Director v. D.R. and E.S. Date:, 2017 BCPC 180

Citation: Director v. D.R. and E.S. Date: 20170605 2017 BCPC 180 File No: F38791 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: J.R. , born [omitted for publication] BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE APPLICANT AND: D.R. and E.S. PARENTS ORDER OF THE HONOURABLE REGIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE HAMILTON CFCSA MATTER RESTRICTION ON ACCESS s. 3.2 Provincial Court Act

Counsel for the Director: K. McLean Appearing on their own behalf: D.R. Counsel for E.S. : D. Jahani Place of Hearing: Surrey , B.C. Date of Hearing: June 5, 2017 Date of Judgment: June 5, 2017 [ 1 ] THE COURT: This is the Director's application for an interim order in respect of the infant child, J.D.R. (“J.”). J. was born [omitted for publication]. He is [omitted for publication] years old. [ 2 ] This case started last September when a report was made to social workers of the Ministry of the living conditions J. was in. The allegations included that J.'s mother, E.S.(1) (“Ms.

S.”), was engaged in prostitution and that she was having sex with her clients in front of the child, that she uses drugs, including cocaine and marihuana, and she drinks alcohol. [ 3 ] She was interviewed by Social Worker Sharon Atwal on September the 27th, and Ms. Atwal reached a conclusion that most of those initial concerns were unsubstantiated. [ 4 ] Social Worker Atwal went further, to speak with J., and during her interview with J., the little boy made disclosures that he was being inappropriately touched by Ms. S.'s boyfriend, Mr. L.

As a result of those disclosures, Social Worker Atwal did what she is obliged to do pursuant to the law, and that is contact the police, and I gather the police conducted something of an investigation, but there is no evidence before me that any charges were laid, or if there was any disclosure made by J. to the police that interviewed him. [ 5 ] Because at the time, Ms. S. was in a relationship with Mr. L., the Ministry prepared a safety plan, with a view to having J. live with his maternal grandmother, E.S.(2) (“E.S.”), and J. went to his grandmother's home.

He has been there since last September. [ 6 ] Part of the safety plan was for Ms. S. to engage in services to satisfy the Director that she was a good, safe, caring mom, and she did that, and by about I think it was February or March of this year, a decision had been made to return J. to his mom's care, and the Ministry was going to supervise her care of J. by way of a supervision order. [ 7 ] One of the terms of that supervision order required Ms. S. to not permit her boyfriend, Mr. L., to have any contact with J., and not to reside in the same home with J. Ms.

S. was not prepared to agree to those terms, and the result was that the Director formally removed J. from his mother's care and placed him in the care of his maternal grandmother. So his living situation did not change, but the legal status did. [ 8 ] In this proceeding, the Director is seeking an order placing J. in the interim care of his grandmother, pending a protection hearing. [ 9 ] I heard evidence briefly from the social worker who was involved at the beginning of this case, Ms. Atwal, and she recounted for me basically what I have just said about the disclosure of inappropriate touching by Mr.

L., and Ms. S.'s refusal to agree to a supervision term that would prevent Mr. L. from having any contact with J. [ 10 ] Ms. S. testified and told me that she is a good mom, that she is not a prostitute, that she does not do drugs, that she is ready, willing and able to undergo testing to establish that she does not drugs, and that she is such a protective mother that she knows absolutely that these allegations against Mr. L. are untrue, they are unfounded, and they should be dismissed and J. should be returned to live in her care. [ 11 ] Ms. S.'s relationship with Mr. L. continues.

She told me in her evidence that they spend up to three or four nights together. It continues to be a romantic relationship, although she did say initially to me that they were just friends. [ 12 ] Here is the thing. At this stage of the proceedings, I am not making any findings as to what actually happened. I am only taking a look at what the allegations are, and if there is some evidence that could establish that J. was touched inappropriately by Mr. L., or that Mr. L. is an abusive partner, and if I am satisfied that Ms.

S. is not prepared to take the steps necessary to ensure J. is safe in her care, I am left with little choice but to make the order sought by the Director. [ 13 ] Ms. S., as best I can determine, as a result of Mr. L. being involved in your life, four bad things have happened to you. You lost your son, you lost your lawyer. I read that letter that you handed up. I gather you wanted me to read it, where your lawyer quit acting for you because Mr. L. was interfering in his relationship with you. I do not know if it was Mr.

L.'s idea to file that Supreme Court proceeding, but if there was even a speck of legal advice, not even good legal advice, you never would have started that because now you are going to be exposed to a costs order, potentially, for the steps that you are taking in Supreme Court. As best as I can determine, very little good is happening in your life right now, with Mr. L. in your life. The other bad thing that happened was you almost had J. returned to you. The Ministry was ready to pack him up and send him home, and that did not happen. He got removed. [ 14 ] I wonder about Mr. L.

You would think that if someone was involved in someone else's life and all that was happening were bad things, like losing children and losing lawyers and going to court and being exposed to costs orders, that person might say you know what, I am not doing any good in this relationship; I am out. I am going to do the right thing for J.; I am gone. I will go start a relationship with someone else and I will let this family get back together again. But for reasons that I do not understand, that is not

happening. [ 15 ] So here we are, in a situation where right now you remain committed to this relationship with Mr. L. That means that your home is not a safe place for J. I do not know what more the Ministry can do in this case to get to the bottom of whether J.'s disclosures were true or not. I mean that happened last September, and there is only so many times they can interview this little child to hear what he has to say, and if his story has changed now, then who knows what, if anything, actually happened.

But you need to sit down and think really carefully about how you are going to approach this case from this point forward, because the way you have approached it to this point is not helping. Not even close. [ 16 ] So for those reasons, I am satisfied that the test that the Director has to meet in order to establish the interim order they are after has been met. There is unresolved allegations involving inappropriate touching and domestic violence that came from J.'s mouth when he was interviewed by the social worker.

Those remain unresolved allegations. [ 17 ] I am today going to order that the infant child, J.D.R., born [omitted for publication] be placed in the interim custody of his grandmother, E.S. [ 18 ] I will order that the Director may supervise Ms. S.'s care of J. in accordance with the nine terms and conditions set out on the written consents that have been filed, and I will order that both D.R. and Ms. S. may have reasonable access with J.

That access may be supervised at the discretion of the Director. [ 19 ] The protection hearing will commence on July the 13th at 9:30 in the morning in courtroom 312. (ORDER CONCLUDED)