Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. N.J., 2017 ONCJ 232

WARNING The court hearing this matter directs that the following notice 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 45(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, [ 1 ] . . . [ 2 ] (

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. CITATION: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto v. N.J. , 2017 ONCJ 232 DATE : March 30, 2017 COURT FILE NO. C20284/02 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF A PROTECTION APPLICATION FOR THE CROWN WARDSHIP OF M.G., BORN […], 2014 AND S.G., BORN […], 2014 AND UNDER

PART III OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES ACT, R.S.O. 1990, C. 11. B E T W E E N: ) ) CATHOLIC CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF TORONTO ) ) Fatima Husain, for the APPLICANT ) APPLICANT ) ) - and - ) ) ) N.J., D.H. and M.L.G. ) ) Paula McGirr, for the RESPONDENT MOTHER, N.J. ) ) ) FATHER OF T.J., D.J, and D.N.J.

) ) ) Not Appearing at Trial )))) FATHER OF M.G. and S.G. Not Appearing at Trial RESPONDENTS ) HEARD: MARCH 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16 AND 17, 2017 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT JUSTICE M. SAGER Part One - Introduction [ 3 ] The Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (the society) has brought a Protection Application (Application) seeking a final disposition that M.G. and S.G., twins born […], 2014, be made Crown wards, without access, for the purpose of adoption. [ 4 ] The Respondent N.J. is the children’s mother (the mother).

She has five children: T.L. born […], 2001, now 15 years old; Twins D.J. and D.N.J. born […], 2003, now 13 years old; Twins M.G. and S.G. born […], 2014, now 2.5 years old, the subjects of this trial. [ 5 ] The mother seeks an order having the youngest twins, M.G. and S.G. returned to her care subject to the society’s supervision.

If the court orders the children be made Crown wards, the mother seeks an order for access to the children. [ 6 ] On September 3, 2015, the father (M.L.G.) of the youngest twins, M.G. and S.G., was noted in default not having responded to the Protection Application and he did not participate in the trial. [ 7 ] The children were apprehended on January 9, 2015 and at the commencement of trial had been in care for a total of 26 months.

The youngest twins have resided together in the same foster home since the date of apprehension. [ 8 ] The mother has exercised supervised access to the children at the society’s offices twice per week since the children were apprehended. [ 9 ] On September 3, 2015, Justice Zisman found all five children to be in need of protection pursuant to sections 37(2)(a)(i), (a)(ii), (b) (

i) and (b)(ii) of the Child and Family Services Act (the Act). [1] [ 10 ] The mother’s three older children were not the subject of this trial as the children T.J. and D.J. were placed in the care and custody of their paternal grandmother subject to the supervision of the society and D.N.J. was made a Crown ward. The three older children all have access to each other. Part Two – The Issues [ 11 ] The issues for this court to determine are:

a) What disposition orders are in the children’s best interests?

b) If the children are made Crown wards, what if any access should be ordered? [ 12 ] The trial of these issues was heard over 9 days. Part Three – Background [ 13 ] The mother was born in Canada and is 31 years old. On July 27, 2016, her oldest child, T.J., was placed in the care and custody of her paternal grandmother subject to the supervision of the society for a period of 6 months. On September 27, 2016, D.J. one of her older twins, was placed in the care and custody of his paternal grandmother subject to the supervision of the society for a period of 11 months.

On March 6, 2017, D.N.J. her other older twin, was made a Crown ward. All of the siblings have access to one another pursuant to a further order made on consent on March 6, 2017. [2] [ 14 ] The mother describes an unhappy childhood that was fraught with conflict with her mother. She began to suffer sexual abuse by the father (D.H.) of her 3 older children when she was only 11 years old and he was in his 20’s.

She ran away with him when she was 14 years old and had her first child, T.J., when she was 15 years old. [3] The mother returned to live with her mother for most of her pregnancy but then moved into Massey House, which offers young mothers assistance with their babies while continuing with their education. [ 15 ] The mother left Massey House before T.J. was one year old and moved in with the baby’s father.

She became pregnant with her older twins shortly thereafter and gave birth to D.J. and D.N.J. on December 18, 2003, when she was 17 years old. [ 16 ] In her evidence, the mother describes her relationship with the father of her 3 oldest children, in retrospect as follows: “My relationship with [the father] is best described as one where he inflicted physical, sexual, emotional and psychological abuse upon me, in addition to controlling and dominating me and isolating me from family and friends. I was still a child when the relationship began.

I was deprived of the ability to mature in my teenaged years and lacked insight into my circumstances. Because I lacked insight, I became tense, anxious, hostile, defensive, self-contained and frightened.” [ 17 ] The mother’s evidence is that she ended her relationship with the father of her three older children in 2006. After the relationship ended, the mother reports that the father had sporadic contact with the children.

The mother currently has no relationship or contact with the father of her three older children. [ 18 ] The society did not dispute the way in which the mother described her relationship with the three older children’s father and acknowledged that this relationship was a source of significant trauma in the mother’s life. Part Four - Protection History [ 19 ] The society has a significant history with the mother both as a child and a mother. The society had four historical openings with the mother as a child between June 1999 and August 2001.

Most of the openings centred on parent teen conflict and the mother’s inappropriate relationship with the father of her 3 older children. [ 20 ] The mother, a teenager at the time, did not cooperate with the society and did not welcome their involvement in her life. [ 21 ] The first file opening for the mother as a parent was in November 2001, just prior to the birth of her first child, T.J. On […], 2002, approximately 5 months after T.J.’s birth, T.J. was found to be a child in need of protection under section 37(2)(b)(

i) and (b)(ii) [4] of the Act and was placed in the mother’s and maternal grandmother’s joint care subject to a supervision order. [ 22 ] A Status Review Application was resolved by way of a final order on November 6, 2002, placing T.J. in the care of her mother subject to the society’s supervision for 6 months.

Between July and October 2002, T.J. was apprehended twice from the mother’s care due to her failure to comply with the terms of supervision, specifically that she was not to be with the child’s father, who was a suspected drug dealer known to the police. [ 23 ] At the time of the older twins’ birth, the mother was living with the maternal grandmother who had care and custody of T.J. subject to the society’s supervision. The supervision order in relation to T.J. was terminated on May 11, 2005 as the mother agreed to work with the society on a voluntary basis.

The society closed their file on August 16, 2005 as the children were progressing well and the mother appeared to be meeting their needs. [ 24 ] Between September 2006 and November 2006, the society received two referrals both by the police resulting from the mother’s call to police about incidents involving the children’s father.

Both referrals were closed at intake. [ 25 ] The society received a referral from the three older children’s school in May 2009, in which it was alleged that a student at the school was frightened of the mother due to an interaction between them in which the student claims the mother yelled expletives at her. As the referral did not raise any protection concerns and the file was closed at intake. [ 26 ] On October 26, 2009, the society received a call from D.J.’s school to report that D.J. disclosed being physically disciplined by his mother for not finishing his lunch.

The society spoke to the three older children and the older twins disclosed physical discipline but denied being fearful of their mother. They also described alternate forms of discipline used by their mother that were appropriate. The oldest child, T.J. did not make disclosures of physical discipline by her mother. [ 27 ] During the investigation the mother denied using physical discipline. She was cautioned and explained the parameters of physical discipline under

section 43 of the Criminal Code . The school did not report any other concerns and the file was closed at intake. [ 28 ] On September 12, 2011, the society received a call from police arising from a domestic violence complaint between the mother and her boyfriend. He was arrested and charged with assaulting the mother. The children were in the home at the time of the altercation and the oldest child, 9 years old at the time, called 911.

