DIRECTOR, CHILD, FAMILY v. COMMUNITY SERVICES, 2013 BCPC 207

Citation: Director et al. v. S.L.D., W.G. Date: 20130201 2013 BCPC 0207 File No: F10717 Registry: Chilliwack IN THE PROVINCIAL COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILD FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE ACT , R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 46 AND THE CHILD: C.R.D. , born [DOB] BETWEEN: DIRECTOR, CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICES APPLICANT AND: S.L.D. and W.G. RESPONDENTS ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE R.B. CARYER Counsel for the Director: L.A. MacDonald Counsel for the Respondents: No appearance Place of Hearing: Chilliwack , B.C.

Dates of Hearing: January 23, 2013, February 1, 2013 Date of Judgment: February 1, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT : This trial commenced in June of 2010. It has been complex to say the very least. [ 2 ] Originally, the matter involved three children: R.E.D., R.W.D., and C.R.D. [ 3 ] R.E.D. and R.W.D. are the two older sons of S.L.D. and her ex-common law spouse, W.G. They are now 16 and 14 years of age as of today and they originally were the subject of a continuing custody order. S.L.D. made an application to have that order rescinded or terminated and have the children returned to her.

As the process unfolded, that is indeed what happened. The continuing custody order was cancelled by me. I will get into some of the details of that in a moment. [ 4 ] The other application that was heard concurrently was the Director's application to have C.R.D. the subject of a continuing custody order in favour of the Director.

The factors of significance are C.R.D.'s particular special needs, which became more and more apparent as this trial progressed, and S.L.D.’s apparent inability to appropriately parent a child such as C.R.D., which also became more and more apparent as this trial progressed. [ 5 ] Briefly, throughout the years S.L.D. has had some difficulty with raising her children. An infant, who may have been – about - - aged one year old, had died in a bathtub in 2001. The autopsy findings established there was at least one fractured rib and possibly three other fractured ribs on the infant.

Nobody knows, except whoever perpetrated this, who broke those ribs or damaged that child? S.L.D. was not prosecuted although charges were originally laid but the Crown stayed them. [ 6 ] So, as a result of that I am going to say the antenna of the Director was raised and S.L.D. was watched. Her boys were taken for a period of time and then what transpired was a series or an ongoing relationship of confrontation and difficulties with the two young boys being placed in care and S.L.D. not cooperating and dealing with whatever issues she may have had that resulted in some of her parenting weaknesses.

So the boys became the subject of a continuing custody order. [ 7 ] Mr. MacDonald on behalf of the Director has made a point today that a great and significant amount of resources have been expended on the D. family and that is true. Some of the figures that I heard were quite frankly astonishing. The amount of personnel and logistical resources that have been spent to try to get S.L.D. and her boys together and to have S.L.D. capable to parent C.R.D. has been truly phenomenal. [ 8 ] There has been a problem with the relationship between S.L.D. and the ministry.

There may be issues of communication and there may be personality clashes which can happen at any time, but based on all the information that I have seen and heard in court including the conduct of S.L.D. in court, a significant part of the problem has been S.L.D.'s confrontational attitude directed toward the Ministry and the personnel in the Ministry -- the social workers -- and quite frankly particularly Ms. Edwards who was not the first social worker but is the current one for C.R.D. [ 9 ] There has been an ongoing battle, if you will, between S.L.D. and almost anybody in authority.

That also stems from what I have observed of S.L.D. not being particularly willing to accept responsibility for some of her own shortcomings and for some of her own actions. She has tended to blame anybody but herself. She has tended to not be introspective when examining some of the issues that have created significant behavioural problems in her children. [ 10 ] I will start with the boys. They have had problems for years.

At one point it was so difficult for them to be assimilated into any other residences that the Ministry had to provide two separate residential homes staffed 24 hours a day, seven days a week to keep these two boys. They could not be together. They could not be in anybody else's homes. [ 11 ] They had significant behavioural issues and as that was unfolding at I might add a significant cost to the Ministry, S.L.D. was doing her best to go behind the back of the social workers and the professionals to convince her oldest son, R.E.D., that he should be living with her.

