Chatham-Kent Integrated Children’s Services v. S.A., 2011 ONCJ 661

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. Chatham Registry No. 137/09 DATE: 2011·VI·02 CITATION: Chatham-Kent Integrated Children’s Services v. S.A. , 2011 ONCJ 661 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE BETWEEN: CHATHAM-KENT INTEGRATED CHILDREN’S SERVICES, Applicant, — AND — S.A. and J.C. Jr. , Respondents. Before Justice Stephen J.

Fuerth Heard on April 27, 2011 Reasons for Judgment released on 2 June 2011 L. Hodgson-Harris ...................................................................................... for the applicant society S.A. ..................................................................................................................... on her own behalf No appearance by or on behalf of J.C. Jr., even though served with notice

[ 1 ] JUSTICE S.J. FUERTH:— The human cost of drug addictions is nowhere more evident than in a Child Protection proceeding where Crown wardship is sought.

The tragedy of the lost relationship between parent and child because of the risks associated with the child remaining in the care of a parent who cannot overcome their addiction is sad, both for the parent who loves their child, and for the child who is helpless and unable to understand the nature of the parent’s problem. [ 2 ] Our attention is drawn to the family because of the failure of parents to protect the child in their care by reason of their behaviour which places their child at risk.

Ultimately however it is the child’s best interests that take precedence in assessing the risks to the child, and developing a plan that best suits the child’s needs. [ 3 ] Consideration of a child’s best interests is a complex exercise having regard to a number of factors which are addressed in the legislation. It is not an easy task, but it is necessary to promote the welfare of the child as the focal point of the analysis. [ 4 ] In this decision I will review the background and history of the family. I briefly review the applicable law.

I will identify the issues to be decided, and then will analyse the facts in this case that are relevant to the decision I will make. 1: BACKGROUND [ 5 ] This was an application commenced by the Society on May 4, 2009, following an apprehension of the child on April […], 2009. The child, Av.M.A. was born on April […], 2007, and was the child of the respondents Ms. S.A. and Mr. J.C. Jr.

The statutory findings are made accordingly. [ 6 ] On June 21 st , 2010, the applicant amended the application to claim crown wardship with no access to the parents. [ 7 ] Both of the parents had histories with a children’s aid society with respect to children older than Av.M.A. [ 8 ] An application was commenced on December 18, 2003 with respect to Ms. S.A’s older two children. On November 23, 2004, Justice Anne E.E.

McFadyen made an order finding the children to be in need of protection, having regard to a number of findings, which included that the mother had a substance abuse problem and had tested positive, that she had been unable to maintain a stable residence for herself and her children, that she failed to adequately supervise her children, that there was domestic violence between the mother and her partner, and that there were criminal records with respect to both of the parents. [ 9 ] As a result of the findings, Justice McFadyen placed the children in the care of Ms. S.A.’s parents, D.A. and P.

A. for a period of four months subject to supervision. [ 10 ] On May 19, 2005, Justice Lucy C. Glenn made a finding that the children continued to be in need of protection for much the same reasons as found by Justice McFadyen. She placed the children in the care of the mother, subject to supervision of the society. On December 5, 2005, Justice Glenn’s order was terminated. [ 11 ] On September 15, 2006, Justice Kent made a temporary order placing the two children in the temporary care of Ms.

S.A.’s parents. [ 12 ] On April 19, 2007, Justice Glenn found the children to be in need of protection having regard to the history of the mother’s drug abuse, that the home in which the mother was found to be living with the children was trashed and there were clear indications that the mother was using drugs again. [ 13 ] Justice Glenn placed the children in the custody of the maternal grandparents. [ 14 ] The father Mr.

J.C. had two children from a prior relationship. [ 15 ] The first child was the subject matter of a child welfare proceeding within 10 days of his birth, and was placed in the temporary care of the parents. [ 16 ] By May 12, 2003, the children were placed in the temporary care of the Society. [ 17 ] On August 6, 2003, Justice Glenn found the two children to be in need of protection.

The reasons for the finding were that the parents had little contact with the children since they were placed in the Society’s care, the parents were transient and lived in unstable housing arrangements. [ 18 ] On November 27, 2003, Justice Glenn found that the children had been abandoned by the parents, and made an order that the children be crown wards with no access to the parents. [ 19 ] The child Av.M.A. was born on April […], 2007. As a result of the extensive history of both parents with the Society, the child was apprehended at birth.