The file was transferred to ongoing services. [ 29 ] The mother was referred to domestic violence counselling following the September 2011 referral to the society but she declined to access the services offered to her. [ 30 ] In November 2011, D.N.J.’s teacher reported to the society that the child disclosed that her mother physically disciplined her and her siblings. A society worker met with the mother and the children at their home and reported that the mother presents as a “ loving and caring mother ”.

The society closed the file in April 2012 as “ the children did not report any type of concern, nor did the children’s school ” and “ there were no new concerns reported and the children’s doctor did not report any concerns with regards to [the mother’s]

care of the children. ” [ 31 ] On December 24, 2013, the society received a referral from the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto after the police contacted them to advise that the older children’s father, was charged with assaulting the mother and that the assault took place in front of the children. During the investigation by the society, the mother was not cooperative so the children were seen at school.

As no concerns were disclosed by the children, the file was closed at intake. [ 32 ] The younger twins, M.G. and S.G. were born on […], 2014, in the intervening period between the December 24, 2013 referral and their apprehension in January 2015. There are no reports of any concerns regarding the mother’s care of M.G. and S.G. following their birth or up to the date of apprehension. By all accounts the children were happy, healthy babies at the date of apprehension.

Part Five - The Apprehension [ 33 ] On January 8, 2015, the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto received a referral from the children’s school after D.J., then 11 years old, reported that he was afraid to go home because his mother hurts him. The school reported that D.J. had scars on his face and arm and that he disclosed that his mother put him in the basement and hit him with a broom. [ 34 ] D.J. was interviewed by police in the presence of the society intake worker.

D.J. disclosed that his mother hit him with household items and that in October 2014, when he was 10 years old, when he came home 10 minutes late from school his mother was angry and threw him in the basement where she proceeded to beat him with a broom for five minutes. He explained that the broom broke on him which resulted in the cut on his face. He said he had scars on his stomach, elbow, arm, face and wrist as a result of the beating. D.J. told the police that the cut on his face was deep and bleeding.

After the beating with the broom, D.J. said that his mother went upstairs and dismantled his bed, brought it to the basement, put it back together and made him stay in the basement for two days. [ 35 ] In D.J.’s statement to the police, he said he was only given food on one occasion and he was allowed to leave the basement twice a day to use the washroom. After two days his mother allowed him to move back upstairs and apologized for what she did.

She told D.J. that should anyone ask about the cut on his face that he should tell them he fell off his bike. [ 36 ] D.J. disclosed being hit other times by his mother including with a belt and reported that his sisters were also disciplined this way. [ 37 ] D.J. and his twin sister, D.N.J. and older sister T.J., then 13 years old, were taken into care that same day. [ 38 ] The next day on January 9, 2015, T.J. and D.N.J. were also interviewed by the police in the presence of the society intake worker. D.N.J. disclosed a lot of yelling by her mother and being hit by her hand and a belt.

She also remembers being pushed to the ground by her mother who yelled at her and hit her while she was on the ground. She recalled a particular incident a year earlier where her mother thought she had made a face at her and as a result began hitting her with a belt across her back, arm, face and her lip. [5] [ 39 ] T.J. reported to police that her mother yelled at her and hit her as well.

She did not disclose the type of physical abuse described by D.J. and D.N.J. [ 40 ] All three children reported being sent to bed without dinner by the mother as a form of punishment. [ 41 ] The society made the decision to apprehend then 6 month old twins M.G. and S.G. upon the mother’s arrest.

This took place at the mother’s home on January 9, 1015. [ 42 ] The mother was charged on January 9, 2015 with two counts of assault, one against D.J. and one against D.N.J., two counts of assault with a weapon (one against each twin), one count of assault causing bodily harm against D.J. and one count of forcible confinement against D.J.

The mother’s release terms included not to have any contact with D.J or D.N.J., not to be 200 metres of their whereabouts, not to attend their school, and, not to be alone with or in the accompany of any child under the age of 16 years old. [ 43 ] On January 13, 2015, Justice James Nevins made an order placing all five children in the temporary care and custody of the society on a without prejudice basis. Access by the mother to the children was ordered at the society’s discretion but subject to the mother’s bail conditions.

Part Six – The Events Following the Apprehension [ 44 ] M.G. and S.G., then six months old, were placed together in the same foster home following their apprehension. They have remained in that foster home to the date of trial. Upon their arrival at the foster home there were no reported concerns about their care, appearance, behaviour or their general health and well-being. [ 45 ] Immediately after they were apprehended, M.G. and S.G. began having access with their mother twice per week.

The mother attended regularly and there were no serious concerns noted about the mother’s access to M.G. and S.G. [ 46 ] On January 15, 2015, M.G. and S.G. were taken to the SCAN Department at the Hospital for Sick Children to be assessed for abuse and have skeletal examinations.

There were no concerns reported with the skeletal examinations. [ 47 ] There were also no concerns reported as a result of the physical examination of T.J., D.J. and D.N.J. by SCAN on January 16, 2015. [ 48 ] While at the Hospital for Sick Children, the doctor conducting the physical examination of D.J. reported that D.J. expressed having “ suicidal ideation for a period of time as well as had admitting to cutting himself with a knife .” The doctor recommended that

D.J. be assessed and attend counselling. It was agreed with the doctors for D.J. to remain in hospital to have a risk assessment completed. [ 49 ] During the risk assessment D.J., then 11 years old, reported having thoughts of self-harm since he was 5 years old. His last thought of suicide came days earlier at the thought of having to return to his mother’s care. D.J. spoke about being yelled at, called names and hit by his mother for as long as he can remember.

He said he did not feel safe at home and his fear of having to return home is effecting his ability to sleep at night. [ 50 ] As a result of his disclosures on the risk assessment, D.J. was taken to the Emergency Room at the hospital to undergo an assessment by the crisis team. The crisis team determined that D.J. was not suicidal but was considered to be suffering from low grade depression. D.J. was referred to Rouge Valley/Scarborough Centennial Hospital for counselling and to the Youth Centre in Ajax to be connected with a male role model as well as to the Big Brother Program.

It was also suggested that D.J. have a trauma assessment once he has stabilized. [ 51 ] Both D.J. and D.N.J. have had changes to their foster home due in part to interference in their placement by their father, to whom they have had regular access since being apprehended. In May 2015, D.J.’s foster parent advised the society that she was unwilling to continue to foster D.J. due to his father’s interference with her parenting.

The foster mother reported to the Children’s Services Worker that the father of D.J. and D.N.J. “ had coached and directed [D.J.] to disregard the rules in her home and to make complaints that were exaggerated or untrue .” The foster mother advised the society that the father’s influence over D.J. was destabilizing his placement as it was the cause of conflict in the home between her and D.J. as well as between the older twins, D.J. and D.N.J. [ 52 ] The Children’s Services Worker gave evidence that the foster mother was “concerned that [D.J.] was fabricating and exaggerating stories and complaints against Ms.

W. with encouragement from [the father] .” [ 53 ] As a result of the foster mother’s concerns, D.J. was moved to a treatment placement on May 6, 2015. [ 54 ] After being moved to the treatment home, D.J. was suspended from school after acting in an inappropriately sexual nature towards a female student. [ 55 ] Prior to D.J. being moved to a treatment home, he was in the same foster home as D.J.N. In March 2015, D.N.J. told the Children’s Services Worker that she was having difficulty living in the same foster home as her twin brother.

