2012 SKPC 092, 2012 SKPC 092

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2012 SKPC 092 Date: June 18, 2012 Location: Fort Qu'Appelle _____________________________________________________________________________ IN THE MATTER OF A HEARING UNDER THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF J.J., born June 8, 2000 Appearing: Donna Taylor For the Ministry of Social Services Murray Pelletier For the aunt, C.C. Christine Hansen Chad For the child, J.J. The aunt and her sons, the child and his parents, and the foster parents and potential care providers are identified by initials in order to protect their identities. JUDGMENT B. J.

TOMKINS, J HISTORY OF MINISTERIAL INVOLVEMENT WITH J.J. [ 1 ] The child, J.J. was born to C.J. and H.C. on June 8, 2000. His parents being unable to care for him, he was apprehended by the Ministry of Social Services ("the Ministry"). By consent order made June 25, 2002, the fact that he was in need of protection was confirmed and he was placed indefinitely in the care of his paternal aunt, C.C., as a person of sufficient interest. [ 2 ] Things did not always go smoothly for C.C. and J.J. after that time.

For reasons that were not provided to me, J.J. was in the care of the Ministry from September 20, 2004 until March 31, 2005. [1] He was also in the Ministry's care overnight from March 10 to 11, 2008. [ 3 ] On September 23, 2008, C.C. approached the Ministry and asked to place J.J. in care for a period of six months; she said she

could not deal with his behaviour. However, in the course of her discussions with Ministry officials, she changed her mind and retained care of J.J. [ 4 ] By September 25, 2009, however, C.C. apparently found it overwhelming to continue caring for J.J. On that date, she approached the Ministry again and asked them to find another placement for him, saying that she was serious this time. She said J.J. was not listening to her and that he was always crying.

She indicated that she wanted him out of her home by October 15, 2009. [ 5 ] J.J. remained in the care of C.C. while the Ministry began its search to identify another home for him. The Ministry was still engaged in that search when they took J.J. for a visit with his mother in January 2010. [ 6 ] During the drive to his mother's, J.J. disclosed to the Ministry's worker that there were problems in C.C.'s home and that he did not feel safe there. Primarily, his concerns related to C.C.'s adult sons, C.O. and N.

C.O. lived in the home with C.C. and J.J., while N. visited there. [ 7 ] J.J. said that when C.O. babysat, he had locked J.J. in a room. He said that C.O. sometimes drank and when he did, he became violent. He said that on some occasions, he and C.C. had to leave home and stay with friends or relatives to be safe from C.O. He also disclosed that C.C.'s other son, N., had struck J.J. on the head. J.J. said he did not feel safe in C.C.'s home. [ 8 ] Because of this disclosure, Ministry officials arranged to meet with C.C. on January 13, 2010.

C.C. was, in the worker's words, "not ready to have [C.O.] leave the home". Instead, C.C. signed an Agreement for Residential Services ("RSA") with the Ministry voluntarily placing J.J. in the Ministry's care for a period of three months. She also signed a Parental Services Agreement ("PSA") covering the same period. [ 9 ] The RSA, in effect, is an agreement whereby C.C. asked the Ministry to take J.J. into care and provide for his needs, and the Ministry agreed to do this. The PSA specifies the actions that each party will take during the term of the agreement.

In this case, C.C. agreed to provide a safe and nurturing home for J.J., free from alcohol and violence. To achieve this, she agreed to assist C.O. in finding an alternate residence. She also agreed to arrange visitation with J.J. The Ministry agreed to arrange visits and ensure C.C.'s home was safe before J.J. returned there. [ 10 ] A further RSA and corresponding PSA were signed in April covering the period from April 8 to July 8, 2010. The terms of these agreements were essentially the same as in the prior agreements. [ 11 ] At a meeting on June 23, 2010, the circumstances in C.C.'s home were discussed.

C.C. advised that C.O. was no longer residing there but a Ministry official said information she had received from the RCMP indicated otherwise. Ministry officials expressed concern with the length of time J.J. had been in care (by then, six months) and indicated that if he was in care for twelve months, the Ministry would seek a more permanent order. Ministry officials also expressed concern that C.C. maintain regular contact with J.J. and have regular visits. New RSAs and PSAs were signed at that meeting; their duration, at C.C.'s request, was six months.