The child’s urine was tested at the hospital and was found to be positive for substances. The child was placed in the Society’s care for three months. [ 20 ] Ms. S.A. attended a day treatment program in the addictions unit of the Blue Water Health Alliance in Sarnia. She was tested twice per week over a period of 4 weeks by urine testing, and was negative for all substances. In addition, she completed a self- reported drug assessment at the unit. [ 21 ] On July30th, 2007, Av.M.A. was returned to the mother by Court order, subject to terms of supervision. At that time, the

father was believed to be incarcerated. [ 22 ] A final order was made on November 26 th , 2007 placing the child with the mother, subject to supervision. This order was terminated on September 3, 2008. A 3 month voluntary services agreement was entered into by the mother and the Sarnia Lambton Children’s Aid Society. It is clear in reading the agreement that drugs, transiency, criminal behaviour and her adult associations were the identified concerns. [ 23 ] In October, 2008, the family service worker received anonymous information concerning the mother having returned to drug use.

She confronted the mother with this information in a meeting on October 21 st , 2008. The mother admitted to having had a relapse. She confirmed that her drug of choice was intravenous crystal meth. Two days later, she also confirmed that her use of the drug had been constant and regular throughout the prior year and a half. She indicated that she knew how to avoid detection through abstinence for a period of three days prior to any urine testing.

She told the worker that her use of the drug was “controlled and low”. [ 24 ] Following this disclosure, the mother admitted herself to a detoxification unit in Windsor, and subsequently into Brentwood, a residential treatment facility. She was discharged from Brentwood two weeks before completion, on January 12, 2009. [ 25 ] During her stay in treatment, Av.M.A. was left in the care of Ms. S.A.’s brother and his wife and, when that placement broke down, in the care of her parents, D.A. and P. A. Av.M.A. returned to live with Ms. S.A. in Wallaceburg upon the mother’s discharge from Brentwood. [ 26 ] When Ms.

S.A. returned to live in Wallaceburg, the file was transferred from the Sarnia Children’s Aid Society to Chatham-Kent Children’s Services, having regard to the geographical location of the child’s residence. [ 27 ] The assigned family service worker met with the mother in mid February of 2009. At that time, the worker told the mother that the Society continued to be involved due to the mother’s past drug use, and the mother’s failure to complete the Brentwood program. The mother reported that she had not used drugs since before entering Brentwood the prior November.

She also advised that the father was incarcerated and due to be released on February 23 rd . [ 28 ] On February 23 rd , the father submitted to a hair test, and was found to be positive for methamphetamine, amphetamine and marijuana. [ 29 ] The father moved out of the mother’s home on March 2 nd , 2009. [ 30 ] On March 17 th , 2009, the mother reported that she was attending NA meetings, and that she wanted to complete the Brentwood program. She also advised that she had tested positive for Hepatitis C. [ 31 ] On March 19 th , 2009, the mother advised that she was allowed to take

part in weekly meetings at Brentwood to complete her certificate. [ 32 ] On March 24 th , 2009, the mother reported that she had relapsed the prior week, using crystal meth intravenously while the child Av.M.A. was sleeping. [ 33 ] A new worker was assigned to the family in mid April 2009. [ 34 ] During a phone call on April 29 th , 2009, the mother admitted to the new worker that the father was again residing with her. She admitted to relapsing on two occasions since April 15 th . She indicated that she was no longer permitted to participate in the Brentwood program because of her relapses. She continued to take

part in weekly NA and Al Anon meetings. She intended to participate in a trauma program though the Chatham Kent Addictions Program. [ 35 ] On April […], 2009, the worker visited with the mother at her home at 11:30 a.m.. She admitted to consuming drugs the prior night while Av.M.A. was in her care. The father also ingested drugs and “got high”. The mother was observed to be highly emotional and had largely dilated pupils. The worker concluded that the mother was still under the influence of drugs.