She reported that they argued all the time and that he and her older sister were pressuring her to say she does not want to remain in foster care. She said she also felt the rules were too strict and not having access to the internet was problematic. D.N.J. was uncomfortable speaking to her foster mother about her concerns as she was aware that her foster mother was having difficulty managing the effects of her twin brother’s behaviour on their home.

As a result, the Children’s Services Worker decided to move D.N.J. to a new foster home, where she has remained up to the date of trial. [ 56 ] The father of the three older children has displayed behaviour with and in front of the children which has proven extremely problematic for D.N.J. and her relationships with her twin brother and older sister. D.N.J. reported that her visits with her father were stressful as he often spoke in a derogatory manner about the society and her Children’s Services Worker and he was constantly questioning D.N.J. about her wish to remain in care.

Shortly after an unpleasant visit with her father on May 11, 2015, D.N.J. chose to stop attending visits with him for approximately 4 months. D.N.J. reported feeling overwhelmed by the pressure from all the adults and her siblings regarding her preference to remain in foster care. [ 57 ] Once D.N.J. resumed visits with her father in September 2015, she reported that she was better able to manage her father’s behaviour by leaving the room when she did not like his behaviour.

D.N.J. was also reporting difficulties with her relationship with her paternal grandmother for the same reasons she suspended access with her father in May 2015. [ 58 ] The Children’s Services Worker gave evidence that D.N.J. is struggling a lot emotionally particularly with relationships that are important to her. While D.N.J. does very well in school and is proud of her academic accomplishments, she is afraid of relationships and does not want to be dependent on others.

D.N.J. does not know how to accept the love and affection of those who care about her and she rejects people in her life out of fear that they will reject her. The Children’s Services Worker said that D.N.J. feels lonely while simultaneously rejecting or pushing those close to her away.

She describes D.N.J. as very needy, emotional, angry, sad and guarded. [ 59 ] The society provided significant uncontroverted evidence of the negative impact access/contact with her father and paternal grandmother was having on D.N.J.’s stability, emotional well-being and on her sibling relationships. [ 60 ] At the date of trial, D.J. has continuously refused any contact with his mother. While D.N.J.’s position at the date of trial was that she did not wish to have contact with her mother, she has at times requested to see her mother or send her a letter.

The Children’s Services Worker gave evidence that she believes that D.N.J. will want to see her mother eventually and that they have discussed the logistics of the visits if she were to begin seeing her mother. [ 61 ] The mother has had regular access to her oldest child, T.L., since apprehension. At the date of trial she had unsupervised access to T.L. alternate Saturdays for the day with pick up and drop off at the society’s offices. [ 62 ] On September 3, 2015, Justice Zisman found all five children to be in need of protection pursuant to sections 37(2)(a)(i), (a)(ii), (b)(

i) and (b)(ii) [6] of the Child and Family Services Act (the Act). The Statement of Agreed Facts filed in support of the finding provides that the mother has abused her children and she is unable to control her anger and manage her children’s behaviour appropriately. Furthermore, she has not taken responsibility for her actions and unaddressed, the society believes that this places any child at risk of harm in the mother’s care. [7] Part Seven - The Children

[ 63 ] At the date of trial, M.G. and S.G. were two years and 9 months old. They have been in care since they were 6 months old, a total of for 26 months, well beyond the statutory timelines permitted under the Act. [8] [ 64 ] Before coming into care M.G. and S.G. lived with their mother and 3 siblings. There was no issue with the mother’s physical care of M.G. and S.G. at the time of apprehension.

The sole basis for the apprehension and their continued placement in care was the mother’s physical abuse of her older children and the society’s belief that the mother has not demonstrated that she has changed such that the children are no longer at risk of harm, or that the level of risk can be managed by a supervision order. [ 65 ] The twins M.G. and S.G., now two and a half years old. By all accounts they are adorable, happy and energetic children who are meeting all of their developmental milestones. They are described by their Children’s Services Worker as bright and engaging children.

There is no report of any behavioural or cognitive concerns for either child. [ 66 ] Two of the witnesses who supervised in total over 45 of the mother’s visits described the children as very active and high energy. [ 67 ] M.G. was recently diagnosed with a cyst which is either a Thyroglossal duct cyst or a dermoid cyst. The cyst will require surgery to be removed and S.G., who will be anesthetized, will be in hospital overnight. Except for this one issue, the evidence is that M.G. and S.G. are healthy children. [ 68 ] The children are currently in daycare two days per week.

They do not require any services at this time. [ 69 ] M.G. and S.G. visit with all of their siblings and their maternal grandmother every other Saturday at the society’s offices. Part Eight - Disposition A. Plans Proposed at Trial [ 70 ] There were two plans proposed at trial: (

a) The society’s plan for the children to be made Crown wards without access, for the purpose of adoption; and, (

b) The mother’s plan that the children be returned to her care following a period of reintegration by way of step up access. Once returned to her care, the mother would be subject to the society’s supervision for a period of 6 months. [9] B. Alternate Plans for the Care of the Children [ 71 ] Section 57(4) of the Act requires the court to look at community placement, including family members, before deciding to place a child in care.

Prior to the trial of this matter, the paternal and maternal grandmothers put kin plans before the society both of which were either not approved or withdrawn before the assessment was completed. Neither grandmother pursued her plan, nor were any other plans proposed for the care of M.G. and S.G. at trial. C. The Law [ 72 ] The court’s disposition options in this case are set out in 57(1) of the Act. This subsection reads as follows: Order where child in need of protection 57.

(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: Supervision order 1. 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. Society wardship 2. 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. Crown wardship 3. 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. Consecutive orders of society wardship and supervision 4. 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. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11, s. 57 (1) ; 2006, c. 5, s. 13 (1-3). [ 73 ] The statutory pathway on a disposition hearing (not involving a native child or a potential custody order) was set out by Justice

Craig Perkins in C.A.S. of Toronto v. T.L. and E.B., 2010 ONSC 1376 as follows: 1. Determine whether the disposition that is in the child’s best interests is return to a party, with or without supervision. If so, orderthe return and determine what, if any, terms of supervision are in the child’s best interests and include them in the order. If not,determine whether the disposition that is in the child’s best interests is society wardship or crown wardship. (Section 57.) 2.

If a society wardship order would be in the child’s best interests, but the maximum time for society wardship under section 70(1) hasexpired, determine whether an extension under section 70 (4) is available and is in the child’s best interests. If so, extend the time andmake a society wardship order. If not, make an order for crown wardship. 3. If a society wardship order is made determine whether an access order is in the child’s best interests. If not, dismiss the claim foraccess.

If so, make an access order containing the terms and conditions that are in the child’s best interests (section 58.) [74] Section 57(1) of the Act is limited by

section 70, which provides that the court shall not make an order for society wardship thatresults in a child being a society ward for a period exceeding 12 months, if the child is less than six years old on the day the order ismade, unless the time is extended as provided for in subsection 70(4) of the Act. [75] Subsection 57(2) of the Act requires that the court ask the parties what efforts the society or another agency or person made toassist the child before intervention under

Part III of the Act. The society’s efforts are detailed above. The society first became involvedin the mother’s life when she was a teenager. Services were offered to the mother on each occasion of the society’s involvement but themother did not pursue the services offered as she either did not feel such services were necessary or she had engaged with servicesproviders on her own. [76] In determining the appropriate disposition, the court must decide what order is in the child’s best interests. The court hasconsidered the criteria set out in subsection 37 (3) of the Act in making this determination. This subsection reads as follows: Best interests of child 37.