Its term, therefore, was June 23 to December 23, 2010. [ 12 ] Subsequently, an RSA was signed for the period December 24, 2010 to June 24, 2011. There was no corresponding PSA signed for this period; it appears this was an oversight by the Ministry. At the time of signing the RSA on January 19, 2011, C.C. advised that she would like J.J. to return to her care but not until the end of the school year. [ 13 ] By this Application dated April 4, 2011, the Ministry seeks to vary the order dated June 25, 2002 and obtain a long-term care order for J.J. at this time.

This would allow for a more permanent placement for J.J., while maintaining his connection to family members through visits. J.J.'s PLACEMENT IN FOSTER CARE [ 14 ] Upon the signing of the RSA and PSA on January 13, 2010, J.J. was placed in the care of S.F. and her husband, J.F. [ 15 ] While in the care of the F.s, J.J. was provided extra assistance that enabled him to catch up academically; he is now achieving exceptional marks. A need for eyeglasses and significant dental care was identified and addressed. [ 16 ] J.J. has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder and severe anxiety.

He has insomnia and engages in sleepwalking. He also has been caught in petty thefts within the foster home. He at least occasionally displays behaviour problems. In regard to both diagnosed conditions, he takes medication and in regard to all matters, he sees a child psychologist and a mental health counsellor and has done so since October 2010. [ 17 ] J.J. has adjusted well in the home and the community. He is bonded to his foster parents and other children in the home.

He is involved in many activities through school and in the community such as Scouts, drama, music (drum group and singing), basketball, soccer and swimming. That J.J. is settled and comfortable in his foster home is confirmed by information provided by his counsel. [ 18 ] During his time in Mr. and Mrs. F.'s care, J.J. has exhibited troubling behaviours from time to time. For example, on one occasion, he threw a rock at a younger boy. On another, he smashed an iPod belonging to another resident of the household.

There is no suggestion, however, that such behaviour was accepted; S.F. appears to me to have dealt with these incidents with thoughtfulness. Certainly there is no suggestion of frequent or ongoing destructive or violent behaviour by J.J. [ 19 ] Also during his time in care, J.J. was the victim of an older schoolmate who engaged in repeated inappropriate touching. While this occurred over an extended period - from January to May 2011 - Mrs. F. dealt with it aggressively and appropriately.

THE AUNT'S EVIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCES [ 20 ] C.C. is 68 years old and recently retired from long employment as a dietary aide and later as a home care aide, both with various employers. Her retirement was precipitated not by age, but by the development of certain health problems. There is nothing in the evidence that suggests to me that those health problems are debilitating or would prevent her from caring for J.J. [ 21 ] With the exception of the periods noted in paragraph [2], J.J. has been in C.C.'s care since about June 2002 until January 2010 when he disclosed concerns about the safety of C.C.'s home.

At that time, as noted above, he came into the care of the Ministry pursuant to an RSA. [ 22 ] When J.J. came to live with C.C. in 2002, she was also caring for his three older half-brothers. She cared for them for about seven years until they left to live with their mother. After they left, J.J. was the only child in her care. During almost nine years, C.C. was the major influence in J.J.'s life. There is no doubt that they are bonded and that C.C. has deep love for J.J. [ 23 ] C.C. has involved J.J. in his aboriginal heritage, taking him to pow-wows, feasts and sweat lodge ceremonies.

She hopes he will learn to dance and will support that, as she does her grandsons' dancing. C.C. speaks Cree and, while he was in her care, she was teaching the language to J.J. [ 24 ] She said while in her care J.J. was a fine student, obtaining among the highest marks in his class. He was well behaved in school. Outside of school, he played with neighbourhood children, for example, playing ball and riding bikes. She and J.J. occasionally played X-Box together. [ 25 ] She said her daughter is concerned that she may be too old to take care of J.J., particularly as J.J. is coming to his teenage years.

C.C. does not share that concern. Nor do I. [ 26 ] C.C. admitted she had signed the RSA in January 2009 because she felt she really had no choice. She said it was clear to her that the Ministry was not going to let him come home as long as C.O. remained at her house. However, she did not agree with the Ministry's conclusion that her home was not safe for J.J. [ 27 ] She admitted that C.O. had, on one occasion, required J.J. to stay in his room but that he was not locked in, as had been alleged. In fact, she said, there are no locks on the bedroom doors in her home.

She said she does not allow alcohol or drinking in her home but admitted that on one occasion, her son C.O. came home drunk. However, she said, he went straight to bed. She denied that C.O. had ever been violent toward her or J.J. She also admitted that her son N. had once slapped J.J. on the head because he spilled his juice.

