Director v. L.D.W. and J.H.W. Date:, 2017 BCPC 95

Citation: Director v. L.D.W. and J.H.W. Date: 20170316 2017 BCPC 95 File No: F4469 Registry: Campbell River 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 CHILDREN: B.L.J ., born [omitted for publication] and W.S.J., born [omitted for publication] BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE APPLICANT AND: L.D.W. AND J.H.W. PARENTS REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE FLEWELLING

Counsel for the Director: P. Armstrong Counsel for the Parent: A. Penhall Counsel for J.H.W. : J. Hormoth Place of Hearing: Campbell River , B.C. Date of Hearing: Sept. 29, 30, 2015, Oct. 1, 2015, Jan. 20, 2016 & May 31, 2016, Date of Judgment: March 16, 2017 Introduction [ 1 ] Due to the lack of available court time, the trial of this matter was conducted by instalments and took place over many months. It is not the preferred method of hearing evidence and I received counsels’ very helpful written submissions in July and September, 2016 respectively.

This is my decision. [ 2 ] Pursuant to s. 49 (5) of the Child Family and Community Service Act (the “ Act ”) the Director of Family and Child Services (“Director”), applies for a continuing custody order with respect to the children, B.L.J., born [omitted for publication] and W.S.J., born [omitted for publication]. The Director also seeks a preliminary finding that the children are in need of protection pursuant to s. 13 (1)(

h) of the Act. [ 3 ] The mother opposes the Director’s application and seeks an order that the children be returned to her or, alternatively, that the children be returned to her custody under a period of supervision for a period of up to six months: s. 49 (7)(

a) or 49 (8) respectively. [ 4 ] If placed in the continuing custody of the Director, the Director would become their guardian and the children would then be eligible for adoption. [ 5 ] The Director’s concerns and reason for not returning the children relate to their view that L.D.W. does not have the capacity or ability to provide a safe and stable environment for her children. They point to L.D.W.’s alcohol use, her neglect of the children and domestic violence.

Specifically, they are concerned about L.D.W.’s ability to “make safe decisions for her children and for herself.” In other words, the Director is concerned that L.D.W. is unable to protect and adequately care for her children and does not believe that this will change in the future. [ 6 ] The Director also says that L.D.W. has not cooperated or been fully forthcoming with the Ministry in their attempts to assist L.D.W. and, at one time, work towards a return of the children. [ 7 ] The father of W.S.J. and J.H.W. supports L.D.W.’s position.

The biological father of B.L.J. did not participate in these proceedings. [ 8 ] L.D.W. has been in a long term relationship with her current partner, A.M. A.M. supports L.D.W. and also advocates that the children be returned to the custody and care of their mother and to their family unit. [ 9 ] L.D.W. points to her considerable efforts to overcome her challenges with alcohol use as well as to learn skills that will help her to be a good parent to her children.

She says that her relationship with A.M. is a good one and is stable and that he supports her desire to be abstinent from alcohol and to properly care for the children. A.M. has abstained from alcohol for a lengthy period of time and has been a productive and employed member of his community. [ 10 ] A.M. and L.D.W. have a child - N.J.-M. - who was born [omitted for publication]. In approximately March, 2014, and by consent, N.J.-M. was placed in the custody of A.M.’s mother and following that, remained in care of the Ministry pending these proceedings.

Although N.J.-M. is not a child included in these proceedings, L.D.W. and A.M. also wish to have her returned to their care. [ 11 ] For the reasons that follow, I have decided that the children, B.L.J. and W.S.J. are to remain in the temporary custody of the Director for a period of six months. At the end of this time, by the beginning of the school year in September, 2017, I expect that the children will be living with A.M. and L.D.W. full time. This period of time will allow for a planned, gradual and supported transition for the children into care and custody of A.M. and L.D.W.

It will also allow L.D.W. and A.M. and most importantly, the children, to adjust to being home together. It will allow L.D.W. to have the support she will need during this process so as to ensure a successful reintegration of this family. [ 12 ] It will not be easy, but I am of the view that L.D.W. and A.M. will be able to provide the care that the children need and deserve with support from L.D.W.’s counsellors and family at Laichwiltach Family Life Society, Kwakiutl District Council (K.D.C.), Dr. Kamil and the Ministry social workers.

