 2010, the worker noted that she visited the mother and the daughters at the home. Also in the home was the mother’s friend V with her new born child. The worker asked them both if V was living there and they both denied it although V stated that she spent a lot of time in the home.

When AA arrived, he proceeded upstairs without speaking to the worker. [ 117 ] During this visit, both children were watching TV and the mother said that A3. was getting addicted to "Treehouse" and that the girls watch a lot of TV. When the girls were getting busy and playful, the mother sent them upstairs to their father AA to watch TV with him. [ 118 ] The worker noted that she had concerns about the fact that A3. always had a soother in her mouth and that she had concerns about her speech. [ 119 ] The mother has continued to struggle with the care of the girls.

Although there have been some improvement with bedtime, routines, follow through and behaviour management, these issues continue to be a challenge. Currently there is no set meal time or structured play time. The mother is pregnant and due in April 2011. The worker is concerned about the mother’s ability to manage her daughters’ behaviours and routine and cope with a new born. [ 120 ] The mother was referred to two additional parenting programs: Play and Learn and Make the Connection.

The mother had not provided the worker as of December 17, 2010 with any information about any steps taken to take these programs. [ 121 ] Despite the requirement to notify the society in advance of any move, the mother moved from one apartment to another in the same building and changed other residences without notifying the society. Further, despite the obligation to let the society know in advance, the mother frequently changed her phone number without advising the society and as a result there were times that the society was unable to contact the mother.

Counselling [ 122 ] Despite the three counselling terms in the order made August 4, 2009 and the encouragement of the worker, the mother had made only one call to inquire about counselling by December 2009. In April 2010, as the mother had told her that she was attending counselling, the worker spoke to LC the mother’s counsellor from Mosaic Counselling and discovered that the mother had only attended two out of five sessions.

Further the mother did not show or cancel her appointments. [ 123 ] LC told the worker that the mother was not sure of her goals but was attending counselling because the society told her to. Further that counsellor noted that the mother did not talk about her children much and was quite detached during her appointments, not showing emotion or emotional reaction.

Further the counsellor could not reach her as the numbers provided were not in service. [ 124 ] The worker EM confirmed from the business records of Mosaic counselling that the mother had made initial contact December 3, 2009 and attended three out of seven appointments up to May 10, 2010. Even by March 9, the mother remained unsure of her goals and was asked to write them down; however, she did not return to counselling until May 11, 2010. On that date, she said that she was upset over the death of her sister and was worried about losing her children.

She said that she wanted to work on anger and stress management. [ 125 ] On May 18, 2010, the mother told the counsellor that she felt angry and frustrated all the time and that things build up to the point that she yells and throws things. On June 15, 2010, the mother advised the worker that her counsellor had left the counselling agency and that she was meeting with her new counsellor June 17, 2010.

The worker discovered on June 21, 2010 that the mother had not been assigned a new counsellor and was on a wait list. [ 126 ] In her affidavit of September 30, 2010, the worker stated that the mother told her that she had not resumed counselling. [ 127 ] In her update in the affidavit of December 17, 2010, the worker noted that on November 24, 2010 the mother told her that she had resumed her personal counselling through K-W Counselling.

When the worker spoke to the intake department of K-W Counselling on December 13, 2010, she was advised that the mother was open to their service and had attended the walk-in clinic and been assigned a counsellor.

However, no counselling had taken place and her first counselling session was scheduled for December 15, 2010. [ 128 ] The worker was also advised that the mother had been registered in the program “Controlling the Volcano Within” in April 2010 but that there was no record of attendance for her. [ 129 ] In her last affidavit sworn January 21, 2011 filed in reply to the mother’s affidavit, the worker EM confirmed that the mother had attended a total of five counselling appointments at Mosaic counselling between the apprehension March 2009 and December 2010.

She also noted in follow up to the mother’s affidavit that she had spoken to the intake department at KW counselling and that the mother had been assigned a counsellor but that the first appointment was not until December 15, 2010. [ 130 ] On January 3, 2011, the worker spoke to LB, the counsellor assigned to work with the mother. She confirmed that the mother had attended her appointment on December 15, 2010 and they set goals for the counselling.

LB said that the mother told her that she was not sure why the society asked her to attend counselling although she reported a tendency to get angry, yell, and throw stuff. She said that everything agitated her around adults and that she had no patience and a short fuse but was not saying that she got angry around the children. The mother also admitted that she was unable to cry and had no emotions. LB told the worker that she was going to stress to the mother that she should attend at anger management.