She said she talked to her sons about these incidents and cautioned that they could not be repeated. [ 28 ] Also in her evidence, C.C. testified that there was one occasion when she took J.J. to stay at her daughter's home overnight because C.O. was drunk and she didn't like him to be at the house when he was drunk. She said he was "yelling around". She did not explain the apparent inconsistency between this evidence and her earlier testimony that there had been only one occasion when C.O. was drunk at the house and that he had gone straight to bed.

Nor was she asked to do so. [ 29 ] C.C. also testified that neither C.O. nor N. live in her home now and that they haven't for a long time. She said, however, that if either of them needed a place to stay, she would take them in again. She does not believe that they pose a threat to J.J.'s safety or that he requires protection from them. However, she said if J.J. was returned to her care on condition that neither C.O. nor N. live at her home, she would not allow them to live there. She said J.J. is the youngest and her sons are old enough to take care of themselves.

VISITATION [ 30 ] From the time J.J. was taken into care on January 13, 2010 until the date of hearing, a period exceeding two years, C.C. had six visits with him on these dates: • April 8, 2010; • September 10, 2010; • January 20, 2011; • February 17, 2011; and • Two visits on unspecified dates after this hearing commenced in January 2012. These visits were scheduled for two hours from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. For each of the first four, C.C. arrived late and returned with J.J. early; in most cases the duration of the visit was about an hour.

The final two visits were two hours each. [ 31 ] Attempts at telephone contact were not successful. The foster mother, due to a personal incident unrelated to this application, has an unlisted telephone number and declined to allow it to be released to C.C. C.C. was prepared to receive telephone calls from J.J. on her home telephone and says she was usually home in the evenings to do so. But she did not receive any calls. On the other hand, the foster mother said that she assisted J.J. in calling C.C. many times on many evenings but none of these calls were answered.

There is no explanation for this discrepancy and it would be speculation only for me to draw any inferences - adverse or otherwise - from it.

ANALYSIS [ 32 ] There is little disagreement between the parties as to the facts and circumstances leading to this application. The disagreement lies in the parties' view of the inferences I should draw from those facts and the conclusions I should reach. [ 33 ] The history of this matter is significant in that it changes the manner of analysis in some respects from that set out in authorities such as Saskatchewan (Minister of Social Services) v. S. (E.K.) [2] and S.F. (Re) . [3] In those cases, the matters came before the Court for a protection hearing pursuant to

section 36 of The Child and Family Services Act ("the CFSA ") after the children had been apprehended. [ 34 ] In this case, however, J.J. has not been apprehended from C.C. It is not challenged that J.J. is in need of protection. Neither of his parents, although served in these proceedings, has appeared personally or by counsel. Evidence about the parents' circumstances indicates that neither is able to care for J.J. and further, that neither seeks to do so. [ 35 ] J.J. was apprehended from his parents and, by order under

section 37 dated June 25, 2002 found to be in need of protection and placed indefinitely in the care of C.C. as a person of sufficient interest. The Ministry's application before me is to vary that placement pursuant to section 39(1) the CFSA . [ 36 ] The considerations are quite different under

section 39. Section 39(1) reads as follows: 39

(1) Subject to subsection (2) the Court may, on the application of any party to the original protection hearing, vary or terminate an order made pursuant to

section 37 where: (

a) there has been a change in circumstances; and (

b) it is in the best interests of the child to vary or terminate the order. 1. Change of Circumstances [ 37 ] The Ministry submitted that there has been a change in circumstances in two manners: first, the loss of continuity of care for J.J. constitutes a change in circumstances and second, the nature of the care he requires has changed.

In response, C.C. submitted that the bond remains intact and that she is well able and willing to resume J.J.'s care. [ 38 ] I am satisfied that circumstances have changed significantly since the Court's order in January 2002. [ 39 ] Since January 2010 when J.J. was placed in the foster home, he has been diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder and severe anxiety. He displays other behaviours that are not appropriate. C.C. testified that these conditions did not exist or were not evident when J.J. was in her care.

In the course of giving evidence, C.C. said, in effect, that she does not recall observing behavioural problems while J.J. was in her care. She said he was well-behaved at school and received superior marks. She said she had little difficulty with him at home. If C.C.'s recollections are correct, there has been a change in J.J.'s circumstances that supports reconsideration of the January 2002 order of the Court. [ 40 ] However, I am convinced that C.C. has, with the passage of time, forgotten the challenges J.J. presented. She has forgotten the reason he was placed in care for six months between 2004 and 2005.