Based upon the conclusions reached, the worker apprehended the child without a warrant on the basis of immediate risk of harm to the child. 2: FACTS FOLLOWING APPREHENSION [ 36 ] On May 13 th , 2009, the worker met with both parents. The mother refused to participate in drug testing on the basis that she had already admitted that she was a crystal meth user. The father also refused testing. The refusal to submit to testing remained the parents position since the apprehension. [ 37 ] The father was again incarcerated in early June, 2009. [ 38 ] The matter proceeded to court following the apprehension.

The child was placed in the temporary care of the Society, with supervised access being granted to the parents. The initial order by Justice Samuel G. Zaltz on July 17, 2009 provided for a minimum of 2 visits per week. This was increased to 4 visits per week in September of 2009 by Justice Glenn, and then reduced by Justice Paul J.S. Kowalyshyn on October 15 th , 2010 to twice per week, with a requirement that Ms. S.A. call 24 hours in advance to confirm her attendance. Mr. J.C.’s access was suspended by Justice Kowalyshyn.

This without prejudice order was confirmed by him on November 5 th , 2010. [ 39 ] The attendance by the mother to supervised access steadily declined in the period following apprehension. During the last

9 months, she has attended at 39 of approximately 107 scheduled visits. [ 40 ] Since apprehension, the father attended 34 visits, and has not visited with Av.M.A. since July 6, 2010. [ 41 ] The mother has been asked on numerous occasions since the apprehension to sign releases of information so that her involvement in services could be confirmed. She was asked to submit to drug testing. She has refused all of these requests by the Society since the apprehension. [ 42 ] The mother continued her relationship with the father following apprehension.

Based upon admissions to the Society worker, it is clear that the father was frequently incarcerated. It was also clear that the couple shared an addiction to drugs that continued unabated. [ 43 ] The mother reported that she intended on entering another residential treatment program in the fall of 2009 at the House of Sophrosyne. There was no confirmation that she ever entered that program. [ 44 ] The admissions the mother made to the family service worker also disclosed difficulties in maintaining residency due to financial pressures.

This fact was no doubt complicated by her use of limited resources to feed her addiction. There was an admission on one occasion of using baby bonus money to purchase drugs shortly before the apprehension.

This pattern of behaviour is no doubt a common feature of drug addiction as the addict uses monies better spent for housing or other necessities in order to acquire drugs. [ 45 ] Since the apprehension of Av.M.A. it was quite clear that the mother refused to engage with the Society in any meaningful way to address the risks associated with her drug use. [ 46 ] There was evidence as well that the mother continued involvement with the criminal justice system facing charges of theft and possession under $5,000.00, as well as drug possession charges.

Because she refused to consent to release a criminal record check, the exact extent and recent history of her criminal behaviour could not be verified. It was clear however that as recently as September of 2010 she was held in custody, and subsequently released on bail. [ 47 ] The mother gave evidence at trial. [ 48 ] The mother made it clear that she would not cooperate with the Society. [ 49 ] She said that she has underlying issues having to do with her upbringing. Her relationship with her father was problematic. She said that these underlying issues made it difficult to battle her addictions.

She said she was getting some counselling for these issues. [ 50 ] She said that her difficulty in attending access was transportation. She said she hitchhiked from Wallaceburg for the first year after the apprehension in order to visit Av.M.A. [ 51 ] She had put forward a plan to have Av.M.A. placed with her Aunt in Kingston. It was her plan to move in with her Aunt, take care of Av.M.A., and work with the Kingston CAS.

Ultimately, the aunt in Kingston indicated that she did not understand the extent of the problems associated with the mother, and indicated to the worker who was conducting a home assessment, that she was not prepared to put forward a permanent plan. These discussions took place in early 2010, and the aunt had not renewed any proposed permanent plan for Av.M.A. since that date. [ 52 ] The mother said she struggled with the concept of having Av.M.A. placed with her parents and their siblings.

She said ultimately she didn’t think that having Av.M.A. with her brothers was good enough reason to have her reside with her parents. [ 53 ] She said that she wanted Av.M.A. to have the life that she deserved. [ 54 ] She admitted to ongoing drug use, and her constant struggle with her addictions. It was clear to me that the struggle continued at the time of trial. [ 55 ] She also acknowledged that she had no money, no place to life, and no support through Ontario Works. She also said her relationship with the father was over. [ 56 ] The father proposed his sister as a possible kinship placement.

