THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, Applicant - v. -, 2023 NBKB 34

FDSJ-586-2022 2023 NBKB 034 IN THE COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK FAMILY DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SAINT JOHN BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT, Applicant - and - M.L. and R.G., Respondents DECISION BEFORE: The Honourable Madam Justice M. Deborah Hackett DATES OF HEARING: February 21 and 22, 2023 DATE OF DECISION: March 7, 2023 APPEARANCES: Corry A. Toole, K.C. for the Minister of Social Development Natasha J. MacKay, for M.L. and R.G. NATURE : Guardianship

Access Hackett, J.: I. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] The respondents are the parents of N.C.G.-L., born […], 2022. He shall be referred to as “the child” in this decision. The respondent M.L. is the child’s mother. She shall be referred to as “the mother”. The respondent R.G. is the child’s father. He shall be referred to as “the father”. [ 2 ] The child was placed under the protective care of the Minister of Social Development (who shall be referred to as “the Minister”) on March 25, 2022, shortly after his birth.

He has remained in the Minister’s care since that time. [ 3 ] The Minister seeks an order for guardianship of the child on the basis the parents do not have the capacity to meet the child’s needs and cannot provide him with a secure environment.

The Minister submits if guardianship is granted, no right of access should be preserved on the part of the child with the respondents. [ 4 ] The respondents ask the Court to deny the request for a guardianship order, and make a further custody order for up to six months to allow them more time to work on their parenting skills. [ 5 ] If guardianship is granted, the respondents seek an order for ongoing access on the part of the child with them. II. BACKGROUND FACTS Overview of events leading up to guardianship application [ 6 ] Both respondents are first-time parents.

The Minister became involved with the family around the time of the child’s birth when an intake was received regarding concerns about the respondents’ cognitive abilities. [ 7 ] Approximately 10 days before the child was born, the mother went to live at First Steps Housing Project Inc. (referred to in this decision as “First Steps”). She continued to reside there until late August 2022. [ 8 ] Denise Morais, Residential Director of First Steps, deposes at paragraph 2 of her affidavit sworn December 19, 2022: First Steps is a residential facility operating in partnership with the community.

It offers a supportive environment to young pregnant and parenting women who have no safe place to live, assisting them in reaching their full potential. [ 9 ] After the mother had the child at the hospital, she wanted to take him to the father’s home for a couple of days. However, after Ms.

Morais notified the child protection social worker involved with the family of this plan, and was advised the mother was not allowed to stay at the father’s home with the baby, the mother and the child returned to First Steps on March 14, 2022. [ 10 ] The social worker indicated the mother was not to leave the facility, unsupervised, with the child. [ 11 ] When the mother was upstairs in her room with the child, staff on duty had a video monitor so they could hear and see the child in his crib at all times.

Staff would watch the child for one hour each evening so the mother could have a break and go outside to spend time with the father.

The father was not allowed to be at First Steps as only mothers are permitted to be there. [ 12 ] While the mother and the child resided at First Steps, staff noted various concerns with the mother’s ability to care for the child, for example: • Staff had to explain to the mother that the child needed diapers and clothing for newborns. • The mother had difficulty supporting the child’s head, for example when passing the baby to someone else. • The mother needed daily reminders to bathe the child.

Staff supervised her when she bathed the child. • The mother struggled to dress the child after bathing him. • The mother was co-sleeping in her room with the child. One time staff noted that she had fallen asleep with the baby in her arms and the baby was positioned between the mother and the wall. • The mother needing prompting to dress the child before taking him outside.

On one occasions the mother was going to put him in his snowsuit, in only a diaper and shirt. • The mother would become distracted while feeding the child as she was texting the father. • While staff observed the mother was able to read the child’s hunger cues, they noted she struggled to keep track of the child’s weight and how much he was drinking. The mother was asked to do feedings and changing on the main floor where staff could keep a closer eye on things. [ 13 ] On March 18, 2022 a Permanency Planning Conference (PPC) was held with representatives from the Minister, the respondents and Ms.

Morais from First Steps.

[ 14 ] At the meeting the respondents indicated they planned to parent the child together. The father was residing in a rooming house. It was noted that there were some concerns with the parents’ relationship. Both parents indicated they were estranged from their respective parents and families and did not have support. [ 15 ] Ms. Morais advised the meeting she had noted some progress with the mother, for example cleaning her room and doing chores, but ongoing prompting was required.

Staff questioned if they could provide the level of supervision required to have the child at First Steps. [ 16 ] At this point it was determined that a file would be opened for ongoing child protection services. The plan was for the mother to remain at First Steps with the child. [ 17 ] Supervised visits were arranged for the parents at the Department of Social Development’s offices Mondays to Fridays from 9:00 a.m. until noon. A family support worker would work on parenting with both respondents. [ 18 ] According to Ms.

Morais’s affidavit evidence, the mother was not happy being at First Steps and was often emotional and would become upset (cry, slam doors, stomp her feet) when she was told she could not go out for a smoke break. She indicated that she was not getting enough help from staff and they were not teaching her, and not giving her enough time to smoke. [ 19 ] Ms. Morais indicates that because First Steps in not equipped to provide 24/7 supervision of parenting, she made the decision on March 23, 2022 that the mother required more assistance than First Steps could provide to keep the child safe.

She informed the mother’s social worker the child was no longer able to stay with the mother at First Steps, however, the mother could continue to stay there (without the child) while she continued to work towards being reunited with him. Protective care is taken [ 20 ] Social worker Kelli Owens-Beach took protective care of the child on March 25, 2022.

The notice of protective care placement states: Under Section 32(1) the Minister shall place a child under protective care in any of the following circumstances, if the Minister has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the security or development of the child can not be protected adequately other than by placing the child under protective care: Section 32(1)(

e) the security or development of the child is otherwise seriously and substantially in danger for any reason. There are numerous concerns with [the mother’s] ability to provide care and supervision to baby [N.] given her cognitive limitations. First Steps has reported that in her two week stay in residence, she required one on one supervision at all times and the facility does not have the staff to accommodate this. [The father] resides in a rooming house in Saint John. [ 21 ] The child was placed with foster parent M.M. on March 25, 2022. He has resided with M.M. since that date. [ 22 ] Ms.

Morais was asked on cross-examination whether the mother was provided any parenting courses between the time she moved in to First Steps and when she moved out at the end of August 2022. She responded that the baby was only with the mother for a week before he went into care and all programs were provided to the mother off-site. First Steps did not have parenting programs running. She said after the child went into care, she asked the mother what she was working on with the family support worker at visits so they could work on it with her, but the mother she did not relay the information.

The mother was not at First Steps much and was out most of the day. [ 23 ] Ms. Morais did not recall there having been an issue between a staff member or another resident and the mother. She said the mother would tell her she felt she was bullied sometimes, but when she would ask her for details, she would not give her anything concrete. Involvement of Social Worker Melanie Walsh [ 24 ] Melanie Walsh took over as the child protection social worker on March 31, 2022, that day, a PPC was held. At the meeting, Ms.

Morais indicated First Steps could not provide the level of supervision and support that the mother needed for the child’s care.

It was also discussed that because of the level of support required, the Minister could not support the mother and the child going to live with the father. [ 25 ] It was noted that the mother was struggling with processing and retaining information and became defensive and argumentative when recommendations were made by the support worker who was supervising visits and providing parent aide services. [ 26 ] The result of the PPC was that the respondents and the Minister agreed the child would stay under the care of the Minister, pursuant to an up-to-six-month custody agreement. [ 27 ] On April 22, 2022, Ms.

Walsh checked in on the respondents during a supervised visit. She asked the father how he was feeling emotionally. He told her he was fine. Ms. Walsh encouraged the father to attend counselling she had put in place at Family Plus. The father agreed to think about it. [ 28 ] On April 29, 2022, Ms. Walsh dropped in on a supervised visit. She reviewed a draft case plan with the parents and asked if there is anything they wanted to add. The mother asked if Ms. Walsh could check with the Family Resource Centre about parenting courses. Ms.

