Director v. L.S.H. and A.L.W. Date:, 2017 BCPC 35

Citation: Director v. L.S.H. and A.L.W. Date: 20170131 2017 BCPC 35 File No: F37702 Registry: Surrey 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: T.E.W. , born [omitted] BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE APPLICANT AND: L.S.H. and A.L.W. PARENTS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE A.M. WOLF Counsel for the Director: K. All Counsel for the Parent: K. QUONG (for L.S.H.) Counsel for the Parent: D. Soga (for A.L.W.)

Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Dates of Hearing: September 12-14, 16, 19, 20, 2016; November 21-23, 2016; December 2, 5, 2016 Date of Judgment: January 31, 2017 A Corrigendum was released by the court on February 16, 2017. The corrections have been made to the text and the Corrigendum is appended to this document. INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] This is the matter of the child T.E.W. (“T.”), born [omitted]. [ 2 ] T.’s mother is L.H. (“Ms. H.”) [ 3 ] T.’s father is A.W. Ms. H. and Mr. W. had separated after T. was born, and Mr.

W. was not actively involved in the regular care of T., other than a brief period of time in the summer of 2014. A. Initial Allegations of Sexual Abuse [ 4 ] T. had come to the attention of the Ministry in December of 2014, after a report was made concerning of possible sexual abuse of the child by Ms. H.’s boyfriend, J.G. (“Mr. G.”). T was then three years old, and residing primarily with her mother, Ms. H. [ 5 ] On December 23, 2014, Ms. H. attended Sophie’s Place, a child advocacy centre in Surrey, British Columbia, with T., at the request of the Ministry.

At Sophie’s Place, T. was interviewed by a police officer, and she did not make any disclosures of sexual abuse. She had a physical exam by Dr. Korn at the HEAL clinic, who reported: “[T.] presents with a normal physical examination. There is no direct evidence on examination today that she has been sexually abused. A normal examination neither validates nor negates the possibility that abuse may have occurred in the past.” [ 6 ] After an initial safety plan made December 23, 2014 with the Ministry that Ms. H. ensure there was no contact between T. and Mr.

G., a second safety plan was signed on December 24, 2016, confirming that Ms. H. would ensure no one else is caring for or supervising T. [ 7 ] It is unclear from the evidence if the Ministry’s file regarding this December 2014 investigation was ever officially closed, because there were no closing documents confirming the file was actually closed. Social Worker Kim Tran, gave evidence that she believed the investigation was nearly complete, and that the allegations were not substantiated, as T. had not made any disclosures to the Surrey RCMP while at Sophie’s Place. B.

The Dog Incident [ 8 ] On February 15, 2015, Surrey RCMP contacted the Ministry to report that Ms. H. and her three year old daughter were involved in some sort incident involving a dog, wherein the dog had been stabbed (the “Dog Incident”). RCMP requested the Ministry to attend and assess the situation. [ 9 ] On attending at the scene, Social Worker Stefani Thornson (“SW Thornson”) removed T. under the CFCSA , after Ms. H. was arrested by the RCMP under the Mental Health Act. Initially, SW Thornson was trying to work with Ms. H. to find a safe place for her and T. to spend the night, but when Ms.

H’s behaviour escalated, and she was arrested, there was no one else available to care for T., and she was taken into the care of the Ministry. [ 10 ] Reports of the Dog Incident are varied, due to the fact that Ms. H. was the only witness to the event, other than her young daughter, T. Ms. H.’s version of events has changed and has not been consistent; however, common amongst any version is the basic premise that Ms. H. and T. were at a park on February 14, 2015, met a woman who had found a dog without an owner, and Ms. H. took the dog from the woman and remained at the park to see if the owner would come back.

When the owner did not come back, Ms. H. and T. returned home with the dog. [ 11 ] A disagreement arose between Ms. H. and her boyfriend, J.G., and he left the residence. The evidence was unclear as to what the argument was about. After he was gone, Ms. H. says the dog’s behaviour changed and she thought it was going to attack her and her daughter. She proceeded to stab the dog with scissors, shove various objects into its eyes and mouth, drag the dog into the bedroom, tape up its mouth, put a cigarette in its mouth and sunglasses on it, and cover herself and her daughter with blood.

