Director v S.K. Date:, 2013 BCPC 380

Citation: Director v S.K. Date: 20131218 2013 BCPC 0380 File No: F4528 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 CHILD: D.S.B. , born November 16, 2010 BETWEEN: DIRECTOR OF CHILD, FAMILY AND COMMUNITY SERVICE APPLICANT AND: S.K PARENT AND: R.B. FATHER REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE COWLIING

Counsel for the Director: C. Murphy Counsel for the Parent: A. Penhall Counsel for the father : K. Stevan Place of Hearing: Campbell River , B.C. Dates of Hearing: June 19, 20 and Sept.11, 2013 Date of Judgment: December 18, 2013 [ 1 ] THE COURT: This matter was heard on June 19th and 20th and September 11th of 2013. It was put over for written submissions and reserved judgment. It is an application by the Director for a continuing custody order for the child, D.B. [ 2 ] D.B.'s guardian, as referred to in the pleadings, is S.W.

In the evidence, the mother is referred to by various names and, in this judgment, I will refer to her as S.K., which I believe is the name she prefers to go by. [ 3 ] There has been an order in this matter banning the publication of the names of the foster parents for D.B. and also the names of his grandparents, L.F. and R.F. They will be referred to as L.F. and R.F. [ 4 ] In this matter, the witnesses were not always consistent as to the dates of certain events, for example, when S.K. and D.B.'s father, R.B., commenced their relationship.

In such cases, I have used what I consider to be the best estimate from the overall information available. [ 5 ] D.B. was born on November 16th, 2010. His mother, S.K., is 32 and his father, R.B., is 50. He is sometimes referred to as R.F. In the evidence, Ms. K. is often referred to as Ms. W. S.K. is the sole guardian of D.B. by an FRA order of June 21st, 2011. [ 6 ] D.B. has a sister, V.B., born October 2nd, 2006. V.B. is not part of these proceedings. V.B. is believed to have special needs.

She is presently in the care of R.B.'s mother, L.F., age 75, and stepfather, R.F., age 62, who have an order for joint guardianship. R.B. visits V.B. frequently. S.K. has little contact with V.B. at the present time. [ 7 ] At the time of his birth, there were concerns D.B. had been exposed to drugs prenatally. However, to date, no deficits have been noted and he is meeting all growth and developmental milestones. [ 8 ] D.B. was removed from S.K.'s care after a supervision order made in February of 2012 was breached in April of 2012. There had been prior supervision orders going back to January 4th, 2011.

D.B., since his removal, has been placed with foster parents who were also at one time foster parents of S.K. They enjoy a good relationship with her and this has helped facilitate her maintaining contact with D.B. two to three times per week. R.B. went for long periods without contact with D.B., but now sees him once a week for about two hours. [ 9 ] S.K. has two other sons, ages 13 and 12, who were placed in continuing care in 2002 and subsequently adopted. [ 10 ] R.B. commenced an FLA application for custody of D.B. on May 27th, 2013. S.K. has filed a reply opposing that application.

R.B.'s application to join his FLA application with this CFCSA hearing was denied on June 19th, 2013, at the commencement of the trial. [ 11 ] The Ministry believes that the mother has longstanding drug and alcohol issues and that protection concerns arise directly from this and indirectly from the lifestyle that results from it. The Ministry believes that the mother becomes involved in the sex trade and in criminal activities to support her addictions and also gravitates to abusive relationships.

The Ministry has recently worked a great deal with the mother who has at times taken some very positive steps. [ 12 ] The Ministry believes that the father also has substance abuse issues and is prone to criminal activity and domestic violence.

The Ministry has found the father difficult to connect with and he has generally not worked cooperatively with the Ministry in contrast to the mother. [ 13 ] The Ministry's plan is for a continuing care order for D.B. to be followed by either, firstly, a family placement; secondly, an aboriginal adoptive family due to D.B. having First Nations heritage on his father's side; or thirdly, other adoption. There are no known family placement resources on the mother's side.