Walsh agreed to call to see if they offered parenting courses. [ 29 ] The mother also asked about counselling for herself. Ms. Walsh explained that the prior social worker who took protective care had talked to the mother’s disability support program (DSP) social worker, and counselling for the mother would be covered

through DSP. Ms. Walsh noted the mother had not followed up on the counselling. [ 30 ] Also on April 29, 2022, Ms. Walsh went to see the child at the foster home. The foster mother reported the child was doing well but there were concerns with his eye turning out and lack of muscle tone. The family doctor had referred him to a pediatrician. [ 31 ] At a meeting on May 12, 2022 between Ms. Walsh and the respondents, the mother expressed to Ms. Walsh she was frustrated because family support worker Kristyn Richardson was providing the child’s doctor with updates from the foster mother. Ms.

Walsh said she would have the foster parent call the respondents that day and a few times a week on an ongoing basis to provide updates. [ 32 ] At that meeting, Ms. Richardson indicated the respondents’ parenting skills seemed to have regressed that week. The mother was having issues burping the child and not supporting his head. The mother became defensive and said she was doing the best she could. Ms. Walsh said she was happy the respondents were attending all their visits and encouraged them to keep working on their parenting skills with Ms. Richardson. [ 33 ] Ms.

Richardson also pointed out that the father got very nervous and did not know how to react when the child cried. [ 34 ] The father asked if there were any other services Ms. Walsh could refer them to. Ms. Walsh said there were no parenting courses being offered through the Family Resource Centre until September 2022. She told the parents to focus on improving their parenting skills with Ms. Richardson during visits. [ 35 ] On May 26, 2022, Ms. Walsh advised the respondents their visits would be reduced to two hours each (9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.) starting the next week.

She also advised them she had referred the child to Family and Child Education (FACE) due to concerns with his development. Case plan [ 36 ] On July 21, 2022 Ms. Walsh and the respondents signed the case plan. It has two objectives. Objective number 1 - The respondents will show that they can meet the child’s physical, social and developmental needs.

The activities under this objective were: • the respondents would work with the family support worker weekly • the support worker would model parenting techniques with the child, i.e. how to hold, feed and burp the child, how to use the car seat etc., and the respondents would learn to model these techniques on their own • the support worker and Margot with FACE would work on developmental goals with the respondents, i.e. tummy time with the child, reading to the child and talking to the child • the respondents would attend the child’s medical appointments • the social worker would review the support worker’s notes and discuss any concerns with the respondents Objective number 2 - The mother will maintain safe and stable housing for the child.

The activities under this objective were: • the mother would continue to reside at First Steps • visits would be added at First Steps, supervised by staff, once progress was made at visits supervised by Ms. Richardson • the child may transition back to living with the mother at First Steps, depending on progress during supervised visits [ 37 ] On July 25, 2022 Ms. Walsh convened a meeting with the respondents, family support workers Kristyn Richardson and Breanne Winchester, and their supervisor, Crista Greene. According to Ms.

Walsh, they discussed the following : • concerns about lack of progress during visits, i.e. the support workers were still working on basic skills with the respondents who were only now becoming comfortable holding the baby • safety concerns during visits, i.e. the mother trying to get the child to roll on a table; the respondents not supporting the child’s head when holding him [ 38 ] Ms. Walsh explained to the respondents they had been having visits for four months and they should be seeing more progress.

The father became angry and said he wanted his son home and he blamed the mother’s hygiene for why the child went into care. The mother became upset and left the meeting several times. [ 39 ] Ms. Walsh advised the respondents visits would be reduced to three per week because the family doctor said she was concerned the child was not gaining weight. [ 40 ] In late July 2022 the child was assessed by FACE. [ 41 ] On August 12, 2022 the foster mother relayed concerns to Ms. Walsh about the child’s development and told her he had an appointment with a specialist.

[ 42 ] On August 17, 2022 the mother was admitted to the psychiatric unit of the hospital due to poor mental health. She was released on August 26, 2022. [ 43 ] A PPC took place September 15, 2022. It was noted the mother had left First Steps and went to stay at a rooming house, and recently had been staying with the father.

The mother reported she was only able to stay with the father until the end of the month and was in the process of finding another rooming house. [ 44 ] It was also noted that visits had been consistently maintained by the parents, although they had been decreased from five per week to three per week for two hours each, as the parents were unable to meet the child’s needs during visits. The family doctor had noted the child’s weight loss, crying and not eating.

It was also noted the parents often ended visits early and went for cigarette breaks frequently. [ 45 ] It was noted that the mother continued to struggle with processing and retaining information. Ms. Richardson advised she continued to focus on basic care such as diapering with the respondents. The mother sometimes became defensive and walked out of visits and returned angry. [ 46 ] As well, the father continued to struggle with the child’s basic care. He would remember things but was not able to put the skills into practice. He lacked confidence and was easily frustrated. Ms.

Richardson was continuing to provide the majority of the child’s care during visits. [ 47 ] The parents talked about having another baby and wanting to reside together with the child. [ 48 ] It was discussed that the foster parents had concerns about the child’s development. His arms were always open and floppy and he was not meeting milestones. He had an appointment with an eye specialist.

He was not sleeping or eating well. [ 49 ] As well, there were concerns the mother did not recognize safety issues, i.e. putting the child on the table and trying to get him to roll over. [ 50 ] It was also discussed that the mother had not been engaging in Disability Support Program services. The mother agreed to connect with DSP. [ 51 ] As well, the father had not followed through with the counselling he had requested at the previous PPC. [ 52 ] The respondents also indicated they wanted couples counselling, as they get into conflict. [ 53 ] A Parenting Capacity / Psychological Assessment was discussed.

The respondents agreed to it. [ 54 ] The decision was made the Minister would file for an up-to-three-month custody order for the child during which time the respondents would undergo a Parenting Capacity/ Psychological Assessment and continue with parenting sessions. [ 55 ] The idea of holding a family group conference was explored but no family options were identified by the respondents. [ 56 ] The up-to-three-month custody order was granted on consent on October 5, 2022. [ 57 ] On October 19, 2022, the respondents told Ms. Walsh they were working on looking getting an apartment.

The mother was continuing to reside with the father at his rooming house. Ms. Walsh discussed with the respondents that FACE services could not meet with the respondents until the father’s rooming house was cleared for bedbugs. The respondents agreed to get the father’s landlord to call FACE. In her evidence, Ms. Walsh said she did not believe the landlord ever called FACE. [ 58 ] On October 20, 2022, the mother said she had asked the foster mother about the child being wheezy, and the foster mother said it could be an allergic reaction to cigarette smoke or perfume. According to Ms.

Walsh, the mother told her she was going to sue the foster mother. Ms. Walsh told the mother communications were to go through her moving forward. [ 59 ] On November 1, 2022 Ms. Walsh dropped into a visit. Ms. Richardson told her the father was changing the child’s diaper but he was struggling to do up the child’s clothes. December 8, 2022 PPC [ 60 ] A PPC was held December 8, 2022. In attendance were Ms.

Walsh and other representatives from the Department, family support worker Erica Bannister and the respondents. [ 61 ] Before the respondents joined the meeting, the following was discussed: • The child’s pediatrician, Dr. McKenna, was concerned with the child’s development and low muscle tone. • Visits on Tuesdays and Thursdays were being supervised by Ms. Bannister. They were scheduled for three hours. Ms. Bannister noted the respondents would follow Ms.

Richardson’s script of what to do during the two-hour visits, but they did not know what to do in the last hour at the visits she supervised because they had no script for it. • Ms. Bannister also indicated there were ongoing concerns with the respondents’ retention of information, as basic care instruction continued to be necessary and ongoing prompting was required. • The mother continued to be oppositional with Ms. Bannister and would leave when concerns were addressed, but then would return to the visit.