LB said some of the goals set included working on her expressing her emotions and her anger, couples counselling for her and her boyfriend and to figure out how to talk with people. The mother told LB that she intended to see her doctor about medication and wondered if she was “bipolar”. The counsellor also told the worker that the mother had been texting during the session and had to be told to close the phone. LB also noted that the mother is not one to share her feelings. [ 131 ] LB said that the mother was hard to get in touch with regarding further appointments but finally she was able to leave a message.

An appointment was set up for January 10, 2011 but the mother did not attend as she was not feeling well so it was rescheduled for January 17, 2011. On that date, the mother again signed up for the “Controlling the Volcano” parenting program starting February 8, 2011. The next counselling appointment was scheduled for February 2, 2011. In Home Parenting Program [ 132 ] In May 2010, the worker referred the mother to the In Home Parenting Program offered by the society.

On June 3, 2010, EM attended a meeting with the mother and the in home worker SE to discuss goals and expectations. [ 133 ] In September, 2010, SE advised EM that she was going to have to end the program as the mother frequently cancelled their visits and attended only seven out of fourteen scheduled visits. On September 22, 2010, the mother told EM that she did not participate because the program was scheduled at weird hours. AA said that he would try to have a few more sessions as he did not engage previously. [ 134 ] SE told EM that the appointments were scheduled according to the mother’s

schedule from hours ranging between 11:00 am and 4:00pm. SE further noted that AA did not participate as he was either asleep, upstairs or not in the home. [ 135 ] In her affidavit sworn December 17, 2010, the worker noted that on September 24, 2010 she had asked SE not to discharge the mother from the program as a result of the cancellations as the mother and AA had said that they would like to re-engage. [ 136 ] On September 27, 2010, SE advised the worker EM that she was unable to locate the mother to

schedule a final visit. However, she was prepared to try and engage the mother and AA for a couple of more visits.

[ 137 ] In her affidavit sworn December 17, 2010, EM noted that on October 5, 2010 AA said that he wanted to be involved in the in home parenting program just when it was about to cease due to poor attendance. He then attended one appointment and missed the two after that time. [ 138 ] On October 28, 2010, the worker was advised by SE that the mother was discharged from the In Home program after attending ten out of twenty scheduled appointments.

The mother was referred to other parenting community and society programs. [ 139 ] SE told the worker that the mother struggled with routine and structure for her daughters. She said that the mother reported struggling with behaviour management and limit setting in the home.

The mother has told EM that A3. does not have a bedtime and sometimes watches TV until midnight before falling asleep. [ 140 ] SE told the worker that she has been attempting to work with the mother on bed time routine, positive parenting, limits consequences, ideas for play/development, sibling rivalry, leisure programs, and managing behaviour.

However, it was difficult to monitor follow through and progress due to poor attendance. [ 141 ] While the mother told the worker EM on October 4, 2010 that the in home program was not helping her in any way, it appeared that she told SE that she was working on her goals and that she was coping better and was less frustrated. However, on October 5, 2010, it appears that AA told SE that the mother cannot follow through but that she says she can a lot of the time now.

Concerns about the care of the two daughters in the mother’s care [ 142 ] In her affidavit of September 30, 2010, EM noted that the society was having continuing concerns about the two children in the mother’s care. They were concerned about the mother’s life style, being dishonest with the society and a failure to follow through. [ 143 ] On July 26, 2010, the family doctor notified the society that the mother and AA had brought A3. for an appointment May 2010. However, they had not brought the child back for the follow-up appointment June 2010 nor was it clear if they had filled the prescription.

The doctor also advised that A.A2. was behind on her immunization and at eighteen months had only received her four month needle. [ 144 ] Due to the mother and AA not being home for visits, it was not clear who the alternate caregivers of the children were when they were not at home. [ 145 ] A letter of expectation addressing the concerns was left for the family July 29, 2010. The mother and AA were required to insure that A3. received proper medical care for her severe skin condition. It was reported that due to this untreated condition, A3. had missed day care days and suffered from itching and scarring.

There was also the expectation that the mother and AA set up an immunization

schedule for A.A2.. [ 146 ] Only with close monitoring, frequent attempts to visit the home, attending Akeelah’s day care, and cooperation of the family doctor did the mother and AA bring A.A2. in to the doctor’s office for two needles. A3. was seen on August 19, 2010 and referred to a dermatologist. She was also given prescribed ointment. [ 147 ] In a home visit September 15, 2010 when the worker asked to see the medication bottle prescribed for the skin condition, the mother said that she had thrown it away as it was empty. She was not able to say why she did not have it.