There are possible options on the father's side, but nothing definite at this time. [ 14 ] The Ministry does not want to place D.B. with either the mother or father due to their past history both together and apart and due to a belief that neither can offer the child a permanent stable home. The Ministry says it would like a placement that would facilitate contact between D.B. and his sister, V.B. [ 15 ] As neither R.B. or his mother, L.F., are registered with any band, none has participated. S.K.'s ethnicity is Caucasian and R.B.'s is partially of First Nations descent. D.B. is said to have blond hair.

What type of placement may be best suited for him may be more complicated than usual. If V.B. and D.B. are raised in separate households and if either or both have developmental issues, meaningful contact between them would present as problematical. The Mother's Background [ 16 ] S.K. was born in Ontario and lived with her parents until she was four. She went into foster care until adopted by her step grandfather and her grandmother at age eight. She was raised in the Prince George area between 1989 and 1999.

Her step-grandfather is said to have been a very strict fundamentalist Christian and she did not have a conventional youth. Shortly before her grade 12

graduation, she moved to the home of her best friend and then to the home of her father and stepmother in Surrey. She had not seen her father since she was four. She also had little contact with her mother who is presently believed to be living in the Victoria area with addiction issues. [ 17 ] In Surrey, she became involved with a friend of her father's, D.S., who introduced her to drugs and also to the sex trade and property crime to support both their habits. She describes herself as co-dependent on this person who was 10 years older than she. Her drug use at this time was cocaine.

Her first child, A.K., was conceived the month she graduated and born in March of 2000. This child was apprehended while she was with D.S. in Surrey. D.S. was not the father of A.K. [ 18 ] She moved back to Prince George in January of 2001 with D.S. and while pregnant with their child, B. She was briefly clean and got A.K. back into her care as of January 3rd, 2002. Shortly after this, she relapsed and abandoned her situation in Prince George for about a month. The children were, understandably, back in care when she returned.

She said that she was using a lot in 2002 and, in October, consented to a continuing custody order for A.K. and B. She stayed in Prince George and visited with the boys until they were adopted out in May of 2003. [ 19 ] At that time, S.K. moved to Campbell River where her father had relocated. She got back into the drug scene in Campbell River and also the sex trade. She says that she first met R.B. as a "date" in 2004, but had met a couple of his sisters before as fellow users. [ 20 ] She says that she and R.B. turned into a relationship and that they did drugs together.

For R.B., she said that this was mainly heroin and alcohol. For her, cocaine was the drug of choice. She says that R.B. had her use heroin to "slow down" her cocaine use. She says that R.B. never "pimped her out" but was content to use the proceeds of her prostitution and/or theft, such things as grabbing a purse at a store, to support his habit. [ 21 ] She says that when she first met R.B., he had recently received a large settlement in the area of $60,000 to $70,000 and that there was some animosity from his many siblings that he was spending his money on her instead of them.

She says that she has not got along well with R.B.'s mother, L.F., from the outset. [ 22 ] She says that she and R.B. trafficked in heroin on a small scale to support their habits and that he also did some electrical work for his family. She believes that a number of R.B.'s siblings are drug users, some heroin, some cocaine. She says that she started the methadone program when she was pregnant with V.B. and has stayed on it since. [ 23 ] She says that after V.B. was placed with R.B.'s parents, there was once a police raid on the apartment she shared with R.B. where an eight-ball of heroin was seized from him.

She says that the Ministry was involved with V.B. from birth and that V.B. was removed in 2007 at age eight months. [ 24 ] V.B. was initially placed with C.D., a sister-in-law of R.B. C.D. gave evidence that neither the mother or father were particularly responsible about maintaining contact with V.B. and that after two or three months, V.B.'s care was transferred to L.F. and R.F. where she has remained since.

The evidence indicates that there has been a recent diagnosis of alcohol-related neurological disorder regarding V.B. and that she has not reached her developmental milestones as D.B. has. [ 25 ] S.K. says that she and R.B. collaborated to tell the Ministry that only she had a drug problem and not both of them so that he could qualify to supervise her contact with V.B. She also said that the two of them tried to break off from selling, but not using, drugs around this time. They had a separation in 2008, during which she went to Ontario with someone else.