The dog was severely injured, but did not die as a result of its injuries. [ 12 ] Ms. H. reported to health care professionals to smoking an amount of marijuana prior to the Dog Incident, and while there are some reports from the psychiatrists from Surrey Memorial Hospital from Ms. H.’s time there after the Dog Incident, no formal diagnosis or cause has been provided for the reason for the psychotic episode. [ 13 ] T. has made disturbing disclosures about her experience during the dog attack and continues to suffer nightmares regarding the incident.

I have intentionally chosen not to add some of those details in this judgement. C. Subsequent Sexual Abuse Allegations [ 14 ] Shortly after coming into the Ministry’s care on the night of the Dog Incident, T. began to make verbal disclosures to her

caregiver regarding sexual abuse by both J.G. and her father, A.W. [ 15 ] T. was taken a second time to see Dr. Korn at the HEAL clinic on February 17, 2015. Her physical examination by Dr. Korn was reportedly normal, although there was inflammation of the labia majora. Dr. Korn urgently referred T. to a psychologist due to the fact that she had witnessed severe abuse of a dog, and had been asked to participate in the abuse of the dog, and due to the concerns of possible sexual abuse in the family home. ORDER S SOUGHT A.

The Director’s Position [ 16 ] The Director is seeking a continuing custody order (“CCO”) pursuant to s. 49(5) of the Child, Family and Community Services Act (the “ Act ”). B. Ms. H.’s Position [ 17 ] Ms. H. opposes a CCO, and wants the child returned to her care immediately, pursuant to s. 49(8)(

a) of the Act . In the alternative, she seeks a “last chance order” pursuant to s. 49(7)(

c) of the Act . In the further alternative, if a CCO is granted, Ms. H. seeks an order that she shall have reasonable access to T., supervised at the discretion of the Director, pursuant to s. 56 of the Act . The Director is opposed to all of Ms. H.’s positions, and also notes there is no application before the court pursuant to s. 56 at present, as one must bring an application for access after a CCO is in effect. THE LAW [ 18 ] The Child, Family and Community Service Act , R.S.B.C. 1996,

Chapter 46, is the guiding statute. [ 19 ] I have had the benefit of written and oral submissions from counsel as to the law I am required to consider. A.

Section 2 – Guiding Principles 2 This Act must be interpreted and administered so that the safety and well-being of children are the paramount considerations and in accordance with the following principles: (

a) children are entitled to be protected from abuse, neglect and harm or threat of harm; (

b) a family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of children and the responsibility for the protection of children rests primarily with the parents; (

c) if, with available support services, a family can provide a safe and nurturing environment for a child, support services should be provided; (

d) the child's views should be taken into account when decisions relating to a child are made; (

e) kinship ties and a child's attachment to the extended family should be preserved if possible; (

f) the cultural identity of aboriginal children should be preserved; (

g) decisions relating to children should be made and implemented in a timely manner. B.

Section 4 – Best Interests of Child 4

(1) Where there is a reference in this Act to the best interests of a child, all relevant factors must be considered in determining the child's best interests, including for example: (

a) the child's safety; (

b) the child's physical and emotional needs and level of development; (

c) the importance of continuity in the child's care; (

d) the quality of the relationship the child has with a parent or other person and the effect of maintaining that relationship; (

e) the child's cultural, racial, linguistic and religious heritage; (

f) the child's views; (

g) the effect on the child if there is delay in making a decision.

(2) If the child is an aboriginal child, the importance of preserving the child's cultural identity must be considered in determining the child's best interests. C. When protection is needed 13

(1) A child needs protection in the following circumstances: (

a) if the child has been, or is likely to be, physically harmed by the child's parent;