The sister never contacted the Society or put forward a plan for Av.M.A.’s care. [ 57 ] The family service worker discussed at some length the possibility of a plan for Av.M.A. as recently as March of 2011. After consideration of their position, the maternal grandparents, who currently have custody of the mother’s other two children, decided that they were not prepared to put forward a permanent plan for Av.M.A., but that they wished to continue to have some access to Av 3: THE LAW [ 58 ] Clause 37(2)(

b) of the Child and Family Services Act , provides as follows:

(2) Child in need of protection.— A child is in need of protection where, . . . (

b) there is a risk that the child is likely to suffer physical harm inflicted by the person having charge of the child or caused by or resulting from that person’s, (

i) failure to adequately care for, provide for, supervise or protect the child, or (ii) pattern of neglect in caring for, providing for, supervising or protecting the child;

. . . [ 59 ]

Section 57 of the Child and Family Services Act provides as follows: 57. Order where child in need of protection.—

(1) Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection and is satisfied that intervention through a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall make one of the following orders or an order under

section 57.1, in the child’s best interests: 1. Supervision order — That the child be placed in the care and custody of a parent or another person, subject to the supervision of the society, for a specified period of at least three months and not more than 12 months. 2. Society wardship — That the child be made a ward of the society and be placed in its care and custody for a specified period not exceeding twelve months. 3. Crown wardship — That the child be made a ward of the Crown, until the wardship is terminated under

section 65.2 or expires under subsection 71(1), and be placed in the care of the society. 4. Consecutive orders of society wardship and supervision — That the child be made a ward of the society under paragraph 2 for a specified period and then be returned to a parent or another person under paragraph 1, for a period or periods not exceeding an aggregate of twelve months.

(2) Court to inquire. — In determining which order to make under subsection (1) or

section 57.1, the court shall ask the parties what efforts the society or another agency or person has made to assist the child before intervention under this Part.

(3) Less disruptive alternatives preferred.— The court shall not make an order removing the child from the care of the person who had charge of him or her immediately before intervention under this Part unless the court is satisfied that alternatives that are less disruptive to the child, including non- residential services and the assistance referred to in subsection (2), would be inadequate to protect the child.

(4) Community placement to be considered.— Where the court decides that it is necessary to remove the child from the care of the person who had charge of him or her immediately before intervention under this Part, the court shall, before making an order for society or Crown wardship under paragraph 2 or 3 of subsection (1), consider whether it is possible to place the child with a relative, neighbour or other member of the child’s community or extended family under paragraph 1 of subsection (1) with the consent of the relative or other person.

(5) Idem: where child an Indian or a native person.— Where the child referred to in subsection (4) is an Indian or a native person, unless there is a substantial reason for placing the child elsewhere, the court shall place the child with, (

a) a member of the child’s extended family; (

b) a member of the child’s band or native community; or (

c) another Indian or native family.

(6) Crown wardship order restricted.— Repealed. S.O. 1999, c. 2, s. 15(2).

(7) Idem.— When the court has dispensed with notice to a person under subsection 39(7), the court shall not make an order for Crown wardship under paragraph 3 of subsection (1), or an order for society wardship under paragraph 2 of subsection (1) for a period exceeding thirty days, until a further hearing under subsection 47(1) has been held upon notice to that person.

(8) Terms and conditions of supervision order. — If the court makes a supervision order under paragraph 1 of subsection (1), the court may impose, (

a) reasonable terms and conditions relating to the child’s care and supervision; (

b) reasonable terms and conditions on, (

i) the child’s parent, (ii) the person who will have care and custody of the child under the order, (iii) the child, and (iv) any other person, other than a foster parent, who is putting forward or would participate in a plan for the care and custody of or access to the child; and (

c) reasonable terms and conditions on the society that will supervise the placement, but shall not require the society to provide financial assistance or purchase any goods or services.

(9) Where no court order necessary.— Where the court finds that a child is in need of protection but is not satisfied that a court order is necessary to protect the child in the future, the court shall order that the child remain with or be returned to the person who had charge of the child immediately before intervention under this Part. [ 60 ] Subsection 37(3) of the Child and Family Services Act defined the criteria with respect to a child’s best interests as follows:

(3) Best interests of child.— Where a person is directed in this Part to make an order or determination in the best interests of a child, the person shall take into consideration those of the following circumstances of the case that he or she considers relevant: 1. The child’s physical, mental and emotional needs, and the appropriate care or treatment to meet those needs. 2. The child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development. 3. The child’s cultural background. 4. The religious faith, if any, in which the child is being raised.