(3) 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 intoconsideration 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 by blood or through an adoption order. 7. The importance of continuity in the child’s care and the 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 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 ofa 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. [77] A Crown wardship order is the most profound order that a court can make.

To take someone’s child from them is a power that ajudge must exercise only with the highest degree of caution, and only on the basis of compelling evidence, and only after a careful examination of possible alternative remedies. See: Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton- Wentworth v. G. (J) (1997) 23 R.F.L. 4th 79 (SCJ- Family Branch). [78] In determining the best interests of the child, the court must assess the degree to which the risk concerns that existed at the time ofthe apprehension still exist today. This must be examined from the child’s perspective.

See: Catholic Children’s Aid Society ofMetropolitan Toronto v. C.M. (SCC), [1994] 2 S.C.R. 165 (S.C.C.). [79] The pattern of behaviour must be considered: the lack of improvement in the pattern; the lack of insight; the lack of progress inaddressing well-founded concerns, despite repeated opportunities to do so; the lack of candor; the lack of good faith; and the lack of anyreason to have confidence that the parent has the ability and/or commitment to make necessary improvements within timelines sensitiveto the child’s needs. See Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton v.

S.(B.L.), 2014 ONSC 5513 (S.C.J.) para 99. [80] The significance of the child-centred approach is that good intentions are not enough. The test is not whether the parents haveseen the light and intend to change, but whether theyhave in fact changed and are now able to give the child the care that is in his best

interests. There is not to be experimentation with a child’s life with the result that in giving the parents another chance, the child wouldhave one less chance. See Children’s Aid Society of Winnipeg (City) v. R. (1980), (MB CA), 19 R.F.L. (2d) 232 (Man.C.A.).There has to be some demonstrated basis for a determination that the parents are able to parent the child without endangering his orher safety. See Children’s Aid Society of Brockville, Leeds and Grenville v. C., 2001 CarswellOnt 1504 (Ont. S.C.J.). D.

The Mother’s Plan [81] The mother’s plan as set out in her Answer and Plan of Care is for the children to be returned to her care by way of a reintegrationplan of increased and unsupervised access.

She would continue to reside in the 3 bedroom house she has lived in for quite some timeincluding at the date of apprehension. [82] The mother will continue with her personal therapy and attend any programs or courses recommended by the society. [83] The mother proposes a slow integration of the children back into her care by first introducing semi-supervised access at thesociety’s office while also having unsupervised visits in the community. Visits would eventually increase to full day visits which aftertwo months would take place 3 days per week.

The mother would continue to take the children to the Early Years Centre she beganattending in January 2017.

After a few weeks of 3 full day visits, the mother’s plan is for the children to begin weekly overnight access. [84] In oral evidence, the mother said that while she would be responsible for the bulk of the care of M.G. and S.G., she would havethe assistance of her father, who lives with her, a close friend and the maternal and paternal grandmothers when needed.[10] [85] The mother gave evidence that she would eventually put the twins in daycare but at first she would like them to be home with herto make up for lost time. [86] The mother is agreeable to a supervision order and assured the court that she has and will continue to cooperate with the society. [87] The mother will facilitate regular contact between M.G. and S.G. with their siblings in order to maintain these importantrelationships.

The Mother’s Strengths [88] The following is a

summary of the mother’s strengths as observed by the society workers: (

a) The mother loves her children very much; (

b) The mother attended the majority of her access visits, coming with food and toys and other items for the children; (

c) The mother shows the children lots of attention and affection during visits; (

d) The mother has become more organized for her visits, arranging activities for the children and engaging with them appropriatelywhile doing the activities; (

e) The mother’s visits are described by society staff as generally having “gone well” or “good”; (

f) The mother has demonstrated appropriate ways to redirect the children during visits; (

g) The mother has provided the children with positive reinforcement and praises them during visits; (

h) Despite the children being described as very active and difficult to manage, the mother has not displayed any anger, aggression orthreatening behaviour towards the children during visits; (

i) The mother demonstrates good communication skills with the children during visits; (

j) The mother has been noted by society staff to have utilized some of the parenting skills she has learned in the programming sheattended since the apprehension; (

k) There have been no significant concerns noted in relation to the mother’s access to M.G. and S.G. by access supervisors; (

l) The mother is motivated to change; (

m) The mother has improved her ability to accept and take direction and suggestions from others in terms of her care of the children; (

n) The mother is more approachable and easier to work with; (

o) The mother is committed to having her children returned to her care and has engaged with several therapists and attended manyparenting courses to assist her in achieving this goal; (

p) There is no concern about the mother being able to meet the children’s basic needs; (

q) The mother has a suitable home for the children; (

r) The mother has been engaged in personal counselling for over a year and a half and continues to attend for counselling with three to

four different counsellors; and, (

s) The mother has demonstrated that she is able to seek out services and programming for herself. E. Analysis Regarding Disposition The Mother’s Access to M.G. and S.G. [ 89 ] Since apprehension in January 2015, the mother has had two fully supervised visits per week at the society’s offices; one for 2 hours and a second for 3 hours. [11] [ 90 ] A significant amount of evidence was focused on the mother’s supervised visits with M.G. and S.G. The court was provided with access supervisor notes for many of the mother’s visits with the children.

The notes demonstrate that the mother’s visits with the children are, for the most part, positive. The society concedes there are no significant concerns about the mother’s care or interaction with the children during visits. [ 91 ] The access supervisor who supervised 31 visits was asked if the mother ever acted inappropriately towards the children physically or in a threatening manner. She answered “ no ”.

None of the society’s witnesses gave evidence of any inappropriate physical or threatening behaviour by the mother towards the children during the visits. [ 92 ] After hours were spent on cross examination of the access supervisors who repeatedly acknowledged that the mother’s visits were “ good ” and “ mostly positive ”, the society agreed that if the only issue was the quality of the supervised visits, the children would not be in care.

As a result, I will not say more about the mother’s interaction with and care of the twins during visits except to say that the parties agree that in of itself, it would not have been sufficient justification for the children to remain in care. [ 93 ] The society’s evidence is that the younger twins know the mother as their mother and are bonded to her. They are very happy to see their mother at the beginning of visits and run to her excitedly. The mother is extremely affectionate with the children during visits and the children return her affection.

This is telling considering the children were apprehended at 6 months of age. [ 94 ] The mother’s visits with M.G. and S.G. have remained at twice per week supervised by the society despite the mother’s repeated requests for expanded access or reduced supervision. The society has not seen fit to increase the mother’s access or allow any of it to be unsupervised despite the quality of the visits not being an issue.

The mother also brought motions for increased and/or unsupervised access in September 2016 and January 2017 and both motions were dismissed by the court. [ 95 ] It is the society’s position that they did not cooperate to increase access or reduce the level of supervision because despite the mother making gains from attending counselling and parenting programs, she has not adequately addressed the protection concerns. The Family Services Worker gave evidence that she did not agree to expand the access or reduce the level of supervision because the mother still had not sat down with her and shown remorse.

The Family Services Worker disagreed with the suggestion that a tight supervision order with strict conditions would be sufficient to protect M.G. and S.G. because she does not believe that the mother has shown insight into her behaviour.