(

b) if the child has been, or is likely to be, sexually abused or exploited by the child's parent; (

c) if the child has been, or is likely to be, physically harmed, sexually abused or sexually exploited by another person and if the child's parent is unwilling or unable to protect the child; (

d) if the child has been, or is likely to be, physically harmed because of neglect by the child's parent; (

e) if the child is emotionally harmed by (

i) the parent's conduct, or (ii) living in a situation where there is domestic violence by or towards a person with whom the child resides; (

f) if the child is deprived of necessary health care; (

g) if the child's development is likely to be seriously impaired by a treatable condition and the child's parent refuses to provide or consent to treatment; (

h) if the child's parent is unable or unwilling to care for the child and has not made adequate provision for the child's care; (

i) if the child is or has been absent from home in circumstances that endanger the child's safety or well-being; (

j) if the child's parent is dead and adequate provision has not been made for the child's care; (

k) if the child has been abandoned and adequate provision has not been made for the child's care; (

l) if the child is in the care of a director or another person by agreement and the child's parent is unwilling or unable to resume care when the agreement is no longer in force.

(1.1) For the purpose of subsection (1) (

b) and (

c) but without limiting the meaning of "sexually abused" or "sexually exploited", a child has been or is likely to be sexually abused or sexually exploited if the child has been, or is likely to be, (

a) encouraged or helped to engage in prostitution, or (

b) coerced or inveigled into engaging in prostitution.

(1.2) For the purpose of subsection (1) (

a) and (

c) but without limiting the circumstances that may increase the likelihood of physical harm to a child, the likelihood of physical harm to a child increases when the child is living in a situation where there is domestic violence by or towards a person with whom the child resides.

(2) For the purpose of subsection (1)(e), a child is emotionally harmed if the child demonstrates severe (

a) anxiety, (

b) depression, (

c) withdrawal, or (

d) self-destructive or aggressive behaviour. D. Hearsay Evidence in these types of cases [ 20 ]

Section 67 of the CFCSA allows me to admit any hearsay evidence of T. that I consider reliable. I am aware that I must be cautious and not mistake the admission of hearsay evidence without also considering the potential weight. EVIDENCE - THE DIRECTOR’S CASE [ 21 ] The Director called three social workers, a psychologist, T.’s therapist, T.’s foster parent (S.R.), and another foster parent (D.U.). A. Social Worker Tran (“SW Tran”) [ 22 ] Ultimately, SW Tran described her administrative role in the file until it was transferred to a more permanent social worker. B.

Social Worker Thornson (“SW Thornson”) [ 23 ] SW Thornson was the social worker that attended to Ms. H.’s home on February 14 - 15, 2015, the night of the dog incident. She was able to provide testimony with respect to the condition of the home, as she found it on that evening. Paragraph 57 of the Director’s submissions succinctly captures the essence of her testimony. Her e v i d ence w a s t h at the ho m e was cluttered, in disarray, and “not suitable for the needs of [T.]”.

She noted the second bedroom that she though t wa s probabl y intende d fo r [T.] wa s ful l o f stuff , an d th e be d wa s unusable, and the rest of the suite was very clutt e red , ful l o f bags . O f note, SW Thornson’s evidence was that, even without the blood at the scene, it would have mini m ally been appropriate for a child. She noted conce r ns about reports of rats. [ 24 ] Ms. H.’s evidence also provided some insight as to the problem the home was having with rats. In Ms. H.’s evidence, she spoke

about the rat problem at her ho m e , indicating it was so bad they could not even relax on the couch without seeing a rat run by. In part of her evidence, Ms. H. noted she had to put T. up off the ground to colour, to keep her away from the rat poo. C. Social Worker Collakoppen (SW Collakoppen”) [ 25 ] The Director submits that: The Dog Incident is a very significant, extremely horrible and traumatic incident, and the fact that it happened in the first place is extremely concerning.

While Ms. [H.] has said that she was diagnosed with Early Psychosis while being committed for approximately one month in the Surrey Memorial Hospital psychiatric ward, the question still remains what happened, why did it happen, and how can it be certain that it will not happen again. Of course, not only is the Dog Incident itself very concerning, the fact that it occurred in front of a child is even more concerning.

And not only did it occur in front of the child, Ms. [H.] tried to involve the child in the torture of the dog, by putting her hand or arm in the dog’s mouth, trying to get [T.] to participate in the abuse, including asking her to pee on the dog, and covering her in blood. [ 26 ] Social W o r ker Kasturi Collakoppen testified t h at the Director has concerns that Ms. H. had not cooperated with the Director in addressing her m e ntal health issues.