She engaged – this is after the continuing custody order – in behaviour such as bringing him to doctors or dealing with school issues where she did not have a legal authority to do so and without advising the appropriate people who were responsible for R.E.D.'s care. [ 12 ] This is in my respectful view an ongoing pattern of behaviour with S.L.D. that has resulted in what appears to me to be her unwillingness to try to change her ways or to learn where her shortcomings fall within the context of her parenting skills. [ 13 ] As a result of that R.E.D., who would appear to be from what I have heard a fairly strong-willed young boy, eventually ended up living with S.L.D. even though he was under a continuing custody order.

He left his care home, was not obeying the rules and in fact began to do better at school because he was with his mother. [ 14 ] It is difficult for me to know at this point whether or not his improvement in school was as a result of S.L.D. being a very good parent and involved as opposed to her no longer being disruptive of his routines and encouraging his misbehaviour so that he could get out of the foster homes. I really do not know, but he did appear to start to do better.

He has had some issues as the almost three years that has unfolded since the beginning of this trial has progressed but at the very least it did appear that he started to do better. [ 15 ] As we carried on in the trial, R.W.D., the second child who as I say is now 14 years of age, did not want to have anything to do with his mother. It would appear that there were efforts made by the Ministry and S.L.D. to try to get R.W.D. to develop a relationship with his mom. [ 16 ] The father, W.G., was sort of on-again/off-again. He has had significant substance abuse issues. He was not a party to these proceedings.

His relationship with S.L.D. was to some degree a factor in some of the dealings with the Ministry early on and even up to

now I suppose, but he was not really involved. [ 17 ] R.W.D. did not want to be with his mom. As the trial progressed and as the time passed he became I gather more willing to spend time with his mother and visit her. [ 18 ] As Mr. MacDonald pointed out, the intent as we started the trial was to see whether or not R.W.D. would be returned to his mother and the continuing custody order for R.W.D. terminated or cancelled. As this progressed, it seemed that it was getting better but as Mr.

MacDonald pointed out, S.L.D.'s interference resulted in the process taking a right turn, and R.W.D. simply one day said he was not going back to the foster home or going back to his home and was going to stay with S.L.D.

That is the way it ended. [ 19 ] So with the consent of the Director, I did cancel or terminate the continuing custody orders for R.E.D. and R.W.D. [ 20 ] As it turns out, the boys have to some degree done all right in school, maybe better at some point, but again as time has progressed I have heard in recent months that there has been a deterioration of the relationships between S.L.D. and her two boys. This is to such an extent that in September of 2012, R.W.D. wrote a suicide note – this is the young boy who would have been 13 at the time – and took his mother's medication.

I do not know if he actually ingested it but he took the medication. [ 21 ] S.L.D. did the right thing and contacted the authorities. Sadly the suicide note basically said that he could not stand the tension of being with his mother, fighting with her all the time and the yelling, the screaming and confrontational parenting style that S.L.D. has exhibited throughout the time that I have been watching. [ 22 ] This is consistent with her behaviour always and has not changed even though she has been given ample opportunity to access resources, counselling and treatment programs, et cetera, et cetera.

She simply continues to be the same confrontational, aggressive, bullying parent. That remains the same. That spoke volumes to me of the style of her parenting and the atmosphere in the home where the two boys were residing with S.L.D. last fall. This is after the family had an attempt at a family home program which I will refer to in a moment. So that was September, 2012. [ 23 ] We have had a couple of dates in between.

I think the total number of days that this matter has been on the docket, at least appearing before me, is somewhere around 22, 23, 24 days, some shorter than others, but the amount of notes that I have would look similar to a phone book. There has been a significant amount of time spent in court to deal with this. I have a sense of S.L.D. and her attitude toward all of this. [ 24 ] As fall progressed, we ended up with a hearing date on January 4th, 2013. S.L.D. did not show up for that day. She also did not show up for one day last summer with any explanation offered at all.