C.C. has minimized the fact that in September 2008, she attended at the Ministry's offices and advised that she wanted to place J.J. into care because she could not deal with his behaviour. [ 41 ] She recalls returning to the Ministry in September 2009 and requesting that the Ministry look for an alternate placement for J.J. Ministry officials testifed that at that time C.C. said J.J. was always crying and she was having a hard time with him. She was adamant that she wanted him placed and out of her home by October 15, 2009.

It was as a result of this visit and request that the Ministry was looking for a suitable placement for J.J. on January 13, 2010 when he made disclosures about the safety of C.C.'s home. [ 42 ] In her evidence, however, C.C. said that in September 2008 J.J. was not listening to her and she was having a hard time but this happened only once. He cried, she said, "but he never cried before that". [ 43 ] C.C. is a woman who raised her own children to adulthood and three of J.J.'s half siblings for seven years, much of it while working outside the home.

It is inevitable that these children presented challenges and challenging behaviours from time to time and frequently. Yet she coped. With J.J., she could not. [ 44 ] It is unlikely that a woman who had dealt with the challenges of raising many children for many years found herself unable to continue the care of a child who once didn't listen to her and who "never cried before that".

I am satisfied that J.J.'s behaviour in September 2008 and again by September 2009 was extremely challenging and that this is the reason C.C. was then no longer willing to care for him. [ 45 ] Therefore, I am not convinced that J.J.'s circumstances and presentation have changed, so much as evolved.

But that evolution constitutes a change in circumstances in that J.J. has now been diagnosed and is receiving various kinds of treatment that require time and attention that was not previously required. [ 46 ] If I am wrong in this respect, the only other conclusion I can reach is that with the circumstances of her life and perhaps

advancing age, C.C. was by then not able to cope with challenges of child-rearing that she had previously navigated with the other children in her care. If so, this constitutes a change in circumstances for purposes of section 39(1). [ 47 ] J.J. is described by his counsel (echoed by all who love him) as an "intelligent, personable child who has a sweet disposition[.]" But he is a child who presents challenges greater than many children and requires a caregiver who has the insight and patience to deal with them.

He needs someone who will recognize and accommodate his challenges but who will also fight fiercely to ensure he receives the care he needs to overcome them. [ 48 ] Another change in circumstances lies in the very fact that J.J. has been in care for over two years now and the bond between he and C.C. has been affected. Separation for extended time, particularly considering that J.J. was only nine years old at its commencement, will necessarily affect the strength of bonded relationships but in this case, that erosion has been compounded by the infrequency of contact between C.C. and J.J. during the separation.

Fault for this lies with both the Ministry and with C.C. [ 49 ] While the Ministry officials state that they encouraged visitation between C.C. and J.J., they did little to actually encourage it.

I agree with their position that it was primarily C.C.'s responsibility to request visits and the Ministry's to arrange them, but we must remember that it is J.J.'s interest that the Ministry is charged to protect and it was unquestionably in his interest to have regular visits with C.C. [ 50 ] If she did not request them, I believe it fell to the Ministry to do more than remind C.C. to visit and allow time to pass when she did not.

There was nothing preventing Ministry officials, for example, from contacting C.C. at frequent intervals and offering specific visits; based on what I observed, I think it is likely that C.C. would have accepted such offers. [ 51 ] I am also satisfied that there came a time when the Ministry's actions discouraged C.C. from requesting visits. In this regard, for example, I allude to April 8, 2011, when C.C. requested a visit and the Ministry refused to allow one until it was confirmed that C.O. was no longer residing at the house.

This had been an issue for J.J.'s return to C.C.'s home since January 2010 but on no occasion prior had it prevented visits; the Ministry required only that the visits not take place in C.C.'s home. [ 52 ] The Ministry's change of position has not been satisfactorily explained. Similarly, I am satisfied that the Ministry's refusal to allow C.C. a requested visit on June 15, 2011 was primarily a punitive response to C.C.'s cancellation of a visit she had scheduled for J.J.'s birthday on June 8, 2011. [ 53 ] On the other hand, C.C. made little effort to visit and maintain contact with J.J.

In the period from January 13, 2010 when he was removed from her home until at least January 2012, there were only four visits. A further visit was arranged and cancelled by C.C. and at least one request (and probably two) was refused by the Ministry. Even after visits resumed after this hearing commenced, only two further visits took place. [ 54 ] While it is apparent that the relationship between C.C. and her contact at the Ministry had essentially broken down over time, that does not explain the infrequency of C.C.'s requests or her lack of tenacity to maintain contact.