5. The importance for the child’s development of a positive relationship with a parent and a secure place as a member of a family. 6. The child’s relationships and emotional ties to a parent, sibling, relative, other member of the child’s extended family or member of the child’s community. 7. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity. 8.

The merits of a plan for the child’s care proposed by a society, including a proposal that the child be placed for adoption or adopted, compared with the merits of the child’s remaining with or returning to a parent. 9. The child’s views and wishes, if they can be reasonably ascertained. 10. The effects on the child of delay in the disposition of the case. 11. The risk that the child may suffer harm through being removed from, kept away from, returned to or allowed to remain in the care of a parent. 12. The degree of risk, if any, that justified the finding that the child is in need of protection. 13.

Any other relevant circumstance. [ 61 ] Finally, subsection 70(1) of the Act provides: 70. Time limit.—

(1) Subject to subsections (3) and (4), the court shall not make an order for society wardship under this Part that results in a child being a society ward for a period exceeding, ( a ) 12 months, if the child is less than 6 years of age on the day the court makes an order for society wardship; or ( b ) 24 months, if the child is 6 years of age or older on the day the court makes an order for society wardship. 4: THE ISSUES [ 62 ] The issues to be decided in this case are as follows: (

a) Is the child Av.M.A. in need of protection based upon the provisions of subsection 37(2) of the Child and Family Services Act and, if so, for what reasons? (

b) Are there potential placements with the child’s family, or within her community, that would be the least intrusive measures to be taken in the child’s best interests? (

c) What disposition is most appropriate and in the child’s best interests having regard to the criteria contained in the Child and Family Services Act ? 5: DISCUSSION [ 63 ] The evidence in this case is overwhelming with respect to the need for protection. The mother and father have long standing issues with drug abuse and criminal misconduct that often accompanies such addiction. The use of seriously dangerous and highly addictive drugs, including crystal meth and methamphetamines is well documented in this case.

Despite attempts at rehabilitation, the tragic history and evidence since apprehension lead to no other conclusion that the addictions remain in a fully active state. [ 64 ] One always hopes that the shock of an apprehension will cause parents to recognize the dangers of continued drug use on children in their care, and that the parents will be motivated to address their addictions so that their children can return to their care. [ 65 ] Ms. S.A. made a telling comment. She said “the CAS seems to think that using drugs is a choice”.

It is clear that she is fully controlled by her addictions at present, and despite some attempts at gaining control over her addictions, she has been unable to do so. For her, it is not simply a matter of choosing not to do drugs.

She rationalized that there are underlying issues in her past that must be dealt with by counselling if she is ever to overcome her need for a high. [ 66 ] The evidence also clearly demonstrated that the need for drugs has unfortunately driven both parents into repeated encounters in the criminal justice system for petty thefts and possession charges, along with the occasional domestic disputes. This is a recognizable pattern often seen in such families. [ 67 ] The need for protection in this case is based upon section 37 (2) (b) (

i) and (ii). [ 68 ] The failure to adequately care for or supervise the child was no more evident than at the time of the apprehension in April of 2009. The worker observed the mother’s obvious condition of impairment by drugs. The father had also consumed drugs the night before. Neither parent was in any condition to be caring for or supervising Av.M.A.. In this case, there had been an admission by the mother that on a prior occasion she had relapsed and used crystal meth, but she minimized the risk by saying that Av.M.A. was asleep at the time. Parenting is a 24 hour a day, 7 day a week task.