Anyway, she did not show up on the 4th of January. [ 25 ] My understanding is that in the intervening time between October 2012 and January 2013 S.L.D. became employed. There has been an issue with her having some employment issues and trying to find work. She has volunteered in the community; there are some good things about S.LD. She found a job apparently cooking in a camp up on the rigs – I presume on the rigs in the oil patch in Alberta – and she apparently was unable to be here on the 4th of January. [ 26 ] What I heard on the 4th of January from Ms.

Edwards was that there had been a couple of incidents, intakes, that resulted in the Director at least being advised that there were some issues around S.L.D.’s parenting of the boys in her residence. She had missed some access visits with C.R.D.; I will comment on that shortly. But at any rate there were some problems.

One issue was that it appeared she may have, in effect, abandoned the boys, that she had gone off to camp and that the boys were living on their own. [ 27 ] As it turned out, there was a neighbour who resided in a trailer on the property who seemed to be capable of caring for the boys, a fellow by the name of Bill – not W.G. – who was a family friend. A social worker, Ms. Young, investigated the issue and he seemed to be able to prepare the meals. He had purchased groceries; he seemed to have some adequate control over the boys; he grounded R.W.D. for not going to school.

So that seems to be good. [ 28 ] The Ministry had been concerned that there had been obviously not adequate care arrangements made. One might question whether that was adequate care, but the boys in early December – were a decent enough age that they could probably care for themselves but one would be concerned that there was no adequate legal guardianship arrangements made. There was no appropriate adult available to assist the boys even for medical or dental emergencies or anything and S.L.D. was gone.

So it is indicative of her parenting style and indicative of her general lack of responsibility for not only her actions but for the welfare and well-being of her children. Whatever is convenient for her seems to work for her but does not necessarily always work for those that she is allegedly responsible for. [ 29 ] At any rate, the Ministry had received calls from the school that the boys were coming to school hungry and that R.W.D. was missing a lot of school; he had shown up "high" one day. This dovetails with what W.G. told Ms.

Edwards on January 3rd that he was now taking care of the boys which was an issue with S.L.D. before. He does not seem to know how to handle R.W.D., he says he does not know what to do, but that R.W.D. is hanging around with the wrong people and he smokes pot all the time. [ 30 ] W.G. said he is no longer using crack, he is just smoking pot, although he seems to not know how to handle R.W.D. Well, there you go.

But he is saying that R.W.D. is a handful and this is at the time S.L.D. had just left; she has ceased communication with her lawyer; she has ceased attending to court. [ 31 ] The Director investigated that issue of inadequate control or adult monitoring of the boys and was satisfied that this Bill fellow could be at least counted upon to be responsible enough. But then at the beginning of December - there was an altercation between W.G. and R.E.D. I think R.E.D. called the police as W.G. had put R.E.D. in a headlock as R.E.D. was punching W.G.

R.E.D. was refusing to go to school so there was a physical confrontation and then R.E.D. called the police. R.E.D. knows what to do; he knows how to manipulate just as well as his mother. That is an indication of the atmosphere in the residence that S.L.D. would like to take C.R.D. to. [ 32 ] At any rate, on the 30th of December, there was another intake. The police were called – This time W.G. called the police. The RCMP attended and my understanding is that this occurred very, very late at night. The report was made at just about 4:00 a.m., 0355

hours in the morning. [ 33 ] So somewhere in the middle of the night when the RCMP came to the residence, R.E.D. and S.L.D. were in a physical altercation. They were rolling around on the ground punching at each other. It would appear that R.W.D. had gone into his mother's room and dumped her suitcase out on the floor. [ 34 ] S.L.D. has a number of cats in this residence and I have heard comments about her inability to keep the place clean. I accept that that is the case, that she is not a particularly good housekeeper.

But anyway there were cats all over and the cats apparently went to the bathroom in S.L.D.'s clothing or something like that. She got mad at R.W.D. and she began to hit R.W.D. This is typical of her style and which I am satisfied is the only style that she knows how to parent. This style is to be physically and verbally aggressive and confrontational. As a result, R.E.D. intervened to protect his younger brother R.W.D. and the fight was on. W.G. called the police. [ 35 ] W.G. said that S.L.D. had been drinking during that day.

