IN THE MATTER of a hearing under THE CHILD v. FAMILY SERVICES ACT, 2015 SKPC 41

IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF SASKATCHEWAN Citation: 2015 SKPC 041 Date: March 26, 2015 Location: Moose Jaw _____________________________________________________________________________ Between: IN THE MATTER of a hearing under THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT AND IN THE MATTER OF C.R.G., born […], 2014 Appearing: Jordan Hogeweide For the Ministry of Social Services Unrepresented (Mother did not appear) For the Mother, S.G. Unrepresented (Father did not appear) For the Father, R.B. The mother and child are identified by initials in order to protect their identities. JUDGMENT M.

GORDON, J [ 1 ] The child C.R.G. was born […], 2014 and the birth registration is filed as Exhibit P-1 in these proceedings. The child has been in care on apprehended status since shortly after his birth. On application by the Ministry, I made a six month temporary order May 20, 2014.

[ 2 ] On November 27, 2014, the Ministry made an application for extension of the previous order. The first return date was December 16, 2014. By February 2, 2015, S.G. the mother, T.W. a potential father, and R.B. a potential father, were all served with notice of these proceedings. The matter was adjourned to allow paternity testing to occur and on February 2, 2015, a letter, Exhibit P-2 was received from Generac Bio Labs establishing that R.B. is the father of the child C.R.G. R.B. was present in Court February 17, 2015 and indicated he was applying for Legal Aid.

On March 3, 2015, neither S.G. nor R.B. nor counsel were present. The Ministry had not heard from anyone concerning this matter. [ 3 ] The matter came before me for hearing on March 17, 2015. The Ministry called the current social worker Rayleen Singbeil and the foster mother D.A.. Ms. Singbeil testified that since the date of the last order, the mother visited the child once at the Family Service office visiting area. The visit went satisfactorily. The worker indicated that the mother is addicted to morphine and has made no progress within the past year in dealing with her addiction.

The child was born addicted to morphine but with medication and physical therapy, has improved considerably. Ms. Singbeil has made numerous attempts to contact the mother and arrange meetings. Ms. Singbeil has attended at the mother’s place of residence and asked the mother to make an appointment or come for a meeting. The mother on occasion says she will come to the office in half an hour but never shows up. As well, numerous telephone calls were made to the mother and contact was attempted through the mother’s probation officer. When Ms.

Singbeil served the mother on January 21, 2015, she told her about the application and upcoming proceedings and that the Ministry was requesting a permanent order for this child. Ms. Singbeil also suggested to the mother that she would be well advised to get legal counsel. Ms. Singbeil mentioned that the child could be put up for adoption if the permanent order was granted. The mother walked away and has refused to have any more dealings with the Ministry. [ 4 ] Ms. Singbeil spoke to R.B., the father of the child as shown by the paternity test.

The father indicated to her that he is unable to take on any parenting responsibilities. There is no other family member from either the mother or father’s side that has come forward. The mother has two younger children who are in a friend of her mother’s home. [ 5 ] Ms. Singbeil reports that the child C.R.G. is now healthy and has progressed to the extent that he is meeting all his developmental milestones. He is described as adoptable and deserving of a permanent home with loving parents. [ 6 ] D.A. testified. She is a full-time foster parent and has been for 24 years.

At the present time, she has five foster children with her and C.R.G. is one of them. He has been in her care since he was released from the hospital around the end of […] 2014. Ms. D.A. was told that at birth C.R.G. was suffering from drug withdrawal; he shook, he had seizures and slept a lot. He was on medication in the hospital and has since had physical therapy. He has improved and is progressing in a normal manner.

This child is bonded to the foster mother, is happy and described as “a very sweet child with a nice nature”. [ 7 ] Again there is no issue that the child C.R.G. was in need of protection on the date of apprehension. The issue is at this stage what is the appropriate disposition under s. 37 of the Act ?

Section 37 of the Act reads in part as follows: 37

(1) Subject to subsection (2), if the court determines that a child is in need of protection, the court shall make an order that the child: (

a) remain with, be returned to or be placed in the custody of his or her parent; (

b) be placed in the custody of a person having a sufficient interest in the child; or (

c) remain in or be placed in the custody of the minister for a temporary period not exceeding six months.

(2) If, in the opinion of the court, none of the orders described in subsection (1) is appropriate, the court shall make an order permanently committing the child to the minister.

(3) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), the court may, if it is of the view that: (

a) a child is in need of protection; and (

b) by reason of the age of the child or other circumstances, it is unlikely that an adoption plan would be made if the child were permanently committed to the minister; order that the child be placed in the custody of the minister until the child attains the age of 18 years.

(4) In making an order pursuant to subsection (1), (2) or (3), the court:

(

a) shall consider the best interests of the child; (

b) may consider the recommendations of the officer mentioned in subsection 36(2); and (

c) may consider the recommendations of a chief, a chief’s designate or an agency that appears in court pursuant to subsection (11). [ 8 ] The Act emphasizes that the Court “shall consider the best interests of the child and may consider the recommendations of the worker”. Sections 3 and 4 of the Act provide direction to the Court and in particular s. 4 of the Act reads as follows: 4 Where a person or court is required by any provision of this Act other than subsection 49(2) to determine the best interests of a child, the person or court shall take into account: (

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. [ 9 ] In my view, a Court must be very cautious in making a permanent order with respect to a child especially one so young. There is no turning back. However, the legislation is clear and the best interests of the child must be considered. The child cannot be left in limbo until such time as the mother or father may be in a position to parent this child. Regrettably there has not been any indication by the mother that she is interested or willing to parent the child at this time or at any time in the foreseeable future.

I must say if there were indications the mother had been in detox, had requested further time to get her act together or made any further efforts to see the child or keep appointments, I would be hesitant to make the permanent order. However, I am left with nothing. At the present and since June 2014, there has been no indication that this Court has heard that the mother is prepared or wants to at least try to change her ways. She has not attended any of the Court proceedings, she has not attended any appointments and no one has come on her behalf to make any representations. [ 10 ] It is a sad situation.

However, for this one year old child C.R.G., there is some hope. He was born addicted to morphine and experienced seizures which he has outgrown. He was behind developmentally but now at just over a year old, he is meeting all his developmental milestones. He is a happy well-adjusted little boy capable of bonding with a nurturing adult. Both the worker and the foster mother speak in glowing terms of the child and say he is very adoptable. [ 11 ] C.R.G. deserves an opportunity to have a good life. His mother essentially has abandoned him due to her own problems.

He has been fortunate to be in the care of D.A. who is providing a loving foster home. But he deserves more. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence I have heard, the recommendation of the protection worker and the fact that neither parent has given any indication at all, not even a glimmer of interest, I have no other choice but to grant the Ministry a permanent order pursuant to s. 37(2) of The Child and Family Services Act .

M. Gordon, J