Her ability to respond to an emergency in the middle of the night would likely have been impaired. The risk to a young child is obvious, but not necessarily so to an addict. [ 69 ] There was also a longstanding history of placing the child at risk, and a well established pattern of neglect and risk taking behaviour. It is particularly ironic and telling to see the reasons for the finding of a need for protection by Justice McFadyen on November 23 rd , 2004. In my judgment, her reasons in 2004 mirror almost word for word what I perceived to be the risks at the

conclusion of this trial. The pattern of neglect was entrenched and unrelenting. [ 70 ] The basis for that finding include the following salient facts: (

a) That the mother and the father are addicted to drugs; (

b) That the mother and the father have engaged in drug consumption while in a care giving role to the child; (

c) That the mother and father have repeatedly been arrested and incarcerated for criminal misconduct associated with supporting their addictions; (

d) That both the mother and father have been unable to maintain a stable home environment, or effectively manage financial resources, further placing the child Av.M.A. at risk of harm due to neglect; (

e) That the parents have exposed the child to the marital discord in their relationship. [ 71 ] The choices of disposition for this case are subject to the provision of section 70 (1) of the Child and Family Services Act. Given the child’s age and the length of time in care, the only available choices for this Court are crown wardship or a return of the child to the parents. This provision underscores the well recognized need to put in place a permanent plan for the child, having regard to her tender years. [ 72 ] There was no plan put forward by the father.

He essentially chose to abandon the child to the care of the Society, and the disposition by this Court, having regard to his decision to absent himself from the child’s life since July of 2010. [ 73 ] It remains to consider the position of the mother and the Society with respect to their respective submissions regarding how the best interests of the child might be served. [ 74 ] There is no doubt that the mother loves her daughter. She has persisted in maintaining her relationship with the child throughout the period that the child has been in care.

The degree of the bond is not known, but the mother has been motivated to do what she can to attempt a rehabilitation of her life and place her in the best light she can for this decision. [ 75 ] The risks identified are primarily the risks associated with the mother’s longstanding addiction to drugs. The child was born with drugs in her system because of the mother’s intravenous use of crystal meth during pregnancy.

In spite of that fact, an attempt was made following the mother’s demonstration of sobriety following the initial apprehension at birth to return the child to the mother’s care. [ 76 ] The attempt met with dismal failure. The mother’s admissions to the Society were that she was able to avoid detection of her sustained use of drugs during the child’s first year of life by remaining drug free for 3 days prior to any urine test. However, in time the continued use of crystal meth became known.

Even in spite of this fact, the mother voluntarily placed the child with relatives while she went into residential care in Brentwood, and on discharge she resumed care of the child Av.M.A. [ 77 ] Unfortunately that attempt at supporting the mother’s care of Av.M.A. was also unsuccessful. By April of 2009, it became clear that nothing that had been attempted by the mother since Av.M.A.’s birth resulted in a change of the underlying risks.

She and the father continued use of drugs, continued the criminal behaviour, and continued with periods of relationship and housing instability. [ 78 ] The mother has not put forward a plan that she can sustain. She said that with time she will overcome her addiction. Regrettably, she has not done so to date. Based upon the longstanding use of drugs, there is no reason to expect a change in the foreseeable future in spite of her promises and efforts to date. [ 79 ] There is no reason to maintain the child in a state of limbo while we hope that the mother effectively changes her behaviour.

It is time to give the child a full opportunity as an integral member of a family to sustain her development and her secure place within a family. [ 80 ] The Society has fully considered alternate plans for placement of the child within her family or community. There are none. The least intrusive measure is Crown Wardship. [ 81 ] The Society’s plan for Av.M.A. is adoption. She is young and without any particular problem that would impede an adoption.

Clearly, such a plan gives Av.M.A. her best chance at normal development and a happy childhood, free from the risks to which she has otherwise been exposed. [ 82 ] In all of the circumstances, the plan of the Society is entirely in keeping with what is best for Av.M.A. [ 83 ] There was a suggestion in the evidence that the maternal grandparents wished to have continued access to Av.M.A. There is no application before the Court. Whether Av.M.A. can be adopted into a home that will support an openness arrangement to maintain the child’s relationship with her siblings is unknown.

I concluded however that there was no basis for me to consider that access by the grandparents was meaningful or beneficial to Av.M.A. In all of the circumstances, her adoption and placement in a permanent home is clearly what Av.M.A. needs. 6: ORDER [ 84 ] For these reasons, there will be an order that the child Av.M.A., born April […], 2007, be made a ward of the Crown and placed in the care of Chatham-Kent Children’s Services with no access to the parents. [ 85 ] The claims of the mother are dismissed.

Released: June 2nd, 2011 Signed: ____________________ Justice Stephen J. Fuerth