There have been incidents where she had been drinking although that was a part of I think an agreement with the ministry that she not drink, but she has had drinks. I am satisfied she is no longer using illegal drugs but alcohol appears to be an issue. There have been intakes around her alcohol abuse. [ 36 ] In that incident on the 30th of December, S.L.D. apparently told the police that she was having difficulty managing the behaviour of R.E.D. and R.W.D.

Not being a child psychologist I do not know exactly why but, I suppose it does not take a great stretch to realize that a parent who uses bullying, aggression and violence as a way of attempting to control children's behaviour will end up resulting with children who use bullying, aggressive and violent actions against the parent and against other people. This is what we see with R.E.D. and R.W.D. [ 37 ] S.L.D. told the police that she is having difficulty with their behaviour and she would just as soon have them put back into the care of the Ministry. She did not do that, she did not make that phone call.

I think that was just talk, but it is indicative of an attitude of S.L.D. [ 38 ] It is important to the Court in dealing with the best interests of C.R.D. to underscore that the environment in whatever home S.L.D. is in is going to be one that is unhealthy for a special needs child like C.R.D. [ 39 ] A family home program was attempted in the fall of 2011. It was supposed to be a six-month program. It went about the six months -- maybe five and some odd months. This was an attempt to integrate C.R.D. into the home. S.L.D. was reluctant, if you will, in her involvement and commitment to the program.

In fact, she would leave for periods of time as she still maintained another residence. It was as if she – and I believe this – if she went into the program, we were all hopeful that the program would work, that she would engage in it, she would learn, she would get some assistance in how to parent and how to control her anger and her temper. The hope was that if that worked there could be a gradual integration of C.R.D. into the lives of R.E.D., R.W.D. and S.L.D. [ 40 ] It did not work that way. There were incidents of aggression and confrontation in the residence.

I believe that S.L.D. was on her best behaviour during that time. The house was monitored and staffed 24 hours a day, so her parenting skills and style were being constantly watched. I am sure she was on her best behaviour but even then she was unable to control her temper and aggression towards R.E.D. particularly. [ 41 ] Her impatience with C.R.D. was a matter that caused me concern as I heard the evidence respecting how she conducted herself in the family home. [ 42 ] One incident that sticks in my mind is S.L.D.s impatience in dealing with C.R.D.’s attempts to button up her coat.

C.R.D. asked her mother to assist her and S.L.D.’s comment was to the effect of "Well you're old enough and big enough to do your own coat. Do your own coat up". This was said in an aggressive and unpleasant manner. It was observed by many of the workers in the home that S.L.D.’s dealings or attitude towards C.R.D. was one of impatience, one of frustration, and there did not appear to be a great deal of warmth. There did not appear to be a great deal of bonding. [ 43 ] There was some evidence that suggested there was bonding, but overall I am satisfied there was very little bonding.

C.R.D. and S.L.D. have a relationship, I am not saying there is no relationship, but the true parental bonding that one gets when one sees one's child for the first time and nurtures that child through years of development is not present with S.L.D. and C.R.D. [ 44 ] It was after the family home program was a failure and was terminated by the Ministry, that C.R.D.'s emotional and intellectual profile was prepared by Dr. Karina Brown.

This was in the summer of 2012 and I will get to that in a moment. [ 45 ] When I read the report and when it was all brought to my attention one of the things noted was that C.R.D. had some motor skill difficulties. One of those would be buttoning up a coat. She needs structure, she needs guidance, she needs patience, she needs calmness, and that is exactly what S.L.D. did not do. [ 46 ] So the family home program did not work.

I have heard evidence that during the course of the few months – three or so months – that C.R.D. was in the residence she, in essence, needed to have contact with her foster family that have had her since I think she was one day or two days old. She needed that comfort and that security. To S.L.D.'s credit, she reached out to the C.’s and certainly facilitated some meetings. [ 47 ] Ms.