Upon release from the hospital, the dischar g e plan was for her to follow up with the Earl y Psychosi s Progra m (“EPI”) , an d she was prescribed m edication by her psychiatrist. [ 27 ] Instead, Ms. H. chose not to follow up with EPI, nor take any m e dication after her relea s e, because s h e did not f eel t h at she had any mental h ealth issues. H er int e rpr e tati o n of the dis c harge plan was t h at it was not “ m a ndatory”. Ms. Collakoppen was clear in her cross-exa m ination, that h e r concern was that Ms.

H. wa s not followin g throug h wit h a m edical recom m endation. [ 28 ] In February of 2016 , Ms . H. was supposed to co m e into the Ministry office so that SW Collakoppen could call EPI with her to review with them the reasons that Ms . H. wa s supposedl y unabl e to participate in that progra m . W hen s he did c om e into the Mi nistry o ff ic e , Ms. H. stated she did not need the social worker’s help to call, because she was now going t o get a m ental health referral from her own doctor, Dr. Jackson. [ 29 ] I t wa s no t unti l Dr . Jackso n m a d e th e referr al for Ms.

H. to see Mich e lle T s ai, that Ms. H. finally saw anyone regard i ng her m ental health. She started seeing Michell e Tsa i i n Ma y o f 2016, more than a year after her release from Surrey Me m orial Hospital. [ 30 ] Even with respe c t to the f act that Ms. H. has now seen Michelle Ts a i f or counselling, the Director’s concerns w e re expressed in t h e testi m ony of SW Collakoppen , wh o note d that , whil e sh e wa s pleased that she had followed through with a com m i t m ent to address her m ental h ealth, it was apparent from the reports of Ms. Tsai that Ms.

H. was just focused not on her history or m ental health history. I will review Ms. Tsai’s evidence later in this decision. EVIDENCE – MS. H.’S CASE [ 31 ] Ms. H. called her family doctor (Dr. Jackson) and her counsellor (Michelle Tsai). Ms. H. and her boyfriend, Mr. J.G., also testified. A. Ms. H.’s Testimony [ 32 ] Ms. H. is twenty six years old. There are two versions of her life. The Director alleges a troubled upbringing, where she suffered massive trauma’s as a result of being date raped. Ultimately, it is the Director’s opinion that Ms. H. has issues that have never been dealt with through counselling.

It was suggested to her that when she told individuals she was date raped and molested, and if it was not true, then why would she have told people this in the first place? Essentially, the argument is that she is being dishonest, since what she has told others versus what she tells the court cannot be reconciled. [ 33 ] Ms. H. describes her upbringing somewhat differently. She describes being raised by her mum and step dad with her two older siblings. While she says she was a mischievous teenager and agrees that her teen years were a bit troubling, she testified that she had a great childhood.

She denied ever being date raped or molested. B. A.W. [ 34 ] Ms. H. describes her relationship with A.W., T.’s father, as physically and emotionally abusive. She regretted that some of this abuse took place in front of T. She did not want to expose T. to abusive behaviour and this was part of the reason that she ceased having a relationship with Mr. W. [ 35 ] Ms. H. was asked what she made of the allegations that Mr. W. sexually abused T. She said, “I don’t know. It has never happened in front of me and I do not suspect that he abused her.” She also testified that she never witnessed Mr.

W. doing anything bad to T., but acknowledged that for some reason T. was petrified in going over there. As a result of her fear, she stopped T. from visiting Mr. W. I note that Mr. W. was not subpoenaed. He did not take the stand. [ 36 ] With respect to other caregivers or babysitters, one of her male friends’ mother, Mr. W.’s sister, and other family members had watched T. The total amount of times was in the 50 range. C. J.G. [ 37 ] Ms. H. has been seeing Mr. G. since August 5, 2014. She said he was a great father role model and that he was never abusive.