She kept in touch with R.B. and returned to Campbell River in January of 2009. [ 26 ] S.K. says that her relationship “has never been good” with L.F. This presents as understandable for a number of reasons. From the perspective of L.F., it is likely that she would suspect S.K. to be the cause of any problems of R.B. either individually or as a couple. It appears that R.B. shielded his parents from his drug use or at least from the extent of it.

L.F. and R.F. having the care of V.B. has also contributed to the estrangement between S.K. and the B/F family. [ 27 ] S.K. says that on December 16th, 2009, there was an incident where R.B. threatened to kill her. He was convicted or pled guilty to this on January 25th, 2011, and received a one-year probation order with a suspended sentence. [ 28 ] S.K. found out in April of 2010 that she was pregnant with D.B. She was at the Ann Elmore Transition House at the time for about 28 days. She was or became clean except for methadone at this time.

She and R.B. had been living in a Dodge minivan with some access to electricity and showers at a property of his parents. They also sold heroin out of the minivan. The transition house told her that if she wanted to stay, she had to leave R.B. She describes herself at that time as co-dependent and reluctant to leave R.B. as she had no sense of self-worth. [ 29 ] In early 2010, S.K. contacted the Ministry for a reassessment to facilitate getting unsupervised access to V.B. Exhibit 12 may be part of this.

S.K. says that in that assessment she lied and/or downplayed about the level of domestic violence between she and R.B. as she wanted to get back with him and to have more contact with V.B. [ 30 ] Through the transition house, she met Rhonda Feechuck, a forensic psychiatric nurse, who was a witness in these proceedings. Ms. Feechuck arranged in May of 2010 for S.K. to have D.B. born at the Fir Square Program at B.C. Women's Hospital. This is a special unit of the hospital for mothers with addiction issues. [ 31 ] As mentioned earlier, D.B. was born November 16th, 2010.

R.B. was present for four to five nights around the time of the birth. R.B.'s parents refrained from contact with D.B. because they or at least L.F. anticipated D.B. being apprehended and adopted out. S.K. had a tubal ligation at the time of delivery. [ 32 ] She says that she gave her postoperative painkillers, Dilaudid, to R.B. She stayed at Fir Square for five weeks before moving to a transition house in Campbell River on December 23rd. She said she gave the Dilaudid to R.B. because he was dope sick. During her time at Fir Square she had a slip by sharing a joint with another mother that was laced with cocaine.

R.B. believes that S.K. knew that

there was crack in the joint. [ 33 ] She said that R.B. told her, "If you bail on the baby, I'm going to bail on you." R.B. did not visit her in Vancouver other than the first four to five days. She felt he had gone back to Campbell River to get drugs and, while in the transition house in Campbell River, decided he had bailed on her and that she was going to keep D.B. on her own. The Ministry told her that if she did not go into the transition house they would put D.B. in foster care.

She was at the transition house from December 23rd to March 1st. [ 34 ] After March 1st, 2011, she had her own place for 18 months until about May of 2012. For much of this time, her care of D.B. was not under any Ministry supervision. She breastfed D.B. for 18 months. She described herself as clean and sober for the first 13 months of D.B.'s life when she had a "slip" with heroin use. She upped her methadone use as a response. In December/January of 2011/2012, she had discussions with Christine Mitchell at the Salvation Army about going to Peardonville for a 10-week first stage recovery program.

The initial plan was for her to go with D.B. [ 35 ] Around this time L.F. and R.F. and R.B. started proceedings for legal guardianship of V.B. This may have been on their own or under pressure from the Ministry. As part of the FRA proceedings, a custody and access report was ordered.

Arrangements were made for S.K. to have extra access to V.B. as part of the report preparation process. [ 36 ] A report referred to in the evidence as the "corn-dog complaint" was made to the Ministry from L.F. and R.F. about an aspect of S.K.'s care of V.B. which shut down her contact with V.B. at the time the report preparer was to observe her with V.B. S.K. believes this was fabricated by the F/B family. The family feel they were making a necessary report as a result of what was said by V.B. S.K. believes the subsequent investigation found the complaint to be unsubstantiated.