C. testified she was very concerned when she saw the family interactions in the residence around Christmas – I think it was Christmas or Thanksgiving, I do not remember which day now – 2011; the dynamics being aggressive, being tense, stressful, confrontational and not nurturing and supportive. Ms. C. found that emotionally difficult and did not want to go back into the residence although she wanted to see C.R.D. There were some visits after that. [ 48 ] I heard that C.R.D.'s emotional state began to deteriorate while she was in the family home and it was Ms. Edwards – I think it was Ms.

Edwards – who finally felt that it was time to take C.R.D. out. She was decompensating and not doing well at all. When Ms. C. and her daughter went to pick up C.R.D., C.R.D. simply clung to Ms. C.'s daughter who is an adult and was just clearly a child in

desperate straits. I am satisfied that that was a result of being in the environment of the D. residence which was the family home at that point. The family dynamic was quite frankly a poisonous atmosphere for a child like C.R.D. [ 49 ] There was a problem with access during the spring of 2012, some of which as a result of the Director not being able to provide the appropriate staff -- not having the staff. Sometimes these things happen. I was concerned that S.L.D. was being kept from C.R.D. and I expressed my concerns to counsel and to Ms. Edwards one day in court.

They managed to find somebody that could monitor or supervise access visits with S.L.D. and C.R.D. They did take place and they were by all accounts reasonable visits. [ 50 ] The Director has been adamant that access to C.R.D. should be supervised and they are basing that to some degree on the past behaviour of S.L.D. with respect to R.E.D. and R.W.D. where she clearly deliberately interfered with and blocked the conduct and responsibilities of the foster parents or foster home or the social workers or the doctors.

So S.L.D. has set up a pattern of behaviour that resulted in the access to C.R.D. subsequently being supervised which I agree wholeheartedly with and support. [ 51 ] In June and July of 2012, a diagnostic assessment report was prepared by different people: Dr. Brown is a psychologist, Dr. Bamber is a paediatrician, there is a speech language therapist, and a social worker. There are a number of significant findings in the report. [ 52 ] The first is that at birth C.R.D. tested positive for cocaine in her system. S.L.D.

I think has acknowledged that she took crack cocaine during the time she was pregnant with C.R.D. C.R.D. was assessed for whether she may be suffering from Fetal Alcohol Syndrome Disorder. Nobody knows whether S.L.D. consumed alcohol during her pregnancy. S.L.D. up until the time of the report being made in the summer of 2012, simply refused to cooperate in the preparation of the report, and refused to provide any information. [ 53 ] I do recall when Dr. Brown testified probably in the fall -- September of 2012 -- that Mr. MacDonald acknowledged to counsel for S.L.D., Mr.

Nudel, that if S.L.D. wished to provide that information now it would still be of assistance as C.R.D.'s status is one that will require ongoing testing and ongoing assistance. [ 54 ] It seemed to me that that was really an indication and a message being sent that S.L.D. was prepared to tell what she had consumed during her pregnancy. Today is the 1st of February, 2013 and S.L.D. has made no effort to provide that information to anybody and quite frankly it suggests to me that she does not really care and has been irresponsible with respect to what would be the best interests of C.R.D.

If it does not suit S.L.D. it does not get done; at least that is my impression. [ 55 ] C.R.D.'s cognitive functioning was tested. The results are not positive. Her full scale IQ is at the level of 77 which places her in the sixth percentile. The definition if you will is “borderline retardation”. She has therefore significant intellectual issues and needs to be cared for in a positive, nurturing, appropriate way. Ms. C. and her husband and extended family have raised C.R.D. in that way for almost six years.

S.L.D. is in my respectful view incapable of raising C.R.D. in that way. [ 56 ] Part of the report suggests that C.R.D.'s fine motor coordination skills are below average. She is at the tenth percentile for her age. She has significant sensory processing difficulties. She has texture sensitivities. There are emotional outbursts. Her visual perception skills are well below the average; she is at the seventh percentile. So she has serious issues and of course part of her motor coordination skills has to do with buttoning up coats. She is therefore quite far behind for her age.