• Ms. Bannister advised she had to intervene when the mother was going to put a thermometer in the child’s ear. The thermometer was supposed to be used under the arm, in the rectum or under the tongue. • Ms. Walsh indicated she had spoken to the respondents about their struggles. The mother did not recognize the child’s needs, i.e. when the child was napping she would raise her voice to him, kiss him or bounce him around.

She noted the respondents had not made case plan progress in the nine months the child had been in care. • It was noted that the respondents arrived on time for visits and did bring the child in from the car and brought items for visits. [ 62 ] When the respondents joined the meeting, the concerns about their retention of information about the child’s basic care, such as diapering and feeding, were discussed with them.

It was noted there was a need for ongoing prompting and a struggle on their part to recognize the child’s cues. [ 63 ] The mother became upset and left the meeting. [ 64 ] The father said he was good with guardianship but wanted to be involved. The idea of a family group conference was mentioned again. The father said he was okay to explore it. [ 65 ] The decision was made to apply for guardianship and request a 90-day adjournment to explore a family group conference. [ 66 ] The first appearance on the guardianship application took place December 22, 2022.

The assigned trial dates were adjourned from January 11, 12 and 13, 2023 to February 21, 22 and 23, 2023, on consent of the Minister and the respondents, to allow the parties to prepare for the hearing. No request was made to adjourn the matter to explore a family group conference. Evidence about supervised visits [ 67 ] The family support workers’ evidence indicates the respondents were engaged with visits.

They attended visits consistently until the last couple of months. [ 68 ] As the visits progressed, the respondents became more able to do basic parenting tasks for the child, for example feeding him, burping him, and changing his diaper. However, the three main family support workers who supervised visits have noted concerns about the respondents’ ability to consistently do the parenting tasks without assistance and to read the child’s cues and recognize his stage of development, as well their interactions with each other and their reactions to stressors at visits.

Family Support Worker Kristyn Richardson’s evidence [ 69 ] Ms. Richardson was assigned to provide transportation of the child to visits and supervision. She also provided parent aide services covering the basic essentials of parenting to meet the baby’s needs, for example, holding the baby properly, how to feed and burp the baby, holding the bottle properly, ensuring the temperature of the bottle was correct and changing diapers and clothing. [ 70 ] Ms. Richardson swore three affidavits and testified in this proceeding. Ms. Richardson’s first affidavit [ 71 ] Ms.

Richardson’s affidavit sworn October 12, 2022 covers visits she supervised between March 2022 in August 2022. [ 72 ] She notes that the respondents wanted to learn and asked lots of great questions. However, she also notes both parents had considerable difficulty with basic parenting tasks. [ 73 ] Ms. Richardson indicates the parents worked hard on learning how to hold the child and placing him on their shoulder to burp him.

However, they frequently had issues with positioning the child properly, including for burping him, and supporting his head. (For example on April 20, April 21, May 2, May 12, May 17 and May 20, 2022). [ 74 ] At the visit on April 7, 2022, Ms. Richardson noted that the mother was feeling more comfortable holding the child, but requested that she stay right beside her.

She noted the mother was now able to baby talk while changing the child’s diaper and the mother was working on reading the book “What to Expect the First Year” that she had suggested to her. [ 75 ] During the April 7, 2022 visit the mother advised Ms. Richardson the child moved a lot and it was hard for her to change his clothes and diapers. [ 76 ] On May 12, 2022, the mother struggled with feeding and burping when the child cried to be fed. [ 77 ] On May 17, 2022, the mother asked the father to set up to change the child’s diaper. The father asked Ms.

Richardson what he needed to do and she told him he needed to get the blanket, changing pad, diaper wipes and cream. [ 78 ] On May 31, 2022, the mother tried to give the child a cold bottle. The father left the room every time the child cried. [ 79 ] On June 13, 2022, the mother wanted to feed the child every time he cried. At that point Ms. Richardson said they were going to time the feedings according to the

schedule the foster parent had him on.

[ 80 ] On August 2, 2022, the mother immediately picked the child up when he made a sound like a whimpering cry and said that he needed his bottle. Ms. Richardson noted the mother looked worried and seemed to panic when the child made the noise. Ms. Richardson told her the child was fine. The mother gave the child his bottle even though it was early. [ 81 ] On August 8, 2022, the father needed a lot of assistance to meet the child’s basic needs, such as how to properly hold him while holding the bottle. He could not roll the child over to do tummy time or lay the child down until Ms.

Richardson showed him how to do so twice. [ 82 ] On August 12, 2022, the father panicked and threw his phone when the child rolled over during tummy time. Ms. Richardson reassured him rolling over was a good thing and the child was safe because he had a big blanket on the floor and both of them were close by. [ 83 ] The father did not know what temperature the bottle should be, so Ms. Richardson showed him. [ 84 ] Ms. Richardson indicates for the most part the respondents worked well together during feedings and diaper changings.

However, she noted conflict between them on occasions and she also noted that the respondents became angry or upset at some visits. [ 85 ] On April 7, 2022, the mother became very upset during the visit as she had asked the father several times to hold the child. The father said he did not feel anything for the child. He said, “I’m done, I’m done,” and was shaking and irritated. [ 86 ] On April 13, 2022, the mother told Ms. Richardson that she and the father had fought (argued) that morning over being intimate. Ms.

Richardson told the mother that they needed to reach out to their social worker, and the father should make sure he was going to counselling, as he had missed his first meeting. [ 87 ] On April 19, 2022 the father seemed upset from the beginning of the visit. He started walking while holding the child and moving him up and down in quick motions. Ms. Richardson told him not to shake the child and to use slow movements. The mother was trying to get the bottle ready at this point. She handed the bottle to the father and went out to have a smoke.

The father was not holding the child properly as he was feeding him. [ 88 ] Later in the visit the father seemed upset again. Ms. Richardson asked what the problem was. He said he needed Ms. Richardson to not hold the child’s finger. He said it made him angry when the child looked at her. He said it should only be the mother touching the child and he was upset about this because of his past. Again, Ms. Richardson told the father to make sure he did not miss his counselling appointment.

The father said that he cannot change how he feels and he will always be on high alert and he gets angry. [ 89 ] During the May 17, 2022 visit the father did not seem to want to hold the child when the mother went out for her cigarette. The father asked for help and Ms. Richardson demonstrated comforting the child. The father said the child’s crying hurt his ears and said his emotions go into overdrive.

He said he was looking into anger management so he could learn to stay calm when the child cried, as it is a lot for him. [ 90 ] On May 31, 2022, the mother said the father was not going to help her that day, he had yelled at her the whole way to the visit, they were fighting and he was not in a good mood. The father said they had had a different worker and he did not learn anything from her as she just told him what to do. He appeared to become very angry and was shaking.

He left the room every time the child cried. [ 91 ] On June 9, 2022, the father did not seem interested in holding the child and appeared irritated. Ms. Richardson’s second affidavit [ 92 ] Ms. Richardson’s affidavit sworn December 16, 2022 covers visits between September 2022 and November 21, 2022. [ 93 ] She notes two occasions when the mother ended the visit early, once on September 26, 2022 when she heard the child cough a few times, and again on October 21, 2022 when the mother thought he had a fever (although Ms.

Richardson said he appeared to be fine). [ 94 ] On October 28, 2022, the father struggled with changing the child’s diaper and dressing him. Ms. Richardson modelled how to do these tasks. [ 95 ] On October 31, 2022, the mother fed the child at 10:30 a.m. despite there being no signs he wanted his bottle. His usual feeding time was 11:00 a.m. She kept trying to feed him despite him moving his head away from the bottle. [ 96 ] On November 2, 2022, Ms. Richardson had to remind the parents to check the child’s diaper as it looked full. [ 97 ] On November 14, 2022, Ms.

Richardson noted she still had to remind the respondents how much water to use in the bottle warmer, after eight months. [ 98 ] On November 21, 2022, the father asked Ms. Richardson if the bottle temperature was okay. Ms. Richardson’s third affidavit [ 99 ] In her last affidavit sworn February 10, 2023, Ms. Richardson speaks of visits between December 7, 2022 and February 8, 2023. She notes the respondents attend the visits consistently, however, visits generally end early, by 11:45 a.m. [ 100 ] At paragraph 24 of the affidavit Ms.