The F/B family understood the result to be inconclusive. [ 37 ] The legal proceedings for the guardianship of V.B. were also somewhat costly for the F/B family and these were contributing factors to the rift between the parties. While the complaint was being investigated, S.K.'s visits with V.B. were interrupted for two-and- a-half months. This put S.K. under stress for a variety of reasons and she relapsed. This contributed to an unfavourable custody and access report from her perspective. This report is Exhibit 14.

It is the report of Catherine Coulis dated 18th of January, 2012. [ 38 ] The F/B family was also upset with S.K. for allegedly giving V.B. a 15-minute timeout on a third-floor balcony during a cold day in October of 2011. S.K. says that R.B.'s contact with D.B. was limited to one hour per week after her return from Vancouver. The F/B family may also believe that a report that S.K. made to the police about R.B. being suicidal was untrue. [ 39 ] The Peardonville relapse presents as the most serious neglect episode by S.K. since D.B.'s birth.

She ended up going to Peardonville without D.B. who may have gone into respite care with his foster parents at that time in April 2012 prior to the formal removal in May of 2012. S.K. was at Peardonville from about May 23rd, 2012, to July 31st, 2012. [ 40 ] On her return to Campbell River, she describes herself as clean for about 20 days when she got drunk and also breached her conditional sentence order. [See Exhibit 1, tab B, paragraph 19(

g) or (h)--the file material is not specific on this.] This was also a breach of her probation order and she was given a 14-day sentence in December of 2012 and released on December 29th. [ 41 ] On her return to Campbell River and after Peardonville, she continued to work with Ms. Feechuck and she had a living situation with a male friend, D.D., starting in November of 2012 after her prior living situation with her sponsor from AA broke down when the sponsor’s roommate relapsed.

S.K. may have relapsed herself around this time and went to detox for two weeks. [ 42 ] D.D. is said to have kicked her out in February of 2013 for using which she says was around the time the Ministry told her they were going for continuing custody of D.B. D.D. is 46. He has a learning disability and he and S.K. are mutually supportive. He has an adult daughter that he raised on his own. [ 43 ] From February 28th, 2013, to April 25th, 2013, S.K. went to Hannah House in Surrey which she describes as her most positive rehabilitation experience in part because she felt more motivated than ever.

S.K. describes herself as often having trouble getting along with other women and with difficulty opening up. [ 44 ] I should mention that the Ministry considers D.D. to be a responsible person and a good resource for S.K. [ 45 ] S.K. completed programs and treatment and continued with others upon a return to Campbell River including work with L.G. who was also a witness. Various sources describe S.K. as having a natural instinct for parenting and for being a good or excellent parent to D.B.

This is within the limited context of when she is clean and, for some time, in the context of supervised visits of at most three- and-a-half hours duration. [ 46 ] The Ministry is satisfied by the random drug tests provided by S.K. through her methadone program that she has been clean since the February 2013 relapse. This was at the time of the start of the trial in June. [ 47 ] Andrea Quatell says that S.K.'s overall performance since D.B.'s birth has been her best since she was 19.

She says that her parenting skills are not the issue, but reliability and stability in the sense of staying drug and crime-free are the Ministry concerns. The Ministry also has no concerns with respect to David D., S.K.'s roommate. [ 48 ] S.K. makes extensive use of AA and her church and Laichwiltach and other programs. She is on the waiting list for the North Island Survivor Society. She gets helpful feedback from Noreen Mockford about her parenting which gives her more confidence in what she does with D.B. Her church is non-denominational.

She is skeptical of the submission that the Catholic faith is important to R.B. and considers this as posturing on his part. She goes to a women's group through her church and takes D.B. to Sunday School. [ 49 ] S.K. does not have family support because of her parents' addiction and other issues. She has a younger sister in Alberta who is doing well and supports her in her present situation while maintaining a certain distance due to past history. She has a new sponsor at AA and she prefers to do the 12-step program via AA as opposed to NA in Campbell River. She is looking towards getting some

vocational training to improve her employment prospects. She has an aunt that she gets along well with, but not with the aunt's partner. As of June 2013, S.K. had not seen V.B. since V.B.'s last birthday and had not been invited to her baptism in April. [ 50 ] T.C., no relation to S.K., was called as a witness for S.K. She sees S.K. a couple of times a week and has been her friend for about a year. She is the approved supervisor for some of S.K.'s visits with D.B. including the Sunday visit. She describes D.B. as "a happy little boy" around S.K. She says he seems to like D.D., as well.