Her conceptual skills fell in the extremely low range. She does follow directions. She can work with people who are patient. She can learn with people who are patient, but she has issues. She has emotional issues and she will not learn to control those in an environment that is controlled by S.L.D. C.R.D.’s global adaptive composite with respect to behaviour and skills in my respectful view is extremely low as said in the report. [ 57 ] Ms. C., who testified, was shown this report and has been a part of the preparation of the report, basically confirmed what was in the report in terms of C.R.D.'s behaviour.

It is telling that Ms. C. has the ability if you will and insight to intuitively know and recognize these issues. She has raised C.R.D. in a manner that is consistent with the recommendations of the report even though the report only was made in the summer of 2012. [ 58 ] In terms of the recommendations of the diagnostic assessment report, in terms of the best environment for C.R.D., it says that she will benefit from structure and consistency in her home environment. Structure can be provided by keeping to a consistent

schedule and having consistent rules with follow through on consequences for inappropriate behaviour. [ 59 ] Given her emotional volatility, it is important for those around her to stay calm, reassure her, give her a quiet space to calm down, remind her of rules, and review alternative choices when she has calmed down. It is imperative to use very specific and concrete language when giving directions to C.R.D. and give one step at a time. Do not overwhelm her with too much information at once.

Use visual reminders for rules. [ 60 ] C.R.D. would benefit from counselling to develop strategies for managing her anger and mood. Services through Child and Youth Mental Health are recommended. [ 61 ] There are safety issues for C.R.D. and she needs more monitoring and supervision than others of her age. These are the recommendations under "Behavioural/Emotional Functioning" on p. 12 of the report. [ 62 ] That is what Ms.

C. and her family do and have done consistently since C.R.D. was one day old. [ 63 ] While I have already commented that S.L.D. has seen fit not to provide any information to the authors, the professionals who prepared the diagnostic assessment report, it does not hurt to re-emphasize the fact that S.L.D. chose not to provide that information. She may do so out of being contrary and against the authorities and against people who she thinks are out to get her, but she shows to this Court that she really does not have C.R.D.'s best interests at heart.

S.L.D. wants to win, I suppose, but is not prepared to make the sacrifices to be a good parent. [ 64 ] Certainly when C.R.D. was apprehended she was in need of protection and removal. I am satisfied that today she is in need of

protection and removal. The Court obviously has to be concerned with the best interests of C.R.D. [ 65 ] As I said to counsel earlier today since this is now my judgment here, to go through all of the material that I have been provided and to prepare a lengthy judgment, I could not do it before today. I did not know if S.L.D. would show up and wish to testify in which case I was perfectly prepared to extend this hearing if she had done so. She had been contacted, provided with information of these trial dates. Mr. Nudel her counsel has emailed her. Ms. Edwards I think through others has attempted to email her.

No one has heard from S.L.D. Her boys say she is not coming back until the end of February. [ 66 ] She has effectively abandoned her position here, but I was prepared if she showed up today to continue this hearing, to give her an opportunity. She chose not to come so I said to Mr. MacDonald that if he wished a full formal judgment it would take me a while because I have to type these things out. It takes a long time and there is a phenomenal amount of material to go through. So this is basically an oral judgment. It has taken a little longer and my throat is starting to go on me.

It will not be as full as I would like it to be, but it should cover off everything. So I will not necessarily quote what the best interests of the child are. [ 67 ] I think we all know what the best interests of the child are.

I am well aware of what the law is in the area, but it is I think important to underscore that for a child their best interests include – they are all relevant factors – but includes their safety, their physical and emotional needs, their level of development, the continuity of their care, the quality of the relationship that the child has with a parent, in this case S.L.D., and the effect of maintaining that relationship. [ 68 ] As well, the child's best interests include cultural and racial heritage. C.R.D. is of First Nations heritage and Ms. C. is not. But Ms.

C. has told me, and I accept this, that she is committed to ensuring that C.R.D. has her heritage explained to her and is able to pursue her heritage and to learn about her heritage. Ms. C. is a fine human being and I am sure her whole family is. I cannot imagine them doing anything that would impede C.R.D.'s development and well-being. [ 69 ] Also of course I take into account all of the other factors. A major factor is the dynamic inside the D. household with the boys. According to W.G., apparently the boys do not like C.R.D. and do not want to be involved with her. R.W.D. does not want to see her.