It was her testimony that their relationship was going very well. She said that she had only left T. alone with Mr. G. once. He had taken T. to her mother’s place on the public bus. [ 38 ] On December 22, 2014 she received a phone call from the Ministry advising her that they were concerned about the safety of T.

and herself based on some information received. In fact, it appears that her mother had expressed some concerns that T. was being sexually abused. In chief examination Ms. H. expressly stated that she did not agree with her mother’s concerns. D. Ministry Follow-up [ 39 ] Ms. H. said that “I was just doing everything that they wanted me to do”. She took T. to Sophie’s Place and the HEAL Clinic where Dr. Korn examined T. While there, there were no immediate or apparent signs of sexual abuse, a safety plan was put in place on December 24, 2014.

She told the court that “the social worker didn’t have any concerns around J.G. or me”. However, the safety plan required T. not to be left alone with Mr. G. [ 40 ] It is unclear what happened to these allegations. E. February 14, 2015 - The Dog Incident [ 41 ] Ms. H. describes waking up and going through a normal morning routine. Yet, there appears to be very little that was routine that day. She says she was simply vacuuming when a by-law officer came to the door and told her that there had been a noise complaint and that she should keep it down until 11:00 a.m. Mr.

G. had stated that he believed a police officer had come to the door, but he was sleeping at the time. In any event, I am unable to determine one way or the other if there was an attendance at the door by a peace officer as a result of a domestic disturbance or a noise complaint. [ 42 ] Sometime around 1:00 p.m., she took T. to a local park, where she borrowed $20 from a friend. While she was at the park she met a lady who was looking for the owner of a dog that she found. Ms. H. offered to wait with the dog to see if the owner came looking for it.

She said that she had tried to use her phone to call the number on the dog’s collar, however, she was having problems with her phone. Sometime around 3:30 she decided to take the dog home with her. [ 43 ] When she got home she said she tried to call the number over a dozen times and left three or four messages with contact numbers to call back to. This is in direct contradiction to other information that only one message was received by the dog owners and that message did not contain any phone number to call back. [ 44 ] For some unknown reason to me, around 5:30 Ms.

H. thought it necessary to cook some oatmeal, with a can of tuna, some raisins and carrots and garlic and feed this concoction to the dog. Because she was worried the owners would not be able to afford the SPCA fee’s and the dog would be adopted out, she opted not to contact the SPCA. Somehow the situation escalated to the point that she and Mr. G. were arguing over keeping the dog. She said they eventually decided that they would keep the dog and just have to find a rental that would allow dogs. [ 45 ] Once more, for some unknown reason to me, Mr.

G. at approximately 7:00 p.m. decided to leave the residence, cancel his shift at work and go stay with his father for the night. Sometime after this, according to Ms. H., a male neighbour came over to her house. She and this male stepped outside to smoke what she described as “a fairly big joint”. They came back inside, sat on the couch and this is when she thought this male was inappropriately sexually touching himself.

So she lured him outside under the pretence of having a cigarette and locked him out. [ 46 ] She testified that as she went back inside, she thought the dog was going to bite or attack T. [ 47 ] It is clear from her testimony that she is confused as to why she then did what she did. I think it is fair to say that Ms. H. does not have a clear recollection as to any of the details of what took place. Ms. H. was very clear that she regretted T. witnessing any of the incident to do with the dog. On this topic, I am aware that as time goes on T. will have access to the court record, including these reasons.

In an effort to protect T. from unnecessary details, I only wish to describe certain aspects of Ms. H.’s behaviour in order for the record to reflect how distorted and insane her actions really were. The dog was restrained, stabbed, and force fed numerous cigarette lighters. A cigarette was placed in its mouth that was then taped shut with electrical tape. Sunglasses were then placed on the dogs face. Both Ms. H. and T. were covered in blood and there was a cross drawn in the dog’s blood drawn on the wall. Ms. H. ran to her upstairs landlord and asked him to call 911.

In my view, other gruesome details are not required. Amazingly, the dog survived and as I understand it, is doing very well. [ 48 ] Ms. H. was hospitalized under the Mental Health Act . While hospitalized she provided many different explanations for the dog incident. She had exclaimed on more than one occasion that she did what she did because she was trying to protect her daughter from being attacked by the dog. At one point, she was of the view that she was drugged. Specifically, she thought the joint she smoked with her neighbour was laced with something other than marijuana.