She says that S.K. is "excellent" with respect to handling D.B. Ms. Clement presents as a credible witness who is older than S.K. In cross-exam, T.C. said that she had seen nothing to suggest that S.K. was suicidal or depressed. She had never met R.B. [ 51 ] L.G. was called as a witness for R.B. She has worked with the Laichwiltach Family Life Society in Campbell River as a support worker for 20 years. As with T.C., she struck the court as both a good person and a credible one. One of L.G.'s main roles is to assist with aboriginal and infant development.

She said that S.K. contacted her in March 2011 to access services for D.B. She has followed D.B. since that time and feels he has met all his developmental milestones. She knows that V.B. comes to the facility, but has not worked with her. [ 52 ] Exhibit 15 is a letter from L.G. dated June 17th, 2013. She says the comment therein about S.K. "not to do anything crazy" meant not to relapse because of the stress of D.B.'s removal in May 2012 or matters related to that.

L.G. says that from her observations, S.K. is "a good mom" and has not used for a year that she knows of. [ 53 ] She knows R.B. and says he is "an involved parent" and that D.B. has started to call him "Dad" in place of "R." It is to be noted that her actual contact with either parent is not extensive. [ 54 ] C.D. presented as a good witness. She is a common law sister-in-law of R.B. She and her partner have three children, one autistic. She and her partner assisted with the care of V.B. when V.B. was initially removed from R.B. and S.K. pursuant to the safety plan for two months around July of 2007.

She disagreed with some of S.K.'s characterizations of her partner's lifestyle and of another sibling of R.B. She has never witnessed R.B. being abusive to S.K. [ 55 ] She felt that S.K. was doing well when V.B. was born, but later her life took a "downward turn." She denied having reported to the Ministry any concerns about R.B.'s ability to care for D.B. In this aspect of her testimony, the court prefers the evidence of the Ministry witness. In 2007, she was frustrated by the lack of responsibility and judgment demonstrated by both S.K. and R.B. as to V.B.'s needs.

She knows that both S.K. and R.B. have used drugs. [ 56 ] Deborah Weir also gave evidence. She is a Laichwiltach family support worker. She provides services to R.B. pursuant to a referral from the Ministry via Social Worker Nixon dated June 28th, 2012. She supervised meetings between R.B. and D.B., one hour once per week, starting in July of 2012. She was not involved with V.B., although she has noted that V.B. has come with R.B. three to four times as have other family members, L.F. in particular. The visit time was up to two hours in May of 2013. Ms. Weir says that R.B. does well with the visits. [ 57 ] Ms.

Weir was aware that an April 2012 visit supervised by a prior family support worker was cancelled as it was alleged that R.B. had been drinking. Ms. Weir also gave evidence that she observed R.B., in her opinion, heavily intoxicated out in the community in the early months of 2013 at inappropriate locations and times on two occasions, one at a Walmart. [ 58 ] R.F., the stepfather of R.B. also gave evidence. He has lived in Campbell River off and on all his life with 13 years in Saskatchewan. He has been with L.F. for 40 years and married 30 of those years. Between them, they have raised 12 children including R.B.

R.B. was about eight when R.F. met L.F. in the early 1970s. [ 59 ] R.F. said that R.B. is good at sports and things such as camping and fishing and is very meticulous about what he does. He said that he at one time got R.B. work in the pulp mills and that R.B. later took a recording studio course and did some record studio work on the Lower Mainland. He said that R.B. had a long-time girlfriend, K, and that she and R.B. broke up in 1994, after which R.B. moved to Prince George where he played in a retro 1960s band and did recording work.

In 1996, R.B. was helping with the family business in Campbell River doing electrical work and he later moved back to Surrey. [ 60 ] R.F. said that in 2003, R.B. was assaulted by security guards at a shopping mall and a civil suit resulted and this led to a $60,000 to $70,000 settlement thought to be achieved around June of 2005 and that, shortly after that, the family noticed S.K. in R.B.'s life.