On September 16, 2010, the day care manager told EM that AA had told her that they had not filled the prescription even though the mother had told them that they had and were applying it. [ 148 ] Then during a home visit September 22, 2010, the worker observed the prescribed medication. [ 149 ] In her affidavit, the worker stated that the society continues to have concerns about the parenting of the girls who since September have been in full time daycare.

Close monitoring by the day care staff and worker is necessary to ensure some level of compliance and that the safety and the needs of the children are being met. The worker stated that the mother appeared to be overwhelmed with the expectations relating to the care of her daughters and seemed to be relying on AA for the majority of the care responsibilities. [ 150 ] In her affidavit sworn February 1, 2011, the worker EM told the court that on January 4, 2011 she was advised that the mother’s failure to comply with the renewal of the subsidy forms for A3. resulted in the child not being eligible for subsidy.

The worker met with the mother to do the forms January 5, 2011 and A3. was able to return to daycare January 18, 2011. [ 151 ] The mother advised the worker that she was pregnant and was expecting in April 2011. [ 152 ] The boyfriend AA advised the society that he did not reside in the home of the mother but lived with his stepmother and father. The Father : Access [ 153 ] During this time period, the father resumed supervised access to the children in October 2009 with monthly visits. He was twenty minutes late for his first visit October 7, 2009.

He cancelled his November 4, 2009 one, saying that he was sick, and cancelled November 23, 2009, saying that his car broke down. Finally, December 1, 2009, he attended a visit and another on December 22, 2009.

[ 154 ] During the access, while the father interacted positively with the children, he struggled with discipline and setting boundaries. The visits were busy and somewhat out of control and chaotic. The father also brought large quantities of candy and the worker had to intervene to set limits and explain the need for nutritious food during access. [ 155 ] After the visit of December 22, 2009, the father did not exercise any further access. In May 2010, the father called the worker and asked to resume his access.

The worker told him that there would have to be a meeting with the society prior to any resumption of access. The father said that he did not have a phone and would contact them in the future. Eventually on June 15, 2010, the father met with the worker and the supervisor at the society. The father indicated to the society that he wished to have the children live with him and his family. When reminded about his lack of consistency in access and the negative impact on the children, he told them that he was “done” with his life of crime and would do anything for the children.

He refused to talk about his failure to even let the society know that he was not coming to access so that the children would not be waiting for him. [ 156 ] The supervisor told the father that he should assess his request for access with the best interests of his children in mind so that he would not cause them further heartbreak. The father was told that he had to call the society at noon on June 21, 2010 to show his commitment to compliance and to receive an answer regarding his access schedule. The father did not call anyone at the society June 21, 2010 nor had anyone heard from him by June 28, 2010.

Therefore the last access attended by the father was December 2009. [ 157 ] In her affidavit dated September 30, 2010, the worker noted that the father contacted her on September 27, 2010 advising her that he had just been released from jail and wished to resume his access. A date to meet with the worker and the supervisor was set for October 1, 2010. [ 158 ] On September 27, 2010, the worker spoke to the father’s probation officer who advised that the father was continuing his criminal behaviour and continued to reoffend.

The worker was also advised that the father had outstanding charges for failure to comply with his probation order and that he might be incarcerated again. The probation officer told EM that the father had incurred new charges of theft under and fail to comply and had been incarcerated August 4, 2010 to September 12, 2010. [ 159 ] In her affidavit sworn December 17, 2010, the worker EM noted that on October 1, 2010, the father left a message cancelling the scheduled meeting, stating that he did not have a ride.

The meeting was rescheduled for October 4, 2010 and the father attended although he was forty minutes late. At that meeting, the father advised that he had outstanding charges for breach of probation. When the worker expressed concern about scheduling a visit and then having him not show, the father said that he would arrive an hour early. He advised that he would call to

schedule access. [ 160 ] On November 16, 2010, the father called to ask for access prior to Christmas. He asked the worker if he would have to attend counselling first and the worker told him it would not be a requirement. On November 26, 2010, the worker advised the father that access was scheduled for December 13, 2010 but that the boys would not be brought to the society unless he was at the society thirty minutes before the visit was scheduled. The father agreed and was provided with the boys’ Christmas wish list. [ 161 ] On December 13, 2010, the worker was unable to reach the father to confirm the visit.

She was advised by the father’s probation officer that the father was arrested on new charges December 11, 2010 and was in custody. His counsel was unable to provide any information regarding whether the father remained in custody or if released, his whereabouts. Concerns regarding the father [ 162 ] On September 21, 2009, the worker was told by the father’s probation officer that the father was unstable, a recovering heroin addict, and not in counselling. He told him that the father was barely following his probation order, was involved in criminal activity and needed to stabilize.