She also believed at one time that she had suffered what she called a “psychosis episode”. In her words, she wasn’t in her right mind. She did not recall seeing a doctor on her arrival at the hospital, but did recall being strapped down and being given medications. F. Why was the dog hurt? [ 49 ] Ms. H.’s explanations aside, I have been given no professional expert opinion as to why the dog incident took place. No doctor testified as to whether the incident was the result of a mental or otherwise physiological episode. I have no idea whether she was drugged or had a mental breakdown of some sort. G.

What happened after being released from the hospital? [ 50 ] On release from the hospital she had been given a prescription for anti-depressants, ant-psychotics and a referral to a program called the Early Psychosis Program. It was her view that neither the medications nor the program were necessary or mandatory and she chose to benefit from neither. She continued to self-medicate with marijuana until April 2015. She moved from the Lower Mainland and returned in mid-August. In my view, she took no active steps from the time of her release from the hospital to ascertain why the dog incident took place.

She told the court that she believed she was diagnosed with a mental health issue. Specifically, it was her view that a Doctor Low formally diagnosed her with a psychosis. Once more, I do not have the advantage of a diagnosis. I am not able to fully

understand what a diagnosis of a psychosis really means. Was it a psychotic episode? If so, was it caused by something? Was it a temporary state of being, or could it happen again? [ 51 ] She did confirm that she was working on some mental health issues with a Chris Inglis and that she now has a family doctor. Doctor Jackson had been her pre-natal specialist, as Ms. H. has recently had another child. Doctor Jackson took on Ms. H. as a patient, as she believed Ms. H. needed some assistance from a family doctor. [ 52 ] Essentially Ms. H. described her situation.

She said she tried to get help for her mental health, but that the social worker would not give her a referral. She had difficulties hooking up with medical professionals because she had no working phone. Appointments could not be made because there was a ten dollar fee for them and she did not have any money for the fee. [ 53 ] Eventually she was able to have assistance from Michelle Tsai. She described Ms. Tsai as a mental health therapist. They were meeting once a week for a one hour visit. However, Ms. H. ended these consultations.

It is her belief that she can have chats with her mental health therapist whenever she wants. [ 54 ] This position was not supported by Ms. Tsai, who ultimately said Ms. H.’s file was closed. Ms. Tsai testified on Ms. H.’s behalf. She said she is a therapist that has provided emotional support to Ms. H. She met with Ms. H. a number of times between May and August 2016. She testified that they “did not talk about the dog incident”. She also said that they did not speak about childhood trauma and any prior sexual abuse allegations.

She said she was simply there to provide emotional support and that, referring to Ms. H., “if she expressed a desire I would have referred her to a registered psychologist.” [ 55 ] Ms. H. told the court that she is on a waiting list for group therapy. She sees a psychiatrist once per month and takes an anti- anxiety prescription. [ 56 ] I fully appreciate that, too often, the amount of red tape associated with getting help for a mental health issue can be overwhelming. People of limited financial means often have fiscal hurdles that they cannot overcome.

Sometimes it is as simple as the lack of bus fare to get to appointments that can create barriers to obtaining mental health assistance. [ 57 ] Dr. Jackson is Ms. H.’s family physician. She testified that Ms. H. had not shared with her the dog incident. She was of the view that some of Ms. H.’s symptoms were related to the ongoing custody issues with T. In her words, Dr. Jackson said that she had a mental illness and that is why she took her on as a patient. Further, she testified that her testimony is really based on observations that she has made and that she is not a psychiatrist.

She was asked if an incident like the one with the dog would re-occur. She testified that it was “difficult to know whether it would repeat itself - it is a question of follow-up.” [ 58 ] I find that Ms. H. did not and has not accessed adequate resources for her mental health needs. Her efforts were poor. I appreciate that we often have to focus on getting a roof over our head before we can start to focus on more important mental health concerns. However, there has been lots of time to seek professional assistance. Not making more significant efforts shows a severe lack of insight.

It must have been obvious to all those around Ms. H. that after the dog incident she was in need of immediate and constant professional medical assistance. She did not have it. [ 59 ] Her many different versions of the dog incident that she gave to any number of medical professionals were all put to her. She said she “can’t pin point why the stories are so different.” She did not know why she told Dr. Low one thing and other professionals a different thing.