R.E.D. might, according to Ms. Edwards today. They have bullied her when she was in the family home program. I am not surprised. They cannot know any different. They have not had quite frankly the advantage of being with Ms. C. All they know is bullying, aggression, violence, belittling. That is the D. household and C.R.D. should not be in that environment. [ 70 ] Quite frankly, the effect of maintaining that style of relationship with C.R.D.'s mother and her brothers is troubling to me and that will be left to the Director as to what to do.

As far as I am concerned, the child is not safe in S.L.D.’s residence and I am convinced that the child is not safe if S.L.D. is alone with C.R.D. I say that because I believe that S.L.D. would do whatever she could to unduly influence the child and harm the child's emotional well-being. I do not mean her physical well-being. [ 71 ] S.L.D. is incapable of dealing with C.R.D.'s physical and emotional needs. S.L.D. does not have the parenting skills to deal with C.R.D.'s level of development and her special needs. [ 72 ] C.R.D. has been with the C.’s since she was born. They are a fine family.

They are people that will ensure that C.R.D. lives the best life that she can. She has been dealt a hand of cards that is limited. I believe that her best hope to live a decent life is to remain with the C.’s. [ 73 ] Pursuant to s. 49(4) of the Child, Family and Community Service Act , R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 46, I am satisfied that S.L.D. is firstly, as of today, unwilling to resume custody of C.R.D. or to take custody of C.R.D. However, I am also satisfied that she is unable to have custody of C.R.D.

Also, pursuant to subsection (5) of s. 49 of the Act, I am satisfied that C.R.D. must be placed into the continuing custody of the Director because there is no possible likelihood, let alone “significant likelihood”, that S.L.D. would be able to meet C.R.D.'s needs. C.R.D. is a special little girl with a lot of problems. S.L.D. has not availed herself of the resources available to assist her in dealing with her issues that have been outlined since Dr. Erickson has been making reports about the family since I think it was 2001 or 2002.

He has made a number of reports; he has testified in front of me maybe three or four times. Over this time it remains the same, S.L.D. has had to deal with her issues from her childhood and her family and she has never done that. She will not do that, she has chosen not to do that, she has chosen to lie to the Director and to the social workers, and I have absolutely no confidence that she would be able to deal with that. So she is unable to meet C.R.D.’s needs.

She has a style of parenting that is harmful; harmful to C.R.D. for sure and appears to be continuing to be harmful to the boys. [ 74 ] I am considering S.L.D.’s past conduct towards not only C.R.D. but the boys. I have said to Mr. MacDonald today that the incident with the child that drowned in the tub has no bearing in my decision today. It causes me concern as it would cause anybody concern, but it has no bearing whatsoever in my judgment today.

It is S.L.D.'s parenting style with the boys and her inability to appropriately parent C.R.D. that is the telling feature in my respectful view. [ 75 ] The child's best interests as I have outlined and some of the factors that are taken into account all point to C.R.D. being placed in a continuing custody situation. That should be with the C.’s. I cannot imagine that C.R.D. would do better anywhere else. Ms. C. has advised the Court that her family are committed to C.R.D.

I accept that and I quite frankly take some optimism from that. [ 76 ] The plan of care will be what it will be once the Director has made their decisions with respect to guardianship, but the intention at the moment is to keep C.R.D. with the C.’s. I agree with that. [ 77 ] I will remain silent with respect to access of S.L.D. to C.R.D. other than to say this: her access needs to be monitored. I find that S.L.D. may well be a destructive influence on C.R.D. It will be for the authorities and the social workers to try to find a happy medium.

It would be way better if S.L.D. was able to adopt a role of being a favourite aunt. I do not think she has the emotional ability to do that which I think makes her a bit dangerous to C.R.D. [ 78 ] The order is granted. It is a continuing custody order and I am relying on s. 49(4) and s. 49(5.

_____________________ R.B. Caryer Provincial Court Judge