The Legal Framework [ 13 ] The protection of children in British Columbia is governed by the Act which must be interpreted and administered in a manner that ensures that the safety and well-being of children are paramount considerations. [ 14 ] The guiding principles as set out in s. 2 of the Act recognizes that:

(

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. [ 15 ] Under the provisions of s. 49 (5) of the Act , the court may order that the children be placed in the continuing custody of the director under two circumstances: a. if there is no significant likelihood that the circumstances that led to the child's removal will improve within a reasonable time, or b. if there is no significant likelihood that the parent will be able to meet the child's needs. [ 16 ] However, before making a continuing custody order under that section, I must consider the past conduct of the parent towards any child who is or was in the parent's care, the plan of care, and the child's best interests: s. 49 (6). [ 17 ] Furthermore, in making a decision under s. 49 (5) I must consider the best interests of the children: s. 4.

All relevant factors that inform the meaning of “best interests” must be considered and include: (1) (

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; (

h) 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. [ 18 ] If I do not make a continuing custody order, I must make one of the following orders pursuant to s. 49 (7): (

a) that the children be returned to the custody of the parent apparently entitled to custody; (

b) that the children remain in the temporary custody of a person other than the parent for a specified period of up to 6 months; (

c) that the children remain or be placed in the temporary custody of the director for a specified period of up to 6 months. [ 19 ] If the children remain in or are placed in the temporary custody of the director, sixty days following that period of time, the director may apply again for a continuing custody order and at that time, the court must make either a continuing custody order or return the children to the parent: s. 49 (9).

If that occurs, there are no other options for the court and it would be an all or nothing decision. [ 20 ] If I order that the children be returned to the mother’s custody or remain in the custody of a person other than the parent, I may order that the director supervise the children's care for a specified period of up to 6 months: s. 49 (8). Background and History [ 21 ] L.D.W. is 30 years of age and a member of the [omitted for publication] Nation. Like many others in her community, she was subjected to neglect and trauma as a child.

Her parents struggled with alcohol dependency and she was raised in large part by her grandparents and, later on, by her Auntie M. [ 22 ] Following the death of her father in 2006, alcohol became a prominent factor in L.D.W.’s life. The records indicate that beginning in 2006, L.D.W. had numerous admissions for medical care related to emotional or physical harm. Severe alcohol intoxication was a consistent factor underlying these admissions. [ 23 ] She began an abusive relationship with the biological father of B.L.J.

This relationship was also marked by alcohol and drug use. [ 24 ] When that relationship ended she began a relationship with J.H.W. which was characterized by severe violence, particularly towards L.D.W., and alcohol and drug misuse. They had two sons together, W.S.J., who is the subject of this application and B., who

was born [omitted for publication]. Tragically, in September, 2013, B. died while he was in J.H.W.’s care after the Director removed him from L.D.W. and returned him to the care and custody of J.H.W. Since B.’s death, J.H.W. has not been permitted to be in the presence of B.L.J. or W.S.J. [ 25 ] The Director has been involved in L.D.W.’s life since 2009. It is clear that all her children were subjected to neglect and domestic violence. At times they were left with people who themselves were unable or unwilling to care for the children.

There were times when the children did not have adequate food or were not properly clothed for the weather conditions. They, at times, were found by the police or social workers in residences littered with empty alcohol bottles, in which intoxicated adults were drinking and, at times, fighting. [ 26 ] B.L.J. was removed from L.D.W. on three occasions - August 19, 2009, September 13, 2010 and March 21, 2012 - due to concerns relating to domestic violence by J.H.W., her alcohol use and neglect. In June, 2012, the Director obtained a temporary custody order, by consent, which was extended a number of times.

She has remained in a foster home since. [ 27 ] B. was removed from L.D.W. on September 13, 2010 and March 21, 2012 for the same reasons - domestic violence relating to J.H.W., alcohol use and neglect. [ 28 ] W.S.J., who was then only three months old, was removed from L.D.W. on March 21, 2012 due to concerns about her alcohol use and neglect. She had been separated from J.H.W. since approximately late January, 2012.

Following that separation, and prior to being removed, B.L.J. had been residing primarily with L.D.W. while W.S.J. and B. were living with J.H.W. [ 29 ] On May 22, 2012, an order was successfully obtained by the Director that both W.S.J. and B. live with J.H.W. under a six month supervision order.

This was rather astonishing given J.H.W.’s history, known to the Ministry, of extreme violence towards children as well as towards his intimate partners and their concerns that L.D.W. was not protecting the children from J.H.W. [ 30 ] The supervision order expired on November 22, 2012 and both boys remained with their father until B.’s tragic death on September 15, 2013.