In this regard, I note that all four pre- hearing visits occurred before the Ministry's actions that I have criticized above and while the Ministry openly encouraged more visitation. Nothing had occurred at that time that might have discouraged visitation. Four visits in two years requires explanation and C.C. did not provide one. [ 55 ] While C.C. complained that J.J. didn't call, there was no suggestion that she inquired of the Ministry why this was so or what might be done to ensure telephone contact.

Perhaps if such inquiry had been made, an explanation would have been found for the fact that while C.C. did not receive any calls, J.J. attempted many. [ 56 ] Given the infrequency of contact between C.C. and J.J. and given the extensive time he has had to bond with his foster family and his new community, the bond between C.C. and J.J. has inevitably been affected. In so concluding, I am mindful and fully accept that C.C. loves J.J. and he loves her. The bond between them may have been weakened but that does not mean it is not strong.

I am satisfied that neither wants to see that bond severed. [ 57 ] I am therefore satisfied that circumstances have changed in two respects since the order sought to be varied was made: a change in C.C.'s ability to care for the child and a change in the strength of the bond between C.C. and J.J. 2. Best Interests of the Child [ 58 ] Section 39(1)(

b) requires that if a change of circumstances is found, I must consider whether it is in the best interests of J.J. to vary or terminate the order. Seven factors to consider when determining the best interests of the child are set out in

section 4 of the CFSA as follows: (

a) the quality of the relationships that the child has with any person who may have a close connection with the child; (

b) the child’s physical, mental and emotional level of development; (

c) the child’s emotional, cultural, physical, psychological and spiritual needs; (

d) the home environment proposed to be provided for the child;

(

e) the plans for the care of the child of the person to whom it is proposed that the custody of the child be entrusted; (

f) where practicable, the child’s wishes, having regard to the age and level of the child’s development; (

g) the importance of continuity in the child’s care and the possible effect on the child of disruption of that continuity; and (

h) the effect on the child of a delay in making a decision. [ 59 ] I will not review each of these factors individually because they overlap in my analysis. Individual review would result in unnecessary repetition. [ 60 ] The Ministry plans, if a long-term order is made, to place J.J. in the long-term care of M.H. and R.W., a couple who are close friends of the foster parents and with whom J.J. has become quite well-acquainted since his placement in foster care.

M.H. and R.W. have taken particularly to J.J. and are willing to accept him in a long-term, indefinite placement, notwithstanding that adoption will not be available. [ 61 ] J.J. is not, however, as close to M.H. and R.W. as is he to his foster parents but the evidence shows that the two families are close friends and spend time together frequently. If J.J. is placed with M.H. and R.W., he will continue to have very frequent contact with his foster parents, with whom he is closely-bonded. [ 62 ] As is noted above, I am satisfied that the bond between J.J. and C.C., while reduced, remains strong.

C.C. offers an opportunity to be and remain connected to family that is not available to him by any alternate available placement. Further, C.C. offers J.J. an opportunity for J.J. to be and remain connected with his cultural and spiritual traditions and identity that others cannot equal. This is unquestionably in J.J.'s best interests, particularly as he enters puberty and grows into manhood. [ 63 ] J.J.'s needs, especially emotional and psychological, are great.

As was discussed in some detail above, he will require care and counselling for the foreseeable future, in addition to attention to the needs and development every child experiences. This may be particularly taxing during his teenage years. His best interests will require a caregiver with insight, dedication and tenacity. [ 64 ] We were fortunate to have a report from counsel for J.J., providing his voice. Taking a position that appears mature for a child who has just turned twelve years old, J.J. recognizes the value of his relationships with C.C., with his foster parents and with M.H. and R.W.

He wishes to retain them all. He feels safe and loved in both his foster home and in M.H. and R.W.'s home. Tellingly, he did not express a similar sentiment about C.C.'s home. [ 65 ] However, he strongly wishes to retain his relationship with C.C. and would like to develop a relationship with his brothers, who he has not seen in some time. He finds visits with his natural parents difficult but wishes them to continue. He does not wish to see C.O. or N. [ 66 ] J.J. is aware of the Ministry's plans in the event a long-term order is granted and would welcome a placement with M.H. and R.W.

He does not wish to reside in C.C.'s home, even if C.O. and N. are not there. CONCLUSION [ 67 ] For the reasons given above, I am satisfied that there have been two changes of circumstances since the Court's order was made on June 25, 2002. [ 68 ] The first is the change in the nature and strength of the bond between C.C. and J.J. However, that change of circumstance does not support variation of the order in the nature of that requested by the Ministry.