In order to expand the mother’s access, the Family Services Worker said she would have to believe that the mother understood the impact of the abuse on her older children. [ 96 ] While the society would not agree to increase the mother’s access or reduce the level of supervision, it did, at the mother’s request, allow her to locate and arrange to take the children to an Early Years Centre for one of her weekly visits commencing in January 2017. She is accompanied by a society staff person for the entire visit.

Analysis of the Society’s Concerns [ 97 ] At trial the society identified five major concerns with the mother’s current plan for the younger twins, M.G. and S.G. They are as follows:

i) The mother’s past parenting; ii) The mother’s use of formal and informal supports; iii) The mother’s ability to cooperate with the society and comply with court orders; iv) The mother’s lack of a clear plan; and,

v) The length of time the children have been in care and the need for permanency and stability. i. The mother’s past parenting, and; ii. Use of Formal and Informal Supports [ 98 ] As I find that points one and two noted above are intertwined, I will address these together. [ 99 ] The mother has been physically abusive towards her older twins, now 13 years old, both of whom continue to refuse to see her. The level of abuse was disturbing. This was a very serious incident of violence and child abuse. She has also used inappropriate forms of physical discipline on all three older children.

She did this despite knowing alternate forms of appropriate discipline, which she has employed in the past. The society argues and the evidence supports the fact that the older twins, D.J. and D.N.J. have been severely

emotionally scarred by the abuse. [ 100 ] The society argues that despite the mother engaging in extensive couselling and numerous parenting programs since her children were apprehended, she continues to minimize her behaviour and the impact it has had on her older children.

Despite acknowledging that the mother has benefitted from counselling and parenting programs and has shown progress, including admitting to the abuse and the negative impact it had on the children, the society argues she has not adequately addressed the society’s concerns and sufficietly mitigated the risks to her young twins assoicated with her past parenting.

The society argues that the mother has made some progress but she is out of time and the children cannot wait for her rehabilitation to be completed. [ 101 ] It is the society’s position that despite the positive changes the mother has made to date, at trial she did not clearly articulate the changes that have occurred to demonstrate that she can safely parent M.G. and S.G. [ 102 ] The mother argues that she is a different person than the woman who abused her older children.

She has engaged in counselling with several counsellors to address her past trauma, emotion regulation and anger management, and, has completed domestic violence counselling. She continues counselling with at least three counsellors, one who gave evidence at the trial. She also obtained a psychiatric assessment which reported that she did not suffer from a psychiatric illness. The mother’s position is that she has done everything the society has requested of her and that she has achieved positive changes in her life that drastically reduce the risk of harm to M.G. and S.G. if placed in her care.

Furthermore, the mother argues that any remaining risk is minimal and can be addressed by a supervision order. [ 103 ] The society acknowledges that the mother has attended for regular counselling, at one point with up to four counsellors, and a multitude of parenting classes. Of the utmost concern to the society (and the court) is the fact that when the mother began counselling in the spring and summer of 2015, she either did not advise her counsellors of the events that resulted in her children being apprended and her criminal charges or she provided few details.

The mother acknowledges that on the advice of her criminal lawyer, she did not share this information with her counsellors until she pled guilty to the charges in early 2016. [ 104 ] The society argues that as the mother was not forthcoming with her therapists until approximately March 2016, she has only begun to touch upon the issues that brought the children into care and her therapy has not effected enough change such that the significant risks to the children that existed at the date of apprehension have been reduced.

The society argues that it is understandable that the mother has not demonstrated sufficient change at this point in time due to her past trauma being so signficant and her failure to pursue services prior to the children’s apprehension. [ 105 ] The Family Services Worker’s evidence is that the mother has “ not yet begun to adddress the issues that gave rise to the children’s apprehension, nor has she accepted responsibility for this .” It is the Family Services Worker’s opinion that the mother does not understand the impact of her behaviour on the children and has limited insight into the protection concerns.

In support of this conclusion the Family Services Worker points to the mother’s inability to talk about the abuse with her at all and her failure to advise her counsellors of the details of the abuse she inficted on the children immediately upon the commencement of therapy. [ 106 ] The Family Services Worker deposed that despite the mother admitting to certain facts related to the abuse of her children and the counselling she has engaged in, “she has begun only to address her personal issues and issues of past trauma (both as a child and as a victim of serious domestic violence) and while I am pleased and impressed that she has began this difficult and necessary work, I do not believe that she is yet in a position to understand her own behaviour and, more importantly, the profound negative impact of that behaviour on her children.

It is my belief that while she is able to meet the children’s instrumental needs, I remain concerned about her level of frustration and ability to manage any challenging behaviour by he children.” [ 107 ] The mother explains that she followed the advice of her criminal lawyer and did not discuss the charges in detail with anyone.

It was only after she retained new counsel in both the criminal and the child protection proceeding that she changed course and pleaded guilty to three of the counts and began having more candid discussions with her counsellors. [ 108 ] The mother argues that despite the delay in disclosing the circumstances of the abuse and apprehension to her service providers, she has been working on aspects of herself in therapy since July 2015 that have resulted in real and noteable changes in her and her life that provide a sufficient basis for the court to return the children to her care subject to a supervision order. [ 109 ] The mother gave evidence of what she has learned in counselling in terms of the cause of her anger and how to control it.

She has spent almost 20 months in counselling with one particular counsellor who focuses solely on emotion regulation [12] . The mother gave the following evidence on what she has learned in counselling that will assist her in identifying and controlling her anger in the future: (

a) She has identified one source of her anger as, “ Me not being able to relate or understand what’s really going on or, or, or maybe I’m not accepting it at that time. Me being unable to understand or accept…what’s going on at that moment or understand it.” (

b) She has learned that what she is thinking at the time contributes to her anger and she has to think positive thoughts as opposed to believing the situation can only get worse. (

c) She has learned that it is better to seek help then to “ keep things bottled up inside ”. (

d) She has acknowledged that she “ was living more secluded, covered, hidden, under mask, and, and now… I’m able to open up, be more of myself, without feeling hurt constantly. ” (

e) She has acquired coping skills to manage the impact stress has on her, such as “ positive self-thinking ”, breathing techniques, opening up and sharing her feelings, and being less controlling. (

f) She is more trusting of people and able to seek help when she needs it.

(

g) She has learned a lot about herself and parenting in the personal therapies she has engaged in and the parenting courses she has completed. [ 110 ] When asked what she would do differently when she gets angry with M.G. or S.G. the mother said: “ I wouldn’t even use the word ‘anger’.

I would use the word ‘upset’ or maybe ‘disappointed’….I can get to the source of what’s really bothering me…… it’s for me to find that out first in order for me to get to the solution…..I mean I don’t think I would allow the kids to get me to that level because it’s either something that they’re wanting at the time - it’s either something that I need to do…I would just find other…alternatives to find solutions instead of just get – turning to anger. Anger does not resolve anything.

That’s what I’ve learned so far, the past two years… I know how to manoeuver throughout a lot of disappointments now, differently than before, or even let-downs. I mean I think I think differently.” [ 111 ] When asked how she thinks differently, the mother said: “…when it comes for these conflicts, I – I look for the solution instead of reacting. I react a lot less. I find solutions, like, with… [a ccess supervisor ]….I would discuss it with either my family service worker…what… we’re going through. I would state my feelings of how I’m feeling.