For example, she told one author of a psychological report that she “heard voices saying to protect her child.” This was not her testimony in court, nor did she tell anyone else this version of events. This inability to explain vastly different stories raises issues of credibility with me. Not only do I find much of her testimony unreliable, but I have come to conclude that she is simply not credible in her explanations regarding the dog incident. H. Allegations Regarding Sexual Abuse [ 60 ] Disclosures were made to care givers. These disclosures were detailed.

Once more, the record will reflect the exact words of the disclosures made, to whom they were made, and under what conditions they were made. I do not need to repeat them, but it should be clear that they are disturbing and particularized. Essentially, T. confided in more than one care giver details of how she had been horribly sexually abused by her Mother, Mr. W. and Mr. G. [ 61 ] Ms. H. was asked: “Do you believe the disclosures of abuse are true?” She said, “Not that I am aware of.” She testified in a cold, impassioned manner when asked about the possibility of her child being sexually abused.

She questioned the veracity of T.’s statements by attacking the Ministry. She said, “I didn’t do it - so where is it all coming from?” She further testified that “I have never done anything to harm my daughter, yes she did see a traumatic event, and obviously somebody has been touching my daughter and I want to get to the bottom of it.” She says somebody in the foster care system must be responsible for the sexual abuse. [ 62 ] I pause to note that Ms. H.’s own mother is the one who complained to the Ministry about the possibility of sexual abuse.

The allegation was made long before T. ever entered the foster care system. [ 63 ] I did not believe Ms. H. when she testified. First, it is obvious that she did in fact hurt her daughter. Her daughter not only witnessed the torturing of the dog but was physically forced to participate in it. Second, Ms. H. openly admitted to hurting her daughter in a spanking incident that she immediately regretted. It is clear that she has hurt her daughter. [ 64 ] To be clear, I find on the balance of probabilities that Ms. H. was responsible, involved and a full participant in the sexual abuse that T. suffered.

The descriptions are of such detail that they cannot be simply the imaginations of a child’s mind. It is obvious to me that T. was sexually abused. It is obvious to me that Ms. H. is responsible for that abuse. [ 65 ] More problematic is deciphering who the male was in the sexual abuse. T. has made allegations that her father, Mr. W., and Ms. H.’s boyfriend, Mr. G., both sexually abused her. If this were a criminal trial, I would have to consider the evidence on a proof beyond a reasonable doubt basis. If I did this, then I would have some doubt as to what males abused T.

I. Mr. G. and the Allegations of Sexual Abuse [ 66 ] Mr. G. and Ms. H. had a child together, born [omitted]. That child was removed at birth as a result of the allegations made in this case. Both parents access supervised visits with their newborn son, D., through a parenting program called ACT II. The program focuses on developing parenting techniques. [ 67 ] The Director relied on reports from this course and argued that Mr. G. was overbearing and that Ms. H. was too submissive. The essence of the argument is that the relationship between the two parents is unhealthy.

With respect, my review of the reports, coupled with the testimony that Ms. H. and Mr. G. gave, is not conclusive on this point. I would think being under the microscopic lens of a supervisor in a parenting course would be a very intimidating process. [ 68 ] Mr. G. described his background. He said that he and Ms. H. had an excellent relationship and that T. was an amazing and smart girl, and further described Ms. H. as an amazing mother. [ 69 ] He was asked whether he was at all concerned about Ms. H. He said “absolutely not”. He testified that she told him she was just trying to protect her daughter.

I think this answer shows that Ms. H. has not fully shared alternative possibilities as to why the dog incident took place. He was told she was smoking a marijuana residue from a pipe. She told the court it was actually a joint. It seemed obvious that she had never mentioned to him the possibility that she suffered some sort of psychotic episode – drug induced or otherwise. [ 70 ] Mr. G. denied any knowledge of T. being sexually abused.

He was clear and said, “None of that stuff happened when she was in our care.” He came across as an individual that meant it when he said, “I will do whatever it takes to get my children home.” [ 71 ] Nevertheless the very specific and detailed disclosures by T. are clear. They do not describe a man doing any particular thing. They describe a particular man, J.G., doing very particular things. Mr. G. is described and named as the man, who along with Ms. H., committed certain sexually abusive acts against T. In T.’s eyes he and her mother abused her sexually. I find that even with Mr.