Richardson deposes the respondents do not prepare or plan ahead for visits as they do not bring food or clothing and do not plan for activities with the child. This is reflected in the entries for visits on December 31, 2022,

January 6, January 11, January 18, January 25 and January 27, 2023. [ 101 ] In the entry for January 6, 2023 at paragraph 8

c) Ms. Richardson indicates she spoke to the respondents about things they could do to prepare for the visits (such as bringing a comforter for the floor for the child’s tummy time as he had outgrown the play mat). She indicates she had that conversation with them multiple times. She repeated this advice on January 18, 2023 (paragraph 12 e)). [ 102 ] Ms.

Richardson notes on several occasions the respondents met the child’s needs with little assistance or only some prompting from her. (See, for example, December 31, 2022, January 9, 2023, January 11, 2023.) [ 103 ] However, she continued to have to provide some prompts and reminders.

For example, on January 6, 2023, she reminded the father to put cream on the small pink rash the child had on his bottom. [ 104 ] On January 11, 2023, she demonstrated and explained step-by-step how to change the child’s diaper and feed the child. [ 105 ] On January 18, 2023, she reminded the respondents of steps they had missed, such as wiping during the diaper change. [ 106 ] On January 30, 2023, Ms.

Richardson assisted the father in changing the child’s diaper by reminding and showing him to make sure the sides of the diaper were on properly so there would be no leaks. [ 107 ] On February 6, 2023, the mother was struggling as she attempted to feed the child. Ms. Richardson observed the child was showing no signs of hunger. She spoke to the respondents about signs to look for and how the child would be fuller longer as he was now eating solid food.

She told the parents that they may have to wait to see hunger signs as opposed to feeding the child because the communications book (with the foster mother) states a specific time for his feeding. [ 108 ] Ms.

Richardson indicates she spoke to the respondents on December 31, 2022 about infant development for ages eight to 12 months, including crawling, babbling, showing emotions, encouraging movement and standing with support, as well as words to teach the child (mama, dada, etc.) She notes the mother interacted well with the child, while the father was very quiet and sat with the child but did not use words. [ 109 ] On January 6, 2023, the mother spoke to the child, when prompted by Ms. Richardson.

The father said very few words. [ 110 ] On January 9, 2023, while in the waiting room for an appointment with the child’s eye specialist, Ms. Ricardson suggested to the respondents ways to talk to the child. The father was quiet and not very engaged. [ 111 ] On January 11, 2023, Ms. Richardson reviewed with the respondents infant development and words to teach the child. She deposes at paragraph 11

b) of her affidavit that after several weeks of going over milestones, the parents were just starting to notice some of the child’s progress. Additionally, she noted that the father struggles verbally to talk to the child and she often encourages him to speak to the child positively. Ms. Richardson notes the father does not use words with the child on several other occasions (January 18, 25 and 30, 2023) [ 112 ] Ms. Richardson also noted the respondents were nervous to let the child crawl on January 30, 2023. [ 113 ] Ms.

Richardson indicates that as of February 10, 2023, the mother had not rescheduled the child’s nine-month checkup, which had been scheduled for January 2023 but cancelled due to weather. The respondents also had not booked a bloodwork appointment for the child. Ms. Richardson deposes she had been regularly reminding the respondents to make these appointments. Direct examination [ 114 ] Ms. Richardson was asked about an average two-hour visit. She said it is very routine. After arriving for the visit, the respondents set up and change the child’s diaper right away. They have playtime and floor time.

They go through the book “What to Expect in the First Year”. The respondents feed the child. Ms. Richardson will talk with the respondents about bonding, security and attachment. Then, the parents will pack up and they leave. [ 115 ] Ms. Richardson said when visits first began, on a few Fridays they would go out and do something, for example, if the mother had a doctor’s appointment, but other than that the visits are mostly the same. The respondents will always check the child’s diaper before they go out. [ 116 ] Ms.

Richardson was asked if there has been any difference in the respondents’ ability to read cues in the last year. Ms. Richardson testified she now notices the respondents struggle with reading the cue that the child does not want his bottle, now that he has started eating baby food. [ 117 ] She also said that when the child was younger it was hard for the respondents to read his cues. It is still difficult for them to read his cues now that he is older, because he is a really good baby (does not cry often) and there are not as many cues. [ 118 ] Ms.

Richardson said getting the parents to talk to the child is a challenge. She does not know if they understand that it is important to say Mama, Dada etc. to him. When asked about this concern on cross-examination, Ms. Richardson agreed it is not a safety concern but said it is still a concern because that is how the child will learn how to communicate. She agreed the mother speaks to the baby a lot at visits. She also agreed the father is never very loud. [ 119 ] Ms. Richardson testified that the parents react really well when she provides feedback and suggestions.

She said they love the child and ask great questions. They really try to listen when she gives suggestions. However she also said when she corrects their behaviour, sometimes they get upset with her. The mother will walk out of the room. [ 120 ] Ms. Richardson testified when the child was between three and six months she did a lot of the holding and feeding of the child. She said, “We never quite got there”, with respect to the respondents holding him properly. As he got bigger, he got easier to hold as he

could support his own neck. [ 121 ] She said the respondents are good with changing diapers now, although sometimes she has to help. The father does the changes for the most part. If there is a second diaper change during a visit, the mother will do it. Cross-examination [ 122 ] On cross-examination Ms. Richardson agreed in the beginning she was required to prompt the parents a lot, and that as the baby has gotten older, less prompting has been required. [ 123 ] She agreed that on August 12, 2022, the fact the father asked for help to meet the child’s needs was a strength.

She noted as a concern that the father struggled to calm the child when he cried. Ms. Richardson testified that when the child was younger the parents had a hard time calming him and she helped them a lot. [ 124 ] Ms. Richardson agreed there were visits in September, 2022 when no concerns were noted (September 14 and 16). [ 125 ] Ms. Richardson agreed that by October 26, 2022 the parents were meeting the child’s needs with little assistance from her. The child was seven or eight months old at that point. [ 126 ] Ms.

Richardson agreed in the beginning the father did not want to change the child’s diaper, however, he now does. She said he is doing well with it but she still has to tell him to wipe from front to back. [ 127 ] With respect to her concern on October 28, 2022 that the father was struggling to change the diaper, Ms. Richardson was asked whether the child was moving around and kicking quite a bit at this point. She said no, he does not move around. He is a good baby and is easy. She said the father had trouble changing the child’s diaper and the child’s clothes that day. [ 128 ] Ms.

Richardson had indicated in her direct examination that visits were reduced from five days a week to three because of cancellations by the parents. However, she agreed on cross-examination she did not note any cancellations in her first affidavit sworn October 12, 2022, when she initially was supervising visits five days a week. [ 129 ] Ms. Richardson agreed she only noted one visit cancelled by the respondents in her second affidavit sworn December 16, 2022, regarding visits between September and November 2022.

The September 10, 2022 visit was cancelled because the mother was sick. [ 130 ] She agreed she recalled the doctor and the mother speaking about the fact that the doctor had recommended fewer visits because the child was smaller and crying a lot. [ 131 ] Ms. Richardson was asked about her concern about the respondents ending visits early, in particular the visit on September 26, 2022, when the mother ended the visit early because she heard the child cough a few times. Ms. Richardson testified she tried to explain that the cough might not have been a real concern.

She agreed that the mother worries the child is sick a lot. [ 132 ] Ms. Richardson said before she writes down concerns in her visit notes she thinks about it a lot because she realizes the respondents are first-time parents. However, she has noted they will be overly cautious, even with the child crawling on the floor. When asked whether they now let the child crawl around, she said not really. They set up pillows around him. [ 133 ] Ms. Richardson agreed she had never seen either parent hurt the child. [ 134 ] Ms.