W.S.J. was permanently removed from J.H.W. on September 19, 2013 and he has remained in a foster home since that time. [ 31 ] Between all those removals, there were numerous supervision orders, and temporary custody orders. [ 32 ] L.D.W. began a relationship with A.M. in approximately the summer of 2012. A.M. was viewed very favourably by the Ministry as someone who had maintained his own sobriety for an extended period of time, would be the ongoing primary protector of the children and also provide support to L.D.W. A.M. is employed and was considered to be a stable influence.

A.M. is employed as a chef and handyman at the [omitted for publication]. He regularly attends AA meetings and is involved in chairing AA rallies and Gratitude Days. [ 33 ] There were two attempts to return the children to L.D.W. and A.M. [ 34 ] The first began in December, 2012 through to about March, 2013. The plan was to initially return B.L.J. [ 35 ] During this time, L.D.W. became pregnant with the couple’s daughter N.J.-M. Neither A.M. nor L.D.W. disclosed the fact of her pregnancy during the planning process throughout December, 2012 and early 2013.

Understandably, this concerned the Ministry who had been planning for a return of the children which was not reflective of the presence of a new-born child in the home. The relationship between them became contentious. [ 36 ] Nonetheless, the Ministry continued in their planning to return the children to L.D.W. and A.M. under supervision. A calendar was placed in evidence indicating that during the summer of 2013 B.L.J. was spending increasingly more time, including overnights, with them. On July 23, 2013, the Director planned to seek an order from the court for a return under supervision.

This took a great deal of detailed planning on everyone’s part and there were numerous planning meetings. [ 37 ] A.M. and L.D.W. had been taking B.L.J. to daycare and pre-school and there had been no problems or incidents during this time. Things appeared to be going well.

A.M. and L.D.W. were described as being “very engaged in what (the) child’s activities were and what her needs were.” During this time, the couple was also caring for their baby, N.J.-M. [ 38 ] Unfortunately, on July 10, 2013 A.M. and L.D.W. missed a critical meeting with the Ministry planning team and as a result, the planning for B.L.J.’s return came to an abrupt halt. A.M. and L.D.W. testified that they were not aware of the meeting date. Neither were L.D.W.’s counsellors and support group - Ms. Wells, Ms. Isaac-Speck, Mr. Kobyll or Dr. Kamil - aware of this meeting.

This is striking because, typically, at least some of them would consistently attend Ministry meetings with L.D.W. [ 39 ] I accept, based on all the evidence, that L.D.W. had been regularly attending meetings throughout this time, although A.M. had missed a number due to his employment. [ 40 ] L.D.W. was advised that as a result of missing that meeting, the plans for returning B.L.J. would not be proceeding. The relationship between L.D.W. and the Ministry deteriorated even more at this point. [ 41 ] I accept L.D.W.’s evidence that she didn’t know about the meeting. I note that she had an appointment with Ms.

Isaac-Speck at KDC a little later that same afternoon and there were no notes about the meeting. Had she been aware of this critical meeting, I expect that she would have attended with at least one of more of the people who supported and counselled her. [ 42 ] Given that L.D.W. had been cooperating, and also working extensively with her supports, I accept that there must have been some breakdown in communication. It is unfortunate that planning to return B.L.J. came to a grinding halt and that another meeting was not rescheduled.

I am aware that these meetings take a great deal of planning, but in my view getting another meeting date at the earliest opportunity may have been all that was required to get things back on track.

[ 43 ] As if the news that the Ministry was no longer intending to return B.L.J. was not enough, on September 29, 2013 B. died while in the care of J.H.W. L.D.W. had objected to the Ministry placing the boys with J.H.W., although I note that she allowed them to live with J.H.W. shortly after their separation, and feels that they were responsible, at least in part, for B.’s death.

Not unexpectedly, the relationship between them became even more challenging and further undermined L.D.W.’s ability to trust the Ministry. [ 44 ] In spite of these very challenging circumstances, planning for an eventual return of W.S.J. and B.L.J. to L.D.W. and A.M., under supervision, continued in early 2014. The planning process remained difficult. The relationship between the Ministry and L.D.W. fluctuated between being cooperative and contentious.

To make matters more difficult, J.H.W. was allowed to negatively impact the plan by constantly changing his views about whether the children should be returned to L.D.W. As Ms. Collard testified, even though J.H.W. had advised her that he was not opposing the return to L.D.W., once in court he would oppose the Director’s plan and the “whole process would come to an abrupt halt.” [ 45 ] The plan to return the children was unsuccessful.