I would give examples to what’s…occurring and then I look – I look for advice and find solutions with…whoever is around or who’s – who’s able to help. I do not result to anger as the first thing and I know now it’s not even the last thing. So, I – I look for solutions.” [ 112 ] The mother also gave evidence that when she hit her older children, “ I’m thinking that it’s a way of showing them how I feel or how hurt…I may be…feeling…and there’s words that I can use now instead of that. There is emotion that I can use in order for us to connect or for us to relate.

There’s – you know – there’s other ways communicating and now letting them know exactly what you think that time and I need to help them to identify their own feelings… ”. [ 113 ] The mother’s counsellor from Catholic Family Services of Toronto, Alicia Excell, gave evidence at the trial. Ms. Excell, M.E.d., C. Psych., has worked as a counsellor for Catholic Family Services of Toronto for over 14 years . M s. Excell provides counselling to women who are victims of trauma or domestic violence, men who are the perpetrators of violence against their partners or children, and, for couples.

She has been providing the mother with one-on-one counseling since July 2015. The focus of the counselling was emotion regulation and focused on present day scenarios as opposed to reviewing past events with the mother. Ms.

Excell referred to the mother’s therapy as dialectical behaviour therapy, “an approach where we try to help women look at reality as it is, not as they wish it to be, work on skills, like emotion regulation, self regulation .” [ 114 ] The counsellor gave evidence that early on in her interaction with the mother she felt it was important to work on emotion regulation, managing her emotions including anger, before focusing on past trauma out of concern that focusing on the past would be too destabilizing for the mother, who was working with other counsellors that were focusing on past trauma. [ 115 ] When asked if she’s observed any change in the mother since they began working together, the counsellor said, “ I’ve definitely seen change…we structured the sessions so she’ll come in and present a specific situation that’s happened.

So it could be something during an access. And then …she’ll talk about her feelings, her frustrations, and then…I would challenge [the mother] to look at alternative theories for the other person’s behaviour, to think outside of the box and not think like a victim…understand another point of view and perspective, and I found, as I was working with [the mother], that through time - that she was becoming much more able to describe the other point of view and she would…talk about sometimes getting defensive.

She would own that and then talk about what was going on emotionally for her and what – what was getting in the way…[the mother] wouldn’t present herself as a perfect person…she was honest, open and willing to look at her own behaviour.” [ 116 ] The counsellor provided the mother and society with a letter in September 2016, providing answers to questions formulated together by the society’s and the mother’s lawyer.

When the counsellor was asked if she has observed any difference in the mother since she wrote that letter, she said that she has observed the mother to be more accountable for her behaviour and better able to identify what she could do differently in a situation. The counsellor also said that the mother is less defensive. [ 117 ] The mother has completed domestic violence counselling offered through Costi Immigration Services with Rosalie Ricupati, Domestice Violence Counsellor.

The mother states that she has a good understanding of domestic violence and that she is now at low risk of engaging in another violent relationship. [ 118 ] The mother also completed a 10 week group program entitled “Reclaiming Yourself After Abuse” through Counterpoint, a Counselling and Educational Co-operative. [ 119 ] The mother continues to work with four counsellors; Ms.

Excell who works on emotion regulation; Mike Stone, M.S.W., R.S.W., a counsellor with Family Service of Toronto who is focusing on past traumas suffered by the mother and how they effect her now as a parent; Wendy Martin, M.S.W., R.S.W., a social worker/therapist with Unison Health & Community Services who provides the mother with psychotherapy; and, she recently began seeing another counsellor at the Caribbean African Canadian Association.

The mother deposed that “ My purpose of attending there is to arrange counseling respecting parenting support and planning for children. ” [ 120 ] It is not entirely clear to the court why the mother is working with four different counsellors. Ms. Excell gave evidence that she has spoken with Ms. Martin and was aware that the mother was seeking out assistance from the Caribbean African Canadian Association as well. Ms.

Excell gave evidence that she did a “ circle of support ” to determine who was working with the mother and the focus of their work because she was “ particularly concerned about pacing and grounding because she was doing work in different places, some parenting, some counselling. You know – so she was – she was busy. ” Remorse

[ 121 ] The society does not believe that the mother is sufficiently remorseful for what she did to her older children. In support of the society’s position that the mother minimizes the impact of her actions on the children and is not sufficiently remorseful, the society makes the following arguments:

a) The mother denied certain aspects of the abuse reported by the children to the police;

b) The mother gave evidence that she was responsible for the assaults “ regardless of any provocation I felt because of their behaviour ”;

c) When questioned about her statement to the police officer the mother said that she did not hit D.N.J. for “ no reason ”;

d) The mother denied the possibility that D.J. soiled himself just prior to the assault by the mother in October 2014, because he was scared of her;

e) In her evidence the mother questioned whether the assault on D.J. resulted in five scars to his body despite having agreed to that in a statement of agreed facts filed in the criminal matter;

f) The mother gave evidence that she felt “ angry, hurt, disappointed, humiliated ” when assaulting her children;

g) The mother was involved in a rage fueled incident in 2011 when she broke the door down of her former boyfriend’s home; and,

h) Despite acknowledging that her children were good children, she gave evidence that D.J. lies, D.N.J. lies “ sometimes ” and T.J. is mostly honest. [ 122 ] It is the mother’s evidence that she has accepted full responsibility for the abuse she inflicted on her children and that she would never physically discipline or abuse her children again. She pleaded guilty to the criminal charges which she argues clearly demonstrates that she has accepted responsibilty for her actions.

She says that she used to think physical discipline was “ necessary ” and “ normal ” and that she has come to realize that physical discipline is not an acceptable form of discipline and she was wrong to use it, especially since she knew and used other appropriate techniques to discipline her children. [ 123 ] The mother was asked if she has watched the recordings of her childrens’ interviews by the police.

She answered that she has seen the recordings twice and when asked how they made her feel she said she was quite upset with herself and felt really sorry for her children as she did not understand the extent of the harm she was causing her children at the moment the abuse took place. She accepted blame and acknowedged that she was at fault and that the children did nothing wrong. [ 124 ] The mother was asked to comment on the society’s belief that she has not taken responsibility for the abuse and she is not remorseful.

She gave evidence through tears that she has cried to the Family Services Worker “ a whole bunch of times ” and she does not understand “ what sort of remorse she is looking for ”.

The mother explained that it is very traumatic for her to discuss what she did to the children and that she cannot show remorse this way. [ 125 ] When the mother’s lawyer asked her how she felt, looking back on the abuse she inflicted on her children, she said she felt “a shamed, disappointed, disgusted, humiliated and angry” with herself. [13] [ 126 ] When the mother’s counsellor was asked what emotions the mother has displayed when she talks about her older children, the counsellor said , “I’ve seen sadness in [the mother].

I’ve seen a lot of remorse in her, particularly with the, the, the 12-year-old twins.” [ 127 ] In the Pre-Sentence Report dated March 24, 2016, filed with the criminal court in advance of the mother’s sentencing on the assault and forcible confinement charges, the Probation and Parole Officer wrote that the mother does show some remorse and understands that she should not have done what she did but that she “ minimizes her role in that she was reacting to the behaviour that was presented to her, she was not the initiator .” [ 128 ] The mother was asked to explain her belief that she was not the initiator of the abuse and she explained that at the time of the assaults she felt provoked by the children whereas today she understands that she was the initiator of the abuse and no fault was to be attributed to the children. [ 129 ] The court finds that the society has misunderstood or misinterpreted the mother’s evidence.