Richardson was asked about her note on November 2, 2022, that the mother said to the child, “Don’t hit me, that hurts.” Ms. Richardson said it seemed like it annoyed the mother that the child was moving his arms a lot during feedings. When asked whether this was a safety concern, she said that it is important to recognize that he may be flailing his arms more when he is bigger. She agreed it would be appropriate to tell him not flail his arms around when he is older. [ 135 ] On November 21, 2022, the respondents and Ms. Richardson put the child in the high chair during a visit for the first time.

The mother took the child out of the high chair almost immediately after he started to whimper. Ms. Richardson was asked why this was a concern. She said he had not started to cry and the mother took him out so fast he did not have a chance to get used to the high chair. [ 136 ] Ms. Richardson agreed that the mother had picked up on the cue he was going to cry, but Ms. Richardson said the mother was panicked that the baby was going to cry. When asked if she thought that the respondents should have let him cry she said no, but she thought that they should have let him adjust to the high chair. [ 137 ] Ms.

Richardson testified that they have not done solid foods since the issue with the high chair. When asked what she meant by that, she said she could not recall the date or how many weeks later it was when they put the child in the high chair again. She said she told the respondents to just let the child get used to it, and he did not cry. [ 138 ] Ms. Richardson agreed the parents follow a strict routine for the visits. She said this would be a strength, not a concern. [ 139 ] Ms. Richardson was asked about her current concerns from visits. She said the respondents do not know some of the child’s cues.

For example, after 11 months they still do not know when the child is not hungry. [ 140 ] As well, she is concerned the child has not had his nine-month checkup and immunizations. She said the same thing happened with the six-month checkup. The respondents were late getting them done. [ 141 ] Ms. Richardson agreed both parents attend appointments with the child. She also agreed the parents are always early for visits. Family support worker Erica Bannister’s evidence

[ 142 ] Ms. Bannister provide one affidavit, sworn December 19, 2022, and she testified. [ 143 ] Ms. Bannister was employed as a family support worker with Supreme Human Services, and transported the child and supervised visits on Tuesdays and Thursdays between October 11, 2022 and December 5, 2022. Although she deposes in her affidavit that she supervised visits from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., she testified the visits were from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. [ 144 ] Ms.

Bannister notes that during the visit on October 11, 2022 she prompted the respondents to change the child’s diaper before they left for an eye appointment with the child. [ 145 ] On October 18, 2022, the mother was concerned the child had a fever and got out a thermometer. She went to stick it in the child’s ear. Ms. Bannister intervened and suggested she use it under the child’s arm or in his rectum because it was not an ear thermometer. In her oral evidence Ms. Bannister said it had a long skinny end that could harm an eardrum. [ 146 ] During the visit, the mother continued to check the child’s temperature.

She kept saying the child was sick and telling the child, “It’s okay, you’re okay,” although Ms. Bannister observed the child was happy and smiling and not in distress or fussing. [ 147 ] On October 20, 2022, the mother indicated the child was not feeling well several times, although she checked his temperature and it was normal and he was content and not fussing. [ 148 ] On October 27, 2022, the visit was cancelled as the mother had called Ms. Bannister’s office and indicated the child was sick. However, the foster parent confirmed to Ms.

Bannister the child was not sick. [ 149 ] The visit on November 1, 2022 was cancelled by the respondents. [ 150 ] On November 10, 2022, the mother was asking the child what was wrong even though he was not fussing and appeared to be content. [ 151 ] At the same visit the mother was unsure if the temperature of the bottle was too warm, and she asked Ms. Bannister to check the temperature. [ 152 ] The parents ended the November 10, 2022 visit 40 minutes early, at 12:20 p.m. Ms.

Bannister deposes that the respondents struggled with parenting the child after his bottle, and it was common for them to end the visit before the scheduled time of 1:00 p.m. due to not being able to settle the child down for a nap or occupy him (paragraph 9 (

e) of the affidavit sworn December 19, 2022). [ 153 ] On November 15, 2022 the mother went to feed the child at 10:45 a.m., although the

schedule would have him eat again at 11:30 a.m. After Ms. Bannister said it was too early for the bottle, the mother waited until 11:15 a.m. to feed the child. She was unsure about the amount of water to put in bottle warmer. [ 154 ] Ms. Bannister noted the parents struggled to occupy and care for the child after he had his bottle and they ended the visit at noon, an hour early. [ 155 ] On November 17, 2022 the mother fed the child at 11:05 a.m., although he was scheduled to eat at 11:30 a.m. After he had the bottle, the child was rubbing his eyes and appeared to be tired but was not fussing.

The mother did not allow or encourage the child to sleep or attempt to put him to sleep. She tickled him and bounced him around and kissed his face and talked to him. The parents ended the visit at 12:15 p.m., 45 minutes early. [ 156 ] On November 22, 2022 the mother was gathering up the child’s belongings an hour and 15 minutes before the visit was scheduled to end. She was saying the child was tired but she was not able to settle him to sleep. She was kissing him all over his face and pressing her lips against his face and making noises. She ended the visit at noon. [ 157 ] On direct examination Ms.

Bannister testified that the actual length of an average visit she supervised was two hours, although visits were scheduled for three hours. Most of the time, the parents ended the visits early. [ 158 ] Ms. Bannister said visits were very repetitive. The parents would get the child from the car, put the blanket on the floor, and feed him. She said they then struggled to maintain parenting with him. [ 159 ] On cross-examination Ms. Bannister was asked what she meant by the parents struggling to maintain parenting of the child. She said that after he was fed they would struggle to soothe him or put him to sleep.

Ms. Bannister was asked if there was a crib in the visit room. She said no, but the respondents could rock him in their arms and put him on the mat they had. She said she gave the respondents suggestions on how to soothe the child, but they would not take the advice. [ 160 ] When asked if the mother tried to rock the child to sleep, Ms. Bannister said no. The mother would say that the child was tired or was sick and would send him home to sleep. [ 161 ] Ms. Bannister agreed that the mother would kiss the child and talk to him.

However, his cues were showing he was tired and she would not follow through and get him to nap. [ 162 ] Ms. Bannister agreed it was possible that the mother did not want the child to nap and wanted to interact with him. [ 163 ] With respect to the incident that occurred on October 18, 2022, when the mother was going to use a thermometer in the child’s ear that was not meant to be used in the ear, Ms. Bannister said she explained the issue to the mother and the mother was not defiant. Other than this incident, she did not note other safety concerns at visits she supervised. [ 164 ] Ms.

Bannister testified that she had to prompt for diaper changes and for feeding. With respect to feeding, the child was due to eat at 11:30 a.m. and sometimes the parents wanted to feed him earlier. When asked if that was because he was showing cues he was

hungry, Ms. Bannister said he was a very content baby and she never saw him cry or fuss. [ 165 ] Ms. Bannister has had no further interaction with the family since she stopped supervising visits in December 2022. She is no longer working with the family because she went to work in a different position. Family Support Worker Lesley McEachern’s evidence [ 166 ] Ms. McEachern was assigned at the end of November 2022 to provide transportation for the child and supervise visits on Tuesdays and Thursdays from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. She continues to supervise these visits. [ 167 ] Ms.

McEachern’s affidavit sworn February 10, 2023 covers visits between December 1, 2022 and February 2, 2023. She indicates the parents cancelled seven visits. Another five visits were cancelled for reasons not attributable to the parents. [ 168 ] Ms. McEachern noted that on December 13, 2022 the mother kept trying to feed the child when he was halfway through the bottle and was pushing it away. Ms. McEachern explained to her there may have been a reason he was pushing the bottle away – such as that he was full, his stuffed nose was bothersome or he needed to be burped.

The child did finish his bottle eventually, with the father, after he burped. [ 169 ] Ms. McEachern notes a couple of occasions where the mother attempted to get the child to sleep after his bottle without success (December 22, 2022 and January 10, 2023). [ 170 ] Ms. McEachern deposes the respondents consistently ended the visits early.