There were essentially three reasons that they finally and completely abandoned the plan to return the children. [ 46 ] Firstly, they were of the view that an incident they characterized as one involving “domestic violence” had occurred between A.M. and L.D.W. on March 22, 2014. It was also described as involving an episode of drinking and therefore a relapse on the part of L.D.W. [ 47 ] Secondly, in August 2014, L.D.W. allowed W.S.J., B.L.J. and N.J.-M. to be in the presence of J.H.W. contrary to the terms of a supervision order.

According to the Ministry, L.D.W. took the children for a visit to J.H.W.’s apartment. L.D.W.’s explanation, and her evidence in court, was that she was at an apartment building for another reason and did not know J.H.W. lived there. J.H.W. suddenly appeared and when L.D.W. indicated that the children could not see him, B.L.J. had a temper tantrum.

L.D.W. relented and allowed the children, in her presence, to visit briefly with him. [ 48 ] The Director regarded this episode as evidence that L.D.W., as she had in the past, was still making decisions that placed the children at risk and which were contrary to the agreements she had made with the Ministry. [ 49 ] Lastly, they were concerned that the relationship between A.M. and L.D.W. was not stable and were of the view that A.M. was thinking about ending the relationship. They were also concerned that he was placing more importance on working than on being involved with the children.

A.M.’s presence and involvement was critical because he figured so prominently in the decision to return the children. He was regarded as the sober, guiding and responsible primary caregiver and protector for the children. [ 50 ] In late 2014, the case was transferred to a new social worker, Ms. Sarah Brinkley. [ 51 ] Ms. Brinkley testified that based on her review of the file, her concerns were risk of relapse by L.D.W., alcohol abuse and related poor choices and neglect.

She expressed concern about the ability of L.D.W. to provide daily consistency in routing such as school, regular lunches and communicating with the school. The latter was particularly important in relation to B.L.J. who is struggling in school. [ 52 ] On September 19, 2014, the Director applied for a continuing custody order and, as she described, her job was no longer to assess if a continuing custody order was necessary and focused on guardianship duties for B.L.J. and W.S.J. [ 53 ] She, and her team, came to the opinion that neither A.M. nor L.D.W. could parent on a long term basis.

In their view, they had provided numerous programs and supports and they now placed the onus on L.D.W. and A.M. to seek out their own programs. [ 54 ] At the time that Ms. Brinkley took over the case, I think it fair to say that any remaining shreds of a co-operative and trusting relationship had essentially come to an end. As a result, the Ministry was not given information about the programs that L.D.W. was attending. For example, Ms. Brinkley was not aware that L.D.W. had attended the residential programs at Namgis Treatment Centre in 2014 or Peardonville House in 2015. [ 55 ] Ms.

Brinkley acknowledged that she has had limited engagement with L.D.W. and A.M. [ 56 ] The three children are together in one foster home. There are six other children there. B.L.J., 8 years old, struggles academically and acts out. She may need a future assessment to determine if she suffers from FASD but is meeting school criteria. W.S.J., 5 years old, is described as sensitive little boy with anxiety around consistency of visits with L.D.W. and A.M. [ 57 ] It is clear that A.M. and L.D.W. love and care for the children. The children are described as enjoying their visits with them and are happy to see them.

I didn’t have much by way of any other evidence regarding the children. [ 58 ] The Director’s plan of care is to have the children remain in the foster home at this time. No family members have come forward as an alternative and there has not been a family group conference because L.D.W. will not consent to any members of J.H.W.’s family being considered. If a continuing custody order was granted, a family group conference would proceed without L.D.W.’s consent. The Director would try to keep the children together looking first at placement with a First Nations family.

If that was unsuccessful, then a non First Nations family would be considered but with a plan to ensure the children remain connected with their culture. [ 59 ] One of the Director’s concerns was the poor relationship with L.D.W. The relationship was described by the Ministry as fluctuating between periods of co-operation and hostility. Understandably, L.D.W. was not happy with the Ministry for a number of reasons. [ 60 ] After the missed meeting in July, 2013, the Ministry promptly cancelled any plans to continue working on the plan to return B.L.J.

They clearly didn’t accept L.D.W.’s explanation that she was not aware of the meeting and it was never rescheduled.