R.F. observed that between 2005 and 2006, that R.B. went through a lot of money and that V.B. was born October 2nd, 2006. [ 61 ] R.F. said that in July of 2007, they understood that the Ministry was going to take V.B. and that initially C.D. and B.F. Jr. took V.B. By late August, L.F. and R.F. took the care of V.B. over from C.D. and B.F. Jr. as it was too much for them. [ 62 ] Around 2007 and 2008, there were setbacks in the family business and this resulted in R.F. being away a lot.

He recalls S.K. and R.B. being around in a Dodge minivan and that he thought the relationship was on/off in 2008 and he was aware that S.K. went to Ontario at one point. R.F. believes that R.B. "did not step up" as V.B. was doing fairly well where she was with he and L.F. [ 63 ] Recently, they have received a 14-page report assessment re V.B. that made the ARND diagnosis and qualified her for educational assistance in the classroom which is full-time in grade 2. R.F. knows that R.B. drinks at times.

He says he has never seen him use drugs but acknowledges that he could without his knowledge. [ 64 ] In 2010, he thinks R.B. and S.K. were living in a minivan and using family property for electricity and washroom purposes. Then S.K. became pregnant with D.B. and went to Vancouver. R.F. saw all three at the hospital in Vancouver for a brief time shortly after D.B.'s birth. R.F. said that S.K. brought D.B. to see L.F. in late January. At the time, R.B. was living at one of two houses on the family property. [ 65 ] In 2011, R.F. and L.F. got interim custody of V.B.

This involved some very high legal fees said to be in the area of $7,500 and they made a decision that they did not want V.B. to "have any unnecessary exposure to her mother."

[ 66 ] As part of the custody application and the custody and access report that was ordered, Exhibit 14, S.K. was granted some unsupervised access to V.B. and, as a result of the balcony timeout incident and the corn-dog complaint mentioned earlier, further conflict arose between the parties.

R.F. said in his evidence that, "When a child says something, you have to act on it." He noted that when S.K. did have eight-hour visits with V.B. on Saturdays, she would sometimes cut the visits short and some would only last three hours. [ 67 ] He says that in 2011, Tanya Davis from the Ministry warned them not to leave V.B. unsupervised with R.B. They felt that this was because of something S.K. had reported in their opinion falsely about R.B.

R.F. says that in 2012 the family business was sold. [ 68 ] Exhibit 3, the letter of August 23rd, 2012, about no-access to the F/B family came out of the blue and he had no idea what caused that. He noted that in February of 2013, S.K. had arrived to meet V.B. at a McDonald's and only spent 10 minutes. He said that she has talked to V.B. on the phone.

He says that R.B. spends time with V.B. almost every day and that V.B. was baptised in April of 2013. [ 69 ] R.F. said that R.B. is in the process of getting his status under the Indian Act and that V.B. and D.B. may get status, as well. [ 70 ] He said that R.B. had a lot of broken teeth at some point and had to get them removed and that this may have affected his ability to work with the Ministry. R.F. said [as read in]: I would think R.B. would be a very good father. I do not say that just because he is family. I believe a child needs a good father.

I do not see any barriers to R.B. being a father to D.B. [ 71 ] R.F. also indicated that R.B. helped at their home with landscaping and painting and has received his driver's licence back as of September 2013. R.F. also said that R.B. was consistent in his daily visits to V.B. and was taking her to the beach and to a park. [ 72 ] L.F. was present during the trial, but did not participate as a witness. Evidence of R.B. [ 73 ] R.B. is 50. He indicates that the Roman Catholic religion is a part of his life.

He denies the evidence of S.K. about addiction and drug use in his family and/or claims that he has no knowledge of such use other than for B.F. Jr. having a problem with pills many years ago. [ 74 ] He confirmed his work and education history as set forth by his stepfather. He said that his recording studio work arose from a two-year Columbia Academy course.