They generally started packing up at 12:20 p.m. or 12:30 p.m. and ended the visit at 12:45 p.m. rather than 1:00 p.m. [ 171 ] On December 13, 2022, the mother ended the visit at 12:15 p.m. rather than 1:00 p.m. as the mother said the child was too sick to be out and should be home in bed. [ 172 ] Ms. McEachern notes one visit, December 22, 2022, when the visit ended on time. [ 173 ] On her direct examination Ms. McEachern was asked to describe a typical visit. She testified that she meets the respondents in the parking lot. They are always there waiting. They will take the child up to the visit room.

The father will put a blanket down and they will play on the floor. They respondents feed the child around 11:30 a.m. They try to nap him. They pack up and get ready to go at about 12:30 p.m. and by the time they get to the car it is 12:45 or 12:50 p.m. She said there is not much deviation from the schedule. [ 174 ] On cross-examination Ms. McEachern indicated that the parents are waiting for her and the child when she arrives at 9:50 a.m. [ 175 ] She agreed that on December 13, 2022, when the mother noted that the child was done with tummy time, this was a good thing.

She also agreed that the mother recognized the child was tired. [ 176 ] Ms. McEachern agreed that the parents usually bring toys to the visits. [ 177 ] She agreed that on January 10, 2023, after the mother came back in to the visit room after having a cigarette, she immediately noted the child had a red mark on his head after he had hit his head on a toy. Similarly, on January 19, 2023 when the child bumped his head, the mother reacted right away and wrote it in the journal. [ 178 ] Ms.

McEachern agreed that the parents are saying “mama” and “dada” to the child more and are trying to get the child to say it. [ 179 ] She agreed that if there was a concern at a visit about safety she would report it to her supervisor. She agreed this had not happened at a visit. [ 180 ] Ms. McEachern agreed that not all cancellations of visits she has supervised have been because of the parents. Evidence of foster mother M.M. [ 181 ] The foster mother provided an affidavit dated February 7, 2023.

She did not testify at the trial. [ 182 ] The foster mother deposed that when the child came to live with her in March 2022 at about two weeks old, he was very thin and had poor muscle tone. His eyes constantly moved almost to the point he could not control the movement. She notes that one eye was worse than the other and was turned in. [ 183 ] She indicates that as of February 7, 2023 the child is 10 months old and his eyes are somewhat better. One eye still turns in and he is required to wear a patch for an hour per day.

He attends an eye clinic every three months. [ 184 ] He still has poor muscle tone especially in his upper body. He always holds his arms out when being carried. When he is sitting, he constantly moves his hands and fingers, and when he sits in his high chair his fingers never stop scratching at the tray. [ 185 ] The foster mother notes that the child is very quiet. She deposes that as of February 7, 2023 he is only saying one word, “mama”, which he says sporadically. He is very passive and does not fuss often.

He has never cried when he was hungry or tired. [ 186 ] The child has a pediatrician and a family doctor. He has been referred to a specialist to assess for neurological issues and is waiting to get into Physio/OT at the Regional Hospital. [ 187 ] On October 14, 2022 the foster mother went to an eye appointment with the child. She went into the office with the child, as the respondents were not yet present when she arrived with the child. When they got to the waiting room the doctor called them in.

[ 188 ] When the respondents arrived, the foster mother was sitting in the exam chair holding the child on her lap. When the mother saw this, she stormed out of the room upset. This happened three more times during the appointment. The foster mother indicates that from then on, she has not gone to any appointments that the respondents go to with the child. [ 189 ] The foster mother also notes that when the child first came to her home, the mother had her permission to text her to get updates on the child. She indicates this was fine until the mother started to get very rude and nasty with her on October 27, 2022.

After that Ms. Walsh terminated the mother’s permission to text her. Evidence of Felipe Ramirez Hinrichsen [ 190 ] Mr. Hinrichsen is a licensed psychologist. He was qualified by the Court, on consent of the respondents, as an expert in the preparation of Parenting Capacity Assessment reports, with expertise in psychological assessments. [ 191 ] Mr. Hinrichsen conducted a Psychological Parenting Capacity Assessment of the respondents.

His report is dated January 30, 2023. [ 192 ] He reviewed a number of documents in preparation for the assessment, including the notice of protective care placement for the child, the case plan for the family, the notice of application for guardianship and the affidavit of Ms. Walsh dated September 22, 2022. He also reviewed the forms prepared by the family support workers who supervised visits from March 21, 2023 until September 9, 2022. [ 193 ] Mr. Hinrichsen interviewed the respondents together and separately on November 4, 2022.

The same day, he observed a supervised visit between the child and the respondents. [ 194 ] Mr. Hinrichsen carried out psychological testing on both respondents, which included assessments of their intellectual functioning, executive functioning and personality / mental health. Mr.

Hinrichsen testified that intelligence and executive functioning reflect what we are born with, whereas personality and some mental health issues are related to what one learns in life. [ 195 ] He said that if a parent has some problems with intelligence and executive function, they may still be able to parent their children because they have developed supports in relationships with others. [ 196 ] However, if one has cognitive issues such as low intelligence and low executive functioning and severe personality issues and mental health issues, it is less likely that one would be able to develop “good enough” parenting. [ 197 ] With respect to the mother’s testing results, he writes at pages 6 to 7 of his report:

a) Intellectual functioning: [The mother’s] results on the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence – Second Edition (WASI-II) are indicated in the table below: WASI-II Category range Percentile* Verbal Comprehension Index: Verbal intelligence Extremely Low to Borderline 1 Perceptual Reasoning Index: Nonverbal intelligence Extremely Low to Low Average 4 Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient Extremely Low to Borderline 1 *: A percentile rank indicates the percentage of the population performing below the individual assessed. [The mother's] indicates that, compared to Canadian English-speaking adults of her age, her intellectual abilities are better than only 1% of the population.

This information indicates severe cognitive challenges that are consistent with the DSM-V-TR diagnosis of Intellectual Disability. However, to meet the full criteria of this diagnosis, an assessment of adaptive behaviour should be performed.

b) Executive Functioning: A group of complex cognitive skills which are required for planning, organizing, multitasking, self- monitoring, decision-making, and having the flexibility to make appropriate changes to one's behaviour. On the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test 64 (WCST-64), [the mother’s] results show that she has a low capacity to learn from environmental cues, having completed only one category completed out of six that are part of the test. In addition, a low conceptual capacity makes her behave rigidly towards changes (Conceptual Level Responses above 3% of the population).

This lack of flexibility is manifested by a tendency to make the same mistakes over and over (Perseverative Errors above 5% of the population). This information indicates that [the mother] has important difficulties to learn from her experience and to challenge her pattern of response when corrective feedback is given.

b) Mental health assessment: [The mother’s] results on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – Fourth Edition (MCMI-IV) indicates that she responded this inventory either trying to make an effort to present a socially acceptable appearance or to deny personal shortcomings. Whereas her profile on her test is probably valid, it fails to represent certain features of [the mother’s] disorders of character and also indicates lack of insight and a low level of self-criticism.

Personality features • [The mother's] profile shows that she has significant personality dysfunctions related to a difficulty with interpersonal relationships. • She also shows a goal-directed behaviour with a burst of energy and motivation, setting unrealistic expectations for herself that others may find intolerable.

• Lack of self-awareness and/or reality testing regarding her endeavours. • When she is confronted with limits, or is challenged, or feels rejected, this enthusiasm becomes irritability. • Such high-spirited motivation may lead to fatigue and precipitate depressive episodes. [The mother’s] elements of personality are consistent with a DSM-5-TR diagnosis of Unspecified Personality Disorder with turbulent and narcissistic features. Please note that more assessment procedures are required to confirm this diagnosis. [ 198 ] Mr. Hinrichsen testified that the mother demonstrates a lack of self-awareness.

It will be difficult for her to say that maybe something is too much for her. It is also difficult for her to regulate herself or to get “no” as an answer. When she feels challenged or rejected she may become irritable and have depressive episodes. [ 199 ] Mr. Hinrichsen testified that from his observations and reading the affidavits it was clear feedback was given to the mother regarding non-verbal cues of the baby but it was beyond her to understand the content of the information and she became defensive and jealous.