The probation officer said that the father was a long way from being responsible and had daily encounters with the law. In May 2010, the worker was advised by probation that the father was the subject of three probation orders and had not engaged in any counselling to address his substance abuse. The worker was told that the father was failing to comply with probation, did not respond to supervision and had no credibility. THE MOTHER’S EVIDENCE : [ 163 ] The mother’s evidence before the court is contained primarily within two affidavits filed. The mother noted that she was twenty-six years old and had grade 12.

She said that she does not have any adult criminal record or charges outstanding. She said that she has no issue with drugs or alcohol or her mental health. Further, she acknowledges the consumption of alcohol “on occasion” but that she believes that this is in “a socially responsible and appropriate manner”. [ 164 ] She takes issue with many of the facts, comments and conclusions before the court.

However, there are a number of times that the mother’s position is not supported by the evidence. [ 165 ] While the original status review application (SRA) dated November 18, 2008 leading to the last final order sought an extension of society supervision with the children placed with the mother, as a result of the unauthorized contact with the father, the children were apprehended and the SRA was amended April 7, 2009 to seek society wardship with access. [ 166 ] Set out in the expectations were a number of criteria which were similar to the terms of the original supervision sought as well as the previous supervision orders dated November 28, 2006, July 30, 2007 and February 19, 2008.

These included society access to the home and children on a scheduled and unscheduled basis and notifying the society in advance of any change in address and /or phone number. There were also a number of expectations regarding counselling: attending counselling regarding personal issues, individual and /or group parenting counselling, and individual and/or group counselling regarding children witnessing domestic violence. Further, there was the expectation that the mother was to control the type of individuals who frequent the home in order to protect the children from

acquaintances who might be considered unsuitable to be around the children and reduce the chaos in the home. Also the mother was not to allow anyone including AA to reside in the home without prior written approval of the society and not to allow any unauthorized access by the father. [ 167 ] Therefore the expectations of the society were not new to the mother. It would be clear to the mother what was expected to happen in order for the children to be returned to her care. Nevertheless, the mother has failed repeatedly to meet the expectations.

Cooperation [ 168 ] The society workers and the counsellors involved with the mother have complained about their difficulties in contacting the mother. The mother has moved without advising the society and routinely changed phone numbers without advising her service providers. The mother does not deny this fact.

While she explained in her affidavit dated July 9, 2010 that she had left her previous residence at […]Street in Kitchener where she had lived for two years to move to Cambridge because she was behind in the rent and was unhappy with the number of drug users in the building, in her next affidavit, the mother said that she had to move because the society told her to. While the society may have wanted her to move, it appears that she actually was evicted.

As noted earlier, it also would appear that she did not have the rent because she had failed to bring the required documentation in order to maintain her assistance. [ 169 ] Not only did the mother move and change phone numbers without prior notice to the society, she did not make any attempt to ensure that the society knew from her about the changes in her contact information. Indeed, faced with the complaint that she never initiated contact with the society, her answer was that she did not realize that it was her responsibility to initiate contact.

Given her failure to provide accurate and up-to-date contact information to her worker, it is hard to understand how she thought that they could always maintain contact with her. Further, one would expect that the mother would want to keep on top of the issue given the fact that three of her children were in the care of the society. [ 170 ] In her last affidavit dated January 21, 2011, the mother stated that she had never been given the opportunity to meet with the children service worker. However, at no time does she suggest that she ever even asked to meet that worker.

Indeed, the issue was raised months ago in the documents filed and the mother has not followed up the opportunity. According to her own evidence, she reviewed the issue with her counsel. It certainly was open to her to ask. [ 171 ] In this last affidavit, the mother stated that she had written to the foster parent for information October 25, 2010 when she found out that she could and did not obtain a reply.

While the worker EM has stated that the foster parent told her no such correspondence was received, it is the fact that the mother never indicated to the worker prior to this affidavit that she had written this letter or complained about the fact that it had not been answered that is telling.

If indeed the mother did write such a letter, it was certainly not important enough to her to obtain a reply containing news about the children as she never followed up about the matter. [ 172 ] Further, despite the worker’s discussion with the mother about implementing a communications book between the mother and the foster mother to provide the mother with more information about the children, the mother has failed to express any interest in starting one. The mother noted in her affidavit that she was able to learn about the children and what was happening through talking with S..

However, one would have expected that she would have wanted information from the adults involved in looking after the children. [ 173 ] The mother has suggested that she in fact was cooperative in terms of meeting with the worker but that has not been consistent. The mother’s refusal to meet with MC for an unscheduled visit was not appropriate. Generally unscheduled visits are viewed as an integral part of supervision, an opportunity to check on parents, their

[…]