He said he was in a relationship with K for 12-and-a-half years mainly in Surrey and there were no children of that relationship. [ 75 ] He says that in 2003, he was apparently "jumped on" by security guards who thought he had stolen a chocolate bar and, in the resulting struggle, he suffered injuries to his teeth, five discs, his ribs and knees for which he received a settlement in 2005 of about $60,000 to $70,000. He apparently met S.K. around this time in the vicinity of the Quinsam Hotel in Campbell River.

He had gone to school around the same time as her father. [ 76 ] He said he did not get along with S.K.'s father. He denies cutting his arm punching the glass in a door during an argument with S.K.'s father. He says he cut it falling on broken glass. He indicates that some of his criminal record was just pleading guilty to resolve matters. He denies being as intoxicated as frequently as the police reports indicate.

He says he has only a "small" alcohol problem. [ 77 ] He says that the comment in Exhibit 14 of the custody and access report of Catherine Coulis as to his "struggling with his own addictions" is an overstatement and represents an assumption on her part because he mentioned he was on the methadone program. He says he has stayed on the methadone program not due to addiction issues, but for pain relief.

He denies being suicidal and says these are false reports about him by S.K. [ 78 ] He says he was the primary caregiver for V.B. after she was born October 2nd, 2006, until he went back to work when she was five to six months of age. He said that V.B. was placed with C.D. and B.F. Jr. because the Ministry mistakenly thought he was drinking. He said that S.K.'s continued drug use upset C.D. and B.F. Jr. and that was why V.B. was moved to be with L.F. and R.F. He said he tried to help S.K. with her drug issues.

He left V.B. with his parents as he felt she was safer there. [ 79 ] He agreed that he and S.K. were both doing drugs at a time before they found out S.K. was pregnant with V.B. Then both stopped and both went on the methadone program. He says that after V.B. was out of their house, everything went "to shit" with drug use, but that all he did was cocaine and heroin. He also agreed there was a time he started drinking again. He denies ever selling drugs to support their habits.

He says that the conviction for uttering threats to kill S.K. was just a loud argument between he and their landlord. [ 80 ] He said that when D.B. was born, he and S.K. were living together either at Fir Square Hospital or the Dodge minivan or some combination thereof. He says that S.K. got sole guardianship of D.B. without his knowledge while he had been waiting for DNA testing. He said that prior to S.K. getting pregnant and while pregnant, she was "promiscuous" and using. He says he was with S.K. until she went to hospital and then he came over a few days later and stayed for a week.

He says he left to set up a place for them to live in Campbell River but she went into treatment at Ann Elmore House. [ 81 ] He believes that the intervention of the social worker, Susan Nixon, with S.K. and her poor attitude towards him is the reason for all of the court proceedings. He agreed that he was on a probation order and/or a bail order not to talk with S.K. for about a year, but had contact anyway. He said that the Ministry never responded to his concerns and, as to the risk reduction plan, Exhibit 1, tab E, of January 20th, 2011, he was unaware of any violence in the relationship.

He did not remember getting the letter, Exhibit 19, tab C, of

January 31st, 2011. [ 82 ] He felt that Social Worker Nixon was "totally against me," and would not listen to him and denied that his "issues" were ever identified to him. He said that he went to AA meetings, but either did not know to keep track of them or did not bother to at all times. He said he completed the Respectful Relationships and relationship violence programs as part of his probation order, but that he never had a chance to explain anything to Social Worker Nixon.

He agreed there were long periods of time when he did not see D.B. at all. [ 83 ] He denied being under the influence when he came to the Ministry office. He denied being under the influence when seen in the Walmart by Debbie Weir in March of 2012 and said he had only had a couple of drinks and was tired at the time. [ 84 ] He says that he basically goes to AA just because the Ministry expects that he does so. He says that some of the meetings "bring him down" and that he has some unspecified disagreement with the AA concept.

He says that he only drinks now once every few months and that his methadone use is down to eight millilitres per day and that he will quit completely once this litigation is over and he no longer needs the free drug tests. [ 85 ] He says that he did not know that D.B. had been removed from S.K. for "months" after it happened. He says the Ministry did not tell him he might need a lawyer and he thought S.K. would "clean-up." [ 86 ] He said he tried to arrange visits with D.B. through the Ministry, but no one responded and that he had financial and conflict problems in getting legal assistance.