He said her being defensive is a mental health component. [ 200 ] With respect to the father’s test results, Mr. Hinrichsen writes at pages eight to 10 of his report:

d) Intellectual functioning: [the father] was administered the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence — Second Edition (WASI- II): WASI-II Category range Percentile* Verbal Comprehension Index: Verbal intelligence Borderline to Low Average 5 Perceptual Reasoning Index: Nonverbal intelligence Low Average to Low Average 0.3 Full-Scale Intelligence Quotient Extremely Low to Borderline 1 *: A percentile rank indicates the percentage of the population performing below the individual assessed. [The father’s] cognitive profile is not even: his verbal intelligence is his strength (placed above 5% of the population) and his nonverbal skills are his weakness (placed above 0.3% of the population).

Such profile is sometimes observed in individuals with a neurodevelopmental disorder, such as the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder, which is sometimes accompanied with an intellectual disability. In fact, his whole intellectual capacity places him only above 1% of his same-aged peers. This information indicates severe cognitive challenges that are consistent with the DSM-V-TR diagnosis of Intellectual Disability. However, to meet the full criteria of this diagnosis, an assessment of adaptive behaviour should be performed.

In addition, other assessment procedures should be conducted to evaluate the presence of other neurodevelopmental disorders (such as Autism Spectrum Disorder).

e) Executive Functioning: A group of complex cognitive skills which are required for planning, organizing, multitasking, self- monitoring, decision-making, and having the flexibility to make appropriate changes to one's behaviour. On the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test 64 (WCST-64), [the father’s] results show that she (sic) has a severely impaired capacity to learn from environmental cues, having completed zero categories out of the six required for the task.

His conceptual capacity is very low (Conceptual Level Responses below 1% of the population), which makes it very difficult for him to understand when he has to switch between an adaptive response that is not working to another response by using corrective feedback. This also means that he struggles to learn from experience and may give him the appearance of having a rigid mind frame.

f) Mental health assessment: [The father’s] results on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – Fourth Edition (MCMI-IV) show a valid and interpretable profile, with no unusual test-taking attitude and no exaggeration or minimization of his mental health status.

Personality features • [The father] shows a constricted and defended mindset, leading to interpret others' behaviours and intentions as malevolent and to creating self-defeating circles and inflexible interpersonal exchanges. • The intense mistrust of others leads him to strong withdrawal tendencies and is associated to persistent depressive feelings. • An eccentric behaviour, feelings of depersonalization, and a detached relationship to his social environment characterize [the father’s] attitude towards others. • He may avoid personal and social obligations, passively depending on others, a tendency that alternates with his fear of being persecuted, humiliated, or rejected by them. • [The father’s] self-image of weakness, fragility, and ineffectuality makes him feel life responsibilities as being too demanding. [The father’s] elements of personality are consistent with a DSM-5-TR diagnosis of Unspecified Personality Disorder with schizoid, avoidant, paranoid, and compulsive features.

Please note that more assessment procedures are required to confirm this diagnosis. [ 201 ] Mr. Hinrichsen testified the father suffered from sexual abuse as a child and this has influenced how he has developed. He testified the father would tend to withdraw or lose interaction with the child by exiting the room when the child was crying. He said the fact that the father was consistently feeling overwhelmed by the child’s crying is something he could associate with his trauma.

[ 202 ] He said it is difficult for these parents to self-regulate and therefore even more difficult to raise a child. [ 203 ] Mr. Hinrichsen’s observations of the supervised visit on November 4, 2022 are summarized at page 11 of his report.

He writes: • Both parents needed constant prompts and cues regarding [the child’s] needs, in particular regarding feeding, stimulation and relationship, and exercising for his muscle weakness. • Whereas the support worker tried to engage the parents into developing competencies by modelling behaviours, [the mother] seemed resistant and even frustrated, giving the impression as if she did not want to be told what to do. • In terms of stimulation, it was difficult for the parents to sustain contact and to initiate an activity with [the child]. [The father] seemed rigid and understimulating while [the mother’s] tentative to approach her baby was not consistent or sometimes too intense. • Both parents struggle with understanding [the child’s] nonverbal cues in order to know when to continue or interrupt the feeding, or when to interact with him.

In general, this lack of nonverbal reciprocity made it difficult for the parents to respond to [the child’s] tentative to engage with them. [ 204 ] At page 12 of his report Mr. Hinrichsen summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of the respondents. In terms of mental health strengths he notes the mother is positive and motivated. In terms of weaknesses he notes the mother’s poor self-awareness and self- criticism, emotional instability, rigidity and unwillingness to use provided help and accept recommendations.

He also notes the presence of a psychiatric and personality disorder. [ 205 ] With respect to the father, his mental health strengths are that he is engaged and perseverant. His weaknesses include a passive attitude that requires prompts, withdrawal and depressive tendencies related to low self-image, and also the presence of a psychiatric and a personality disorder. [ 206 ] In terms of cognitive functioning, he says both parents’ strengths include motivation to learn and to ask questions.

However, countering this as weaknesses are their respective low cognitive functioning and difficulty learning from experience. [ 207 ] He finds as a strength that the parents are engaged as a couple and working together, but he also notes that they have intense feelings of dependency and at times have significant conflict. [ 208 ] Finally he notes that the respondents do not have significant relationships with extended family or friends. He notes their lack of employment limits their capacity to participate in the community. [ 209 ] At page 13 he concludes with a

section on how he views the respondents’ strengths and weaknesses affect their parenting capacities: The aforementioned information indicates that the couple […] presents many difficulties (weaknesses) and few facilitators (strengths) that, in the impression of this writer, are related to specific individual difficulties to exercise their parenting and to lack of material and contextual resources to do so: 1) The couple's lack of income and housing and the absence of viable and realistic plans to obtain it prevents them from providing a stable and safe environment for [the child] to live in, and to have his basic needs met, such as clothing or food. 2) In terms of developmental needs, neither of the parents seems to fully understand specific and essential points of feeding, handling or holding, and of [the child’s] emotional, social, and cognitive needs.

Beyond their observable engagement and motivation, it is not likely for them to meet these needs if they cannot understand them. 3) Both parents do not know how to respond to [the child’s] way of communicating, which seems related to their inability, in general, to fully grasp someone's else mind beyond theirs. Besides the cognitive sphere, they do not seem able to cope with the complex needs of a baby (and in the future a child) and keep themselves emotionally and behaviourally regulated at the same time.

In the impression of this writer, the challenges are many and the parents do not seem likely to improve them in the future. It does not seem realistic to think that these parents will be able to develop a good-enough parenting capacity to take care of [the child]. [ 210 ] When asked on direct examination what would be required for the respondents to be able to parent, Mr. Hinrichsen testified in his opinion it is very unlikely they will be able to reach the point where they could parent the child because of the concrete issues relating to their adaptive functioning.

He said they have had many years being unable to take care of themselves and it is unlikely they can take care of others. [ 211 ] On cross-examination Mr. Hinrichsen was asked, of the eight Parenting Capacity Assessments he has done for the Minister of Social Development if he has ever felt the parents he assessed could parent. He said in one case, he felt the parents should be given an opportunity to see if they could parent (through a further custody order). In that case the parents’ cognitive testing indicated they were below the 5 th percentile. [ 212 ] Mr.

Hinrichsen said in that case the parents were very outgoing and resourceful in terms of social networks and families. The issue in that case was neglect and not knowing what to do. He felt if those parents were provided adequate support, they would be able to take care of the child. [ 213 ] Mr. Hinrichsen acknowledged on cross-examination he had not received updated reports from visits between the respondents and the child since September 2022. While he agreed he did not know how visits had gone since then, he said when he spoke to Ms. Walsh in December 2022 she told him things were going the same as before.