The mother spoke about how she felt and what she was thinking at the time of the assaults and what she has come to know and understand at the time of trial. The society seems to rely on statements the mother made in evidence to explain how she felt or what she was thinking at the time of the assaults and atttibute those feelings to her today. The court rejects the society’s

interpretation of the mother’s evidence. [ 130 ] With respect to D.J. soiling himself in the basement before the assault took place, the mother gave evidence that at the time, she thought he soiled himself on purpose to get out of being punished which enraged her and led to the assault. The mother was asked if it occurred to her that D.J. might have soiled himself out of fear of her. She answered “ not at all ” and that she thought he did it on purpose. The evidence as given by the mother described what she was thinking at the time of the assault.

To demonstrate the difference in the mother’s thinking today, the court relies on the mother’s answers to the next question: Question: “ Do you think that today? ” Answer: “ No right now I don’t. I realize that he was just a child not knowing what he was doing. I know now that he puposely didn’t do that to hurt me .” [ 131 ] The mother provided the court with further evidence to support this

interpretation of the evidence when she was asked if she thought D.J. told school officials what she had done to him because he was scared of her and she replied, “ Of course, he did not want to go through the same thing again. ” [ 132 ] The court rejects the importance the society places on the evidence of the mother questioning whether the abuse resulted in five

scars on D.J. or whether her children were entirely truthful about what occurred during the assaults. The mother has admitted to the abuse. She acknowledges hitting her children with a belt and beating D.J. with a broom which resulted in, among other injuries, a significant gash on his cheek. She admits to confining D.J. to the basement and not obtaining medical treatment for the cut on his face. Her denying that she hit D.N.J. in the face with the belt or that she kicked D.J. [14] does not, in the court’s opinion, suggest a lack of remorse or denial of responsibility.

Furthermore, what would the mother have to gain by denying these aspects of the abuse while admitting to other equally and maybe even more violent actions towards her children? [ 133 ] The society also questions the mother’s evidence that her children, who are good children, sometimes lie.

As T.J. and D.N.J were untruthful about an unannounced visit to their mother’s home, it is fair to say that they were not truthful about this event. [15] The court also notes that D.J.s foster mother asked for him to be moved as she was worried that he “ was fabricating and exaggerating stories and complaints” against her encouraged by his father. [ 134 ] The court does not find these arguments made by the society to be persuasive, as the evidence relied upon by the society in support of their position, does not, in the court’s view demonstrate a lack of remorse by the mother or that she is minimizing the impact of her actions on the children.

The Mother as a Witness [ 135 ] The court also notes that the mother was on the witness stand for almost two full days and during this time she gave her evidence in a thoughtful and forthright manner. For the most part, the court found her to be an honest witness. She never lost her composure or became agitated, although tearful when appropriate. The mother’s composure on the witness stand in such a difficult and stressful situation, where her character and self worth is being seriously challenged is noteworthy given that the protection concerns centre around her ability to control her emotions and anger.

Insight [ 136 ] The society claims the mother has not demonstrated sufficient insight into her behaviour, what caused it and the effect it had on her children. The mother’s evidence provides examples of her insight into what she has done and the effect on her children. Some examples are as follows: (

a) When asked if she can describe some of the ways in which the physical abuse has effected her children, the mother gave evidence that, “ Trust wise, I may have breached their trust or damaged that. I may have ruined their capabilities of trusting others .” She also said that “ maybe they could be displaying the same sort of anger I have without… realizing the source, without realizing where - where it comes from.” (

b) When giving evidence of the events surrouding the abuse of D.N.J. for which the mother pleaded guilty to assault with a weapon, the mother said, “If I wasn’t in her space, if I wasn’t yelling in her face, all of that wouldn’t have escalated I think.” (

c) The mother was asked to explain what she meant when she gave evidence that she forgave her children and that “ it wasn’t their fault ”. She answered by saying it is her fault that the children were apprehended and separated from each other. She said that she wanted the children to know that they did not do anything wrong and that they should not feel any guilt at being apprehended as “ it was all on me ”. (

d) The mother gave evidence that the way her children describe her made her realize the type of person she appears to be and that it was not her intention to be that person. She gave evidence that she wants to be better. (

e) When the mother was being cross examined about the work she has been doing with her therapists, she was asked if she agrees that she requires a lot more work. Her response was, “ with the children, ya ”. Counsel for the society then asked if she required a lot more work on her own issues and her response was that that there was only so much she can do on her own. She feels that she needs to hear from the children how the abuse impacted them in order to fully address what she has done. (

f) When asked if she has forgiven herself for the abuse she inflicted on her children, the mother’s evidence is that she needs to fully make amends with the children in order to be able to move on. She said that she wants her children to know how sorry she is and that they do not have to forgive her but she has to show them she is sorry. (

g) When asked why the mother thinks D.J. and D.N.J. do not want to see her, she acknowledged it was because of the physical discipline and the abuse they suffered. (

h) When asked if she has apologized to her children, the mother gave evidence that she has apologized to T.J. and D.N.J. She says she is trying to make amends with T.J. at every one of her visits with her. She had a chance to apologize to D.N. J. and tell her she loves her when D.N.J showed up unannounced at the mother’s home with T.J.

The mother showed insight when she said that she did not want to say too much to D.N.J. as this took place “ with no counsellor ” and “ I didn’t want to traumatize my child again with information and details .” No Opportunity to Parent [ 137 ] The mother argues that once the society decided in December 2015 to pursue an order making M.G. and S.G. Crown wards, they became entrenched in their position and did little to support her reunification with the children. [ 138 ] There is some evidence to support the mother’s contention in this regard. The evidence of the Family Services Worker at times

suggested she had stopped assessing the mother in any meaningful way and was content to wait until the matter got to trial for a final resolution. While she did meet with the mother and impressed upon her the importance of cooperating with the society and being honest with her service providers, she seemed to do little else in support of reunification. [ 139 ] The Family Services Worker gave evidence that the mother complied with all of her directions regarding counselling and parenting programs.

When the mother obtained a psychiatric assessment that the Family Services Worker did not believe was satisfactory, she did not direct the mother to obtain a second assessment as she was already engaged in counselling with several therapists. What is concerning about this evidence is that the Family Services Worker felt that a psychiatric assessment was necessary in order to determine what treatment the mother required to address the protection concerns.

When the court asked the Family Services Worker if she referred the mother to the type of counselling she required, she answered that the psychiatric assessment would provide that information. [ 140 ] The evidence is that the Family Services Worker called and spoke to the mother’s therapists every 3 weeks or so. She did this to confirm the mother was attending her therapy sessions and what they spoke about. These calls seemed to be done without much purpose.

While the Family Services Worker gave evidence that she spoke to the mother’s counsellors, she did not give evidence that suggests she went into any great detail with any of them regarding the society’s concerns and whether the counselling will assist in addressing the concerns. [ 141 ] The mother’s counsellor who gave evidence at trial spoke about her regular calls with the Family Services Worker that seemed solely for the purpose of the counsellor confirming the mother was attending appointments and what they were working on.