[ 61 ] B.’s tragic death in September, 2013 was a tremendous blow to her and she felt that the Ministry was responsible. [ 62 ] The second plan to return the children was finally and completely abandoned in 2014 based on concerns enumerated above (paras. 44 and 45) involving the incidents in 2014. [ 63 ] I have reviewed the RCMP record regarding the incident on March 26, 2014. I characterize this as an argument between A.M. and L.D.W., albeit they were arguing loudly. There was no violence and no evidence that either of them were intoxicated.

The Ministry described this incident as a relapse for L.D.W. [ 64 ] I find that A.M. and L.D.W. are committed to one another and have a good relationship. I am satisfied that A.M. is able to, and will provide the protection needed to ensure proper care for the children. I agree that the incident in which L.D.W. allowed J.H.W. to see the children is troubling. However, it was brief and she was always present.

In my view, given the entire history, and the fact that A.M. reported this himself, it was not sufficient to cease all planning for a return. [ 65 ] Furthermore, a strength and needs assessment of both L.D.W. and A.M. was carried out by the Ministry in April, 2014. It provided an assessment of important factors: alcohol use, family relationship, partner relationships, social support systems, parenting skills, mental health and coping skills, resource management, cultural identity, physical health and communication skills. [ 66 ] Overall, it was a positive report.

The report indicated that both parents are committed to leading a life of sobriety and healthy decision making, the family has a good family support network around them and domestic violence is not a part of their relationship. In fact, the report indicated that “they appear to be working really well together as a couple and as parents.” On the portion of the assessment dealing with alcohol, drug or substance use, L.D.W. had a score of 4 (the highest score). This is a marked improvement from the strength and needs assessment conducted on May 29, 2012 in which L.D.W. obtained a score of -5.

In fact, L.D.W. had improved on almost all scores. [ 67 ] The report also states: Both parents are supportive of each other in this process in working with the Ministry and notably get frustrated with this system too. This frustration is years of working with MCFD and they really have been doing good work in moving towards getting their children back. [ 68 ] One of the Director’s concerns was that A.M. was working full-time and would not be at home enough to provide protection and assistance.

The strength and needs report refers to the fact that A.M. is working and as a result could support the family and L.D.W. as the “stay at home parent.” The evidence before me, including A.M.’s testimony, supports my view that A.M. is committed to L.D.W and the children and that notwithstanding that he works, he will make necessary adjustments to his

schedule in order to look after the children. [ 69 ] In my view, the relationship between L.D.W. and her social worker was strained to the breaking point due to poor communication. The meeting in which L.D.W. was confronted and asked to “look (the social worker) in the eyes” is an example. During these meetings, L.D.W. was frequently unable to speak up for herself. This is due to many factors, including, I expect, her own traumatic childhood. But another and critically important factor is that there are important cultural differences.

In First Nations culture it is considered very rude and aggressive to look someone directly in the eyes. [ 70 ] I accept that the social workers were attempting to satisfy themselves that L.D.W. had the capacity and strength to speak up for herself and care for her children. The work carried out by social workers is difficult and often thankless. They are under staffed and do not have enough resources.

It is not a criticism, but I make the observation that there needs to be a better way of working with families that incorporates cultural sensitivity, promotes trust and respect and also protects vulnerable children. It may be that with different tools, this unfortunate type of confrontation could have been avoided. This is also one of the factors that contributed to the breakdown of the relationship. [ 71 ] Unfortunately, due the collapse of the relationship, the Ministry was not aware of the tremendous effort L.D.W. has, and continues to make, to maintain her sobriety and to learn and maintain parenting skills.

Those efforts include attendances at two residential treatment programs: Namgis from September 20, 2014 to October 31, 2014 and Peardonville from June 24, 2015 to September 1, 2015. [ 72 ] In addition, L.D.W. has maintained, if not increased, the support of a team including Ms. Georgina Isaac-Speck, Ms Josey Wells, Mr. Larry Kobyll, and Dr. Rif Kamil. I reviewed the numerous records that were admitted into evidence and it was clear to me that L.D.W. was in regular if not constant communication with individuals at KDC and Laichwiltach Family Life Society through 2014 and 2015.

She also attended numerous relapse prevention and parenting programs offered by both health services. I accept that there were a few isolated relapses but the fact that L.D.W. went into treatment and has maintained contact with the people who support her sobriety is a very favourable indicator of her ability to maintain her sobriety. [ 73 ] L.D.W. testified that she continues to meet with and obtain the support of these individuals as well as the programs designed to keep her on the path of sobriety. She attends AA meetings with A.M. and helps to co-chair the AA rallies and Gratitude Days. [ 74 ] Dr.