[ 214 ] He agreed if Ms. Walsh had said things were now “going great”, that probably would have changed his opinion about the parents being able to get to the point where they could parent the child. I note no specific examples of any improvements indicated in the visit reports after September 2022 were put to Mr. Hinrichsen on direct examination or cross-examination. [ 215 ] Mr. Hinrichsen agreed he saw a bond between the child and the parents, although he said sometimes he was able to see more of a bond between the support worker and the child than between the child and the parents.

He acknowledged it is easier for the child to develop a bond with the support worker (who transports him an hour each way to the visits). [ 216 ] On cross-examination Mr. Hinrichsen made statements to the effect that because the respondents do not have income or housing, they are unable to take care of themselves and are therefore unlikely to be able to take care of the child. [ 217 ] He then testified he was not saying all parents in receipt of social assistance cannot take care of themselves, because that would be discriminatory.

However, he then said being on social assistance makes it very difficult for a person to take care of themselves. He also said while people on social assistance on a regular basis are able to parent their children, usually they are not involved with the Minister or have had successful interventions. [ 218 ] Mr. Hinrichsen eventually testified that being on social assistance is one variable in this case. He said these parents do not have the means to take care of the child, along with their intelligence testing and their mental health concerns. Additional evidence of Melanie Walsh [ 219 ] Ms.

Walsh testified on direct examination that she is not aware of any supports that the respondents have. She said they appear to be estranged from their families. [ 220 ] With respect to counselling, Ms. Walsh said counselling was put in place but as far as she knew there was no follow-through with it on the part of the respondents. [ 221 ] She said the mother has depression and the father has depression as well as trauma.

When the mother was admitted to hospital in August 2022 she was having some suicidal thoughts. [ 222 ] With respect to housing, the father lives in a rooming house on Douglas Avenue. [ 223 ] The mother is in a one-bedroom unit on the east side. She said the mother had asked her to come see it, but she explained to the mother it was not a place in which she would approve visits. She said that if it had been a home in which the child could live, she would have gone to see it. [ 224 ] Ms.

Walsh testified the parents were doing well with attendance at visits, when they went back to five visits per week, until the last month or so. She said the parents have never asked her to increase the length of visits. [ 225 ] She also testified the respondents have never talked to her about their plan for the child if he is returned to their care. [ 226 ] The Minister’s plan if guardianship is granted is to place the child for adoption. [ 227 ] In terms of the concerns at this point in time, Ms. Walsh said they are the following: 1. Cognitive ability of the respondents – Ms.

Walsh said although some gains were made at visits, the parents are still learning how to change a diaper. She noted that the January 23, 2023 report from the family support worker indicated she reminded the father how to wipe the child properly. 2. Housing - the respondents do not have appropriate housing for the child to return to. 3. Mental health concerns – these have not been addressed by the respondents. Cross-examination [ 228 ] Ms. Walsh agreed she told the parents she was happy they were attending all visits on May 12, 2022.

She also agreed that it was noted at a PPC on September 15, 2022 the visits were consistently maintained by the parents. [ 229 ] Ms. Walsh was asked why she had reduced the visits to three per week from five. She said the doctor was concerned the child was not doing well at visits and the parents were struggling. She agreed that missed visits was not the main reason why they were reduced from five to three per week. [ 230 ] With respect to the parents cancelling one or two visits a week lately of the five they have per week, Ms.

Walsh testified the reasons given are that the mother is sick or she does not want the child on the roads. [ 231 ] She agreed that the foster mother cancels visits because of weather sometimes. Ms. Walsh was not sure how many times visits have been missed because they were cancelled due to weather. [ 232 ] Ms. Walsh agreed that as far she knows, the parents are early for visits. [ 233 ] The mother and father have attended all the PPC’s and all meetings with her. [ 234 ] Ms. Walsh agreed she attended supervised visits, including on April 13, April 22, April 29 and May 12, 2022.

She did not see any safety issues at those visits. She agreed the parents were interacting with the child.

[ 235 ] Ms. Walsh was asked about her efforts to find parenting courses for the parents. Ms. Walsh testified she did not feel parenting courses were needed as the respondents were getting intense one-on-one parenting assistance with the family support worker. [ 236 ] Ms. Walsh did recall the respondents asking for couples counselling. She said a referral was made but the parents did not follow through, as far as she was aware. [ 237 ] With respect to the respondents’ living situation, Ms. Walsh agreed she has never been to the father’s rooming house.

She also agreed she did not go to see the mother’s one-bedroom unit on the east side after she asked her to. When asked if she had told the mother she would go see it, she said maybe she did. [ 238 ] Ms. Walsh testified the mother’s apartment is not a place that the child could go for visits. When asked why not, she said it is like a room in an apartment. When asked if the mother has her own bathroom or kitchen she said she did not know but thought she had a warming plate. [ 239 ] Ms.

Walsh was asked about her evidence that the respondents have never talked to her about a plan for the future if guardianship is not granted. She said she was sure they want to live together with the child, but they have never actually told her that. [ 240 ] Ms. Walsh was asked if she knew what it takes cognitively to raise a child. She said she is not an expert. [ 241 ] When asked whether she agreed the respondents are learning parenting skills, Ms. Walsh said it is taking a long time. For example, there were still issues with diapering in January 2023.

The respondents are still learning how to feed the child and have not yet fed him solids. Ms. Walsh testified the Department does not feel enough progress has been made to consider extending the custody order to continue their learning. [ 242 ] Ms. Walsh agreed she does not have first-hand knowledge of what has happened at visits in the last three months. She said she goes by the support worker notes. [ 243 ] When asked by counsel for the respondents whether it is correct that the family support workers indicate the respondents are doing most of the parenting themselves now, Ms.

Walsh said there has been some improvement. [ 244 ] Ms. Walsh agreed guardianship is the last resort. She agreed that the parents are trying. However, she said the concern now is that they are still learning parenting skills, they have mental health issues that have never been addressed and they do not have proper housing for the child. [ 245 ] With respect to the fact that the mother leaves when she gets upset at visits and comes back later, Ms. Walsh was asked if it is not a good thing that she steps out to cool down and then comes back. Ms.

Walsh responded that the problem is the way the mother reacts. [ 246 ] When asked if the parents tell her they are trying to get an apartment, she said no. [ 247 ] With respect to Ms. Walsh’s conversation with Mr. Hinrichsen in December 2022, Ms. Walsh testified she told him she did not feel there were changes that would impact his assessment. [ 248 ] When asked if she agreed with Mr. Hinrichsen’s opinion that being on social assistance is a determinant of parenting, she testified she did not think he said that, but she would not agree with that. There are people on social assistance who can parent. [ 249 ] Ms.

Walsh was asked what safety concerns the family support workers continue to note during supervised visits, as indicated at paragraph 18 of her affidavit sworn December 15, 2022. Ms. Walsh said she did not mean direct safety concerns that the support workers would have to notify her of, but rather the continuing concerns with the respondents’ parenting. [ 250 ] Ms. Walsh agreed the thermometer issue was a safety concern and it was rectified. She indicated that there were no other direct safety concerns. [ 251 ] Ms.

Walsh was asked why the Minister does not support preservation of a right of access if guardianship is granted. She said that preserving a right of access lowers the chances of adoption. She also noted the concern that the parents have cancelled several visits lately. [ 252 ] Ms. Walsh said seven or eight visits had been cancelled by the respondents since December 2022. When asked if she spoke to the parents about her concern about cancelled visits, she said that they would say they were sick. [ 253 ] When asked whether there would be lots of applicants for adoption with a child this young, Ms.

Walsh said, “No, it is not a big pool.” She was asked if it is not usually the case that access would hamper adoption when there are issues such as violence involving the parents. She said that adds to it. [ 254 ] Ms. Walsh was last at a visit two weeks ago, for five or 10 minutes towards the end of the visit. She agreed she saw a bond between the child and the mother. [ 255 ] With respect to the breakdown in the relationship between the foster parent and the mother, Ms. Walsh agreed that the foster mother made comments about cigarette smoke causing issues for the baby.

As a result of the breakdown the mother was not allowed to communicate with and get updates about the child directly from the foster mother. E

[…]