The counsellor said the Family Services Worker did not say much and she did most of the talking. When asked if the counsellor was told by the Family Services Worker what the society’s position was with respect to the return of M.G. and S.G. to the mother’s care, the answer was “ no ”. [ 142 ] In her evidence, the Family Services Worker deposed that she received the following information from the mother’s counsellors and therapists: (

a) The Domestic Violence Counsellor reported to the Family Services Worker on June 29, 2016, that the mother’s “ participation was “amazing”. She beieved that [the mother] was very eager to learn and to make a difference in her life, that she was receptive to feedback and was very supportive of the other women in the group. ” (

b) On September 13, 2016, Ms. Excel advised the Family Services Worker that the mother “ appeared to be more calm and grounded and less distressed in their sessions. ” (

c) On September 15, 2016, Wendy Martin told the Family Services Worker that “ she has seen a real change with [the mother], and noted that she has been getting more comfortable, calm and grounded during their sessions.

She also noted that [the mother] appeared to be really accessing resources in her community, and she seemed to be more reflective .” [ 143 ] The Family Services Worker desposed that she contined to have conversations with the mother’s counsellors in October and November 2016 and that while the counsellors continue to report that the mother is making progress, the Family Services Worker takes issue with the mother’s counselling and how the progress will meet the needs of the children and address the society’s concerns when “ the focus is largely on her own trauma, and on her own healing process.

The counselling remains directed towards addressing [the mother’s] own personal goals, but has not yet touched on her actions towards her children that led to them being removed from her care or assisting her to assume responsibility for her actions and understand the impact of her actions on the children .” [ 144 ] The court does not accept the Family Services Worker’s assessment of the mother’s counselling. Clearly the mother’s trauma and personal goals are intertwined with her past parenting and future parenting. They cannot be separated, as they go hand-in-hand.

Addressing her past trauma and the effects of it on her parenting, are in fact an example of how the mother is, in part, addressing the behaviours that led to the children being brought into care.

To say that the mother has not “ yet touched on her actions towards the children that led to them being removed from her care ” is incorrect. [ 145 ] Given the above information the Family Services Worker received from the mother’s service providers, the court is puzzled as to why the Family Services Worker did not have more of an in depth conversation with any of them if what she was told was not sufficient for her to alter her position or to support increased or unsupervised access.

If the society was concerned about the progress the mother was making and that she had not “ yet touched on her actions towards the children that led to them being removed from her care ” why was this not specifically raised with the counsellors? [16] Why did the Family Services Worker not specifically ask the therapists how the work they are doing with the mother will assist her in being reunited with her children?

Why did the Family Services Worker not have a frank discussion with any of the counsellors as to whether the work they were doing with the mother would directly address the mother’s past parenting, the society’s major concern? Why did the Family Services Worker not consider a meeting with the mother and one or all of her therapists?

Why did the Family Services Worker not ask any of the questions of the mother’s therapist that were asked of her when she gave evidence at the trial? [ 146 ] If the Family Services Worker had engaged in more in depth conversations with the mother’s counsellors she may have either considered a change in her position, permitted increased or unsupervised access by the mother [17] , or she could have contemplated different services for the mother that would better support reunification.

This did not happen. [ 147 ] The society gave additional evidence that provided support to the mother’s position that they became entrenched in their position without the possibility of change in December 2015. Examples are as follows: (

a) The society provided affidavit evidence with a microscopic dissection of everything the mother did during visits with M.G. and S.G. that they thought may reflect badly on her and therefore support the society’s position; (

b) The affidavit evidence provided by the society contains an over emphasis on minor disagreements or personality conflicts the mother had with some access supervisors;

(

c) The society’s suspicion over what could easily have been an honest mistake when the mother attended at the society’s officesbelieving she had a visit with T.J. when she did not and she accidentally saw her older twins D.J. and D.N.J. who were there to visit theirfather was unwarranted when considering the mother’s behaviour as a whole. As there was no pattern of this type of behaviour, thesociety, in the court’s opinion, should have given the mother the benefit of the doubt. This is especially the case when the society claimstheir relationship with the mother lacked trust; (

d) The society’s failure to simply acknowledge that other than not advising the society immediately, the mother was not to blame forT.J. and D.N.J. coming to her home uninvited and unannounced; (

e) The society’s refusal to allow the mother to attend the hospital for S.G.’s specialist appointments and surgery to remove the cyst onher neck; and, (

f) The society took a very restrictive approach to the mother’s access to M.G. and S.G. making it virtually impossible for her todemonstrate that she can parent these children in a safe manner justifying reunification.[18] [148] The society’s failure to continuously assess the access and cooperate to increase it or reduce the supervision is concerning forthe court. The society should have allowed the mother to have unsupervised or semi-supervised visits with M.G. and S.G.

After twoyears of positive visits and almost 20 months of counselling and parenting programs with excellent attendance, how can the societyjustify their position that the access must be fully supervised? [149] The society has a duty to reassess its position as circumstances warrant over time: see: Children’s Aid Society of the NiagaraRegion v. D. (W.) (ON S.C.),; Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region v. B. (C.), (ON SC),[2005] O.J. No. 3878 (Ont. S.C.J.); Children and Family Services of York Region v. E. (P.), [2003] O.J. No. 4884 (Ont. S.C.J.); andChildren’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex v.

S. (E.V.F.) (ON S.C.). [150] The court acknowledges that the mother did not cooperate to allow the society to speak with her counsellors until March 2016but that is a year before trial. The Family Services Worker ought to have asked the counsellors what if any progress the mother has madein counselling and how is what they are doing addressing the protection concerns as part of her ongoing obligation to assess the mother’saccess.

If she had, the court believes she would have been in a position to expand the mother’s access. [151] The court has a difficult time reconciling how the society can support unsupervised access between the three older children andtheir father while refusing to allow the mother even one hour of unsupervised access to the younger twins. The father of the three olderchildren is described as a volatile, argumentative person who became hostile towards society staff in front of the children and unable tocontrol his emotions.

The evidence made it very clear that the older three children’s father is a destabilizing force for them, especiallyD.N.J., causing them a lot of unnecessary stress. He spoke badly of the society, the workers and the foster parents to the children. Heconstantly harassed D.N.J. about her decision to remain in foster care and enlisted the other children to do the same. The impact of hisbehaviour on the children will likely be significant. [152] For the reasons set out above, the court finds that the society only partially met its obligation to provide services to the familypursuant to section 57(3) of the Act.

While the society did not fully meet its obligations to provide services to the mother that would bestassist her in addressing the protection concerns, the society did provide the following services to the family: (

a) The family had a family service worker; (

b) The children had a children’s service worker; (

c) The society conducted regular Plan of Care meetings for both children; (

d) The society provided the mother with referrals to counselling, anger management and trauma counselling; (

e) The children were seen regularly by a doctor and medical specialists as needed; and, (

f) Both children attend daycare twice per week. iii. Ability to Cooperate with the Society and Comply with Court Orders [153] The society presented evidence of conflict the mother has had with society staff including both Children’s Services Workers andtwo access supervisors. The society argues that the mother’s lack of trust and suspicion with which she approached her relationship withsociety workers contributed to the conflict. [154] The mother argues that there were a few society workers she did not like or get along with but that what occurred did not amountto conflict.

In addition, the mother gave evidence that some of the society staff interactions with her justify her dislike of them. Moreimportantly, the mother argues that she has good working relationships with several society staff. [155] The Family Services Worker gave evidence that the mother is polite towards her and that their communciation has improved inthe last year.

She also said that if the mother is in a bad mood she becomes “difficult and aggressive”. [156] The Intake Worker who was involved with the mother from January 8, 2015 to February 24, 2015 gave evidence that throughouther involvement the mother was “very r

[…]