G.’s impassioned testimony to the contrary, both he and Ms. H. are the individuals that sexually assaulted T. J. T.’s Current Mental State [ 72 ] T. is in a supportive foster home environment. But she continues to have nightmares and, by all accounts, she is going to need on-going counselling. Dr. Korn said that her exact mental health will not be known until a detailed psychological assessment is made. A report written by Dr. Korn concluded that T. should not have any access with family members until the assessment was completed. [ 73 ] The Director called Dr.

Mary Korpach, psychologist, who prepared a May 2015 report regarding T. There were very specific disclosures made to the Doctor concerning Ms. H. and Mr. G. Ultimately, the Doctor told the court that T. met the criteria for post- traumatic stress disorder. She stated that it was her impression that “there was a post-traumatic stress disorder associated with the dog event, but also there was likely complex trauma associated with other events.” [ 74 ] Ms. Rachel Madu, T.’s therapist, also testified. She provided detailed evidence that T. was rated very high on the trauma chart.

She described in heart-breaking detail the disclosures from T. Her evidence as to the trauma that T. suffered was extremely compelling.

SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR’S PROTECTION CONCERNS [ 75 ] Some of their protection concerns are more compelling than others – but I find each ground to be well founded in the facts. A. General Care [ 76 ] In fairness, it is obvious that T.’s residence at the time of the removal was barely habitable. I believe that at the time of the removal T. was in need of protection, if for no other reason, due to the state of the rat infested home she was living in. It was not clean. It was not safe. It was not appropriate for a child to be there. However, I acknowledge now it appears Ms.

H. has an appropriate residence. [ 77 ] T. was also exposed to domestic violence in the past. In my view, there is no sufficient foundation upon which to conclude that her current relationship with Mr. G. is affected by domestic violence. B. Mental Health [ 78 ] The Director submits that Ms. H. has not done enough to deal with mental health concerns. I absolutely agree. She has taken some steps but they are minimal. I do not expect any professional to guarantee this court that the dog incident will never re-occur.

But I would like to be satisfied that appropriate steps have been taken that are reasonable, in the circumstances, to greatly reduce the risk of another psychotic episode. I am not satisfied. C. Sexual Abuse Allegations [ 79 ] After reviewing the evidence in this trial, I conclude that T. has been terribly sexually abused. I agree with the Director that this simple fact, in itself, establishes that there are protection concerns. I also agree with the Director’s written submissions as to the issues of credibility found at page 36 of their written submissions.

CONCLUSIONS [ 80 ] I agree with many of the submissions of Director’s counsel. First, with respect to the dog incident, I find that the criteria in s. 13(1)(

e) has been met. T. was emotionally harmed by her mother’s conduct. T. has been described as suffering from anxiety, self- destructive and aggressive behaviour. [ 81 ] With respect to s. 13(1) (

b) and (c), I find that the evidence clearly establishes that T. has been sexually abused by her mother

and J.G. While the evidence was not as strong against Mr. W., it is my view that he too participated in some sort of historical physical or sexual abuse of T. [ 82 ] I have had the opportunity to review what steps Ms. H. has taken with respect to her mental health. She has had some time to benefit from services. She has not availed herself to those services to my satisfaction. It is my conclusion that the circumstances that led to T.’s removal, specifically those concerning the dog incident and sexual abuse, will not improve within a reasonable time. [ 83 ] T. is emotionally scarred for life, and Ms.

H. will never be in a position to meet her emotional needs. [ 84 ] The safety and well-being of T. is my focus. It is only her best interests that I must consider. [ 85 ] There is no doubt in my mind that granting a continuing custody order and immediately implementing permanency planning is in the best interest of T. The Honourable Judge A.M.

Wolf Provincial Court of British Columbia CORRIGENDUM - RELEASED FEBRUARY 16, 2017 [1] In the Reasons for Judgment dated January 31, 2017, corrections to the names of the Parents’ counsel have been made to the cover page. [2] At [72], the first sentence has been amended to read: “T. is in a supportive foster home environment.”