I am satisfied that the bond could be re-established were I to order a short-term committal during which opportunities for visits, progressing in length and in C.C.'s home, were encouraged and facilitated. [ 69 ] The second change, being the change in J.J.'s identified emotional and psychological needs is more difficult to accommodate by means of a short-term order.

I am satisfied that C.C. is well-intentioned but I am not satisfied that she has shown the insight and drive that will be required to ensure that J.J.'s needs into the future will be addressed and protected. [ 70 ] In this regard, I am mindful of the fact that C.C. did not recognize or recall the nature of J.J.'s behaviours while he was in her care, nor did she recognize their significance.

I suspect that some of the behaviour observed by the foster parents was aggravated or worsened by the disruption of J.J.'s move into foster care from the home he had resided in since he was an infant but I am not satisfied, as C.C. appears to submit, that these circumstances did not exist at all during J.J.'s time in her care. [ 71 ] I am mindful that C.C. has not shown herself to be aggressive in obtaining care for J.J. that she could not provide. She described recommendations, when J.J. was very young, that he be examined for delayed speech development.

While she did take him to Wascana Hospital as directed and to Health Services in Fort Qu'Appelle, she did not pursue help when the concern was apparently

dismissed. [ 72 ] I am mindful that J.J. required extensive dental work after he was placed in foster care while C.C. was unaware that he had dental problems. She apparently assumed that any problems would be identified and addressed through the school program. However, the foster mother was able to determine that his back teeth required care; she described them as rotten. [ 73 ] I cite these as examples, not determinative of an appropriate placement for J.J., but of C.C.'s willingness to rely on others to identify and provide what might be considered extraordinary care for J.J.

This is of concern given his high needs. [ 74 ] It is more important to me that, in the course of her evidence, C.C. minimized the incidents J.J. disclosed. She did not appear to grasp the fact that whatever actually happened, J.J. did not feel secure in her home. She did not, at or after his disclosure, propose any steps she would take to restore J.J.'s sense of safety.

This is troubling, particularly given J.J.'s ongoing anxiety. [ 75 ] C.C.'s actions and evidence have left the impression that, while she clearly is well-intentioned, C.C. does not have a realistic view of the demands inherent in raising a child, particularly one with emotional challenges. [ 76 ] I am not confident that, if J.J. is returned to C.C., he will not be again disrupted by a return to care at some time thereafter.

In this regard, I am mindful that J.J. was placed in care for significant periods between 2004 and 2010 and in addition, there were two other occasions when C.C. requested that he be placed in care. J.J.'s needs are now likely greater than they were in September 2009 when C.C. most recently requested that he be placed in the Ministry's care. There has been no evidence suggesting that C.C.'s insight or endurance have been improved since. [ 77 ] J.J. has had significant disruption in his short life; his best interests require a decision that will provide him a stable placement for the foreseeable future.

The Ministry's proposal offers him the best chance for that. [ 78 ] I am therefore satisfied that the order of June 25, 2002 should be varied. I have considered the various orders available under

section 37 and, taking J.J.'s best interests into account, cannot see practical benefit in a short-term order. There is nothing in the evidence that suggests C.C.'s perspective or circumstances will improve with time. [ 79 ] I therefore order that the Court's order of June 25, 2002 will be varied to remove the provision ordering J.J.'s placement indefinitely with C.C. and instead, committing him to the long-term custody of the Ministry.

The numbered provisions of the June 25, 2002 order will remain and a provision will be added allowing and encouraging C.C. to maintain regular contact with J.J., including overnight and longer visits if the Ministry believes safe and encouraging C.C. to continue her efforts to ensure J.J.'s participation in his traditional cultural and spiritual traditions.

A further provision will require the Ministry to actively encourage such visits and activities and to provide financial assistance to C.C. as necessary to enable her to do so. [ 80 ] I realize that this decision will be very difficult for C.C. to accept but I am optimistic that, while disappointed, she will keep her focus always on J.J.'s best interests and her love for him. Despite this order, C.C. remains in a position to be a very significant influence in J.J.'s life and to assist him in his evolution to manhood.

This is an opportunity she should not sacrifice. [ 81 ] I will be pleased to receive and consider a draft order in accordance with paragraph [79] at the parties' reasonable convenience. DATED at Fort Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan this 18th day of June, 2012. _______________________________________ B. J. Tomkins, J