Kamil was qualified as a psychiatrist with expertise in addictions and trauma and in provision of psychiatric services to First Nations individuals. It was suggested in submissions that the weight of Dr. Kamil’s opinions should be carefully considered on the basis that he is an advocate for L.D.W. and that he did not have the Ministry’s file for his review. [ 75 ] I found Dr. Kamil to be a candid and forthright witness. While he is an advocate for his patient, in my view, he remained impartial while giving evidence and in providing his overall opinions.

It is true that he did not have the Ministry’s files, and he agreed that it would have been helpful. However, he obtained a history from L.D.W. that included her past lifestyle and he also attended meetings with the Ministry and was therefore very aware of their concerns. Accordingly, I respectfully do not agree that his opinion should be treated with “great caution”.

[ 76 ] In addition to his testimony, he provided two reports. In his report dated September 22, 2015, he acknowledged that L.D.W. had experienced a few isolated instances of relapse of alcohol use. In his view, and I accept that opinion: The principal areas of concern around L.D.W.’s capacity to ensure the safety and well-being of her children have been the risk of alcohol use.

This has been substantially mitigated by the treatments L.D.W. has committed to in the last year . [Emphasis added] [ 77 ] As he stated in his evidence: “if someone can stop drinking you can take away one of the major issues preventing someone from being a good parent.” [ 78 ] He testified that when dealing with addiction, it is critical to work with the trauma behind the addiction. In the context of L.D.W.’s own past trauma, he described the importance of “putting an anchor in tradition” as one of the top five factors needed to promote healing.

He noted that L.D.W. is participating in cultural activities. [ 79 ] Additional protective factors are that she has a strong team and that she is engaged with that team. In his opinion, any plan to return the children must be done on a graded progressive fashion and with support. He was of the view that there would be a time when she will not need such a large support network, but that for the protection of the children, some level of supervision be maintained during the transition.

Analysis and Conclusion [ 80 ] Based on all the evidence, I am unable to conclude that there is no significant likelihood that the circumstances that led the children’s removal will improve within a reasonable time or that L.D.W. will be able to meet the children’s needs: s. 49 (5). [ 81 ] In my view, L.D.W. has made a tremendous effort, and successfully, to deal with her alcohol use and parenting capacity. [ 82 ] I consider the guiding principles that the safety and well-being of these children is paramount, that the family is the preferred environment and that if available support services will assist a family to provide a healthy and safe environment for them, they should be provided.

In my view, it is in the children’s best interests that they are returned to L.D.W. but on a gradual basis. [ 83 ] I recognize that these children have been in foster care since March, 2012 for B.L.J. and September, 2013 for W.S.J. However, they have maintained a relationship with their mother and A.M. (whom they call [omitted for publication]) and I believe that with the assistance of L.D.W.’s support team, Dr.

Kamil, the current foster parents, and the Ministry, the children will be able to adjust to, and cope with, the transition. [ 84 ] L.D.W. is to be commended for her tremendous accomplishments and it is essential that she continue to maintain all that she has achieved. A.M.’s commitment to his relationship with L.D.W. and his support are also essential. [ 85 ] A relationship with the Ministry is also critically important and both L.D.W. and A.M. testified that they are willing to work with them cooperatively.

I recommend that the Ministry choose someone who can, or who has developed, a good relationship with L.D.W. and A.M. I also recommend that Dr. Kamil be directly involved in the planning for the gradual return of the children. [ 86 ] To assist Dr.

Kamil, as well as L.D.W. and A.M., I direct that (if not already done) the Ministry provide copies of all records relating to the emotional and physical health of the children, including school records. [ 87 ] For the return to be a success, everyone must work together and L.D.W. and A.M., as well as the Ministry, need to begin a new relationship that is based on respect, trust and the ability to speak, but most importantly, to listen. I suggest that meetings be held in a manner that respects First Nations culture.

It may involve a simple ceremony to mark the beginning of the transition and the new relationship, but I will leave that to L.D.W., A.M. and the Ministry. [ 88 ] In conclusion, there will be an order that the children, B.L.J. and W.S.J. remain in the temporary custody of the Director for a period of six months to allow for a planned and gradual return to L.D.W. and A.M. [ 89 ] I also order that the children have no contact or communication with J.H.W. without further order of this Court. [ 90 ] The parties are at liberty to appear before me again with respect to my order.

BY THE COURT __________________________ The Honourable Judge Flewelling