He felt that the social workers who took over his file inherited Social Worker Nixon's attitude towards him. [ 87 ] He says that D.B. has blond hair, is cute and a fantastic little boy who is well-behaved around him. He says that D.B. called him daddy and they have a good relationship, albeit they only see each other two hours per week in a "semi-supervised situation." He says D.B. knows V.B. really well, but he does not see her as much now as she is in school when his visit is scheduled.

He says that D.B. and V.B. have a "fantastic" relationship and do not fight. [ 88 ] He says that he has family and community support available if he had the care of D.B. He says that he is working now doing painting, landscaping, renovations and some guitar lessons.

He says he feels it would easier to work when he feels "better about things," and that both his children "mean everything to me." He says that jointly with others he has set aside $5,000 for V.B.'s education and $1,000 for D.B. [ 89 ] He said that he was unable to go to the Kackaamin or Round Lake Treatment Centres because of various reasons such as a tuberculosis test and lack of a status card. He did not feel it was because he missed a meeting with Marianne Patterson.

He did go to the Second Chance Recovery Program from May 19th, 2013, to July 1st, 2013, but it is noted that this is only a pre-treatment facility and, to date, this has not been followed through. [ 90 ] In the evidence heard on September 11th, 2013, an update was received from Andrea Quatell. At the resumption of the trial, she indicated that for the past two weeks, there were reports that S.K. had been using and/or seeking cocaine. S.K. arrived late for court and she did not look as well as she had previously.

Her most recent urine test results show positive for cocaine; that is Exhibit 18; also some indication of police reports of her yelling at her roommate over money issues; also reports of a number of vehicles coming and going from her residence. The indications are that she is using and possibly supplying drugs to support her habit. [ 91 ] There is no contrary evidence, although it is noted in cross-examination that S.K. is well known in the community and possibly some in the community would be prepared to facilitate her relapse to ensure the removal of her child or a non-return.

S.K. is also capable of relapsing on her own and, in any event, is ultimately responsible for her choices. [ 92 ] This essentially concludes the review of the evidence that was placed before me. Comments Re: R.B. [ 93 ] R.B. presents as a 50-year-old child. His main accomplishment presents as getting a financial settlement from the civil suit arising from his assault by the security guards. It does not appear that any meaningful portion of this settlement has gone towards the support of either V.B. or D.B.

There appears to be long periods of time when he has had no contact with V.B. and that his contact with V.B. is limited to brief visits where he plays with her or takes her to a park. There is little indication that he participates in any substantive task relating to the care and feeding of either child. [ 94 ] He presents as unreliable in his evidence and not a good historian. S.K.'s evidence as to their life together presents as the more accurate. He presents as minimizing and untruthful about his drug and alcohol use and as to the issues of domestic violence.

It is inexplicable that if he was in as good shape as he tries to present himself at important times in the past, he would not have accessed the support of his mother and stepfather to sort out his alleged problems with the Ministry. [ 95 ] The evidence of T.D. as to C.D. stating words to the effect, "L.F. is safe. R.B. is not safe," presents as credible, albeit C.D. did not adopt that evidence in her testimony.

C.D. did provide insight as to how R.B. and S.K. presented as parents with her evidence as to their showing up unannounced and at times of their own convenience to interact at a superficial level with V.B. This presents as the functional limits of R.B.'s ability as a parent. [ 96 ] It is also noted that while there had been two case conferences where the option of someone from R.B.'s family coming forward as a placement has been discussed, no one has stepped forward in that regard.

This may be due to opposition from S.K. to the plan or reluctance on the part of the family to be involved with S.K. and/or R.B., but it could also be an extension of the reason that B.F. Jr. and C.D. passed V.B. on to L.F. and R.F. [ 97 ] It is noted that from the outset R.B. has had a history of missing or being dysfunctional at meetings with Ministry representatives concerning D.B.'s care; see, for example, Exhibit 1, tab F, page 33, entry of Social Worker Brammall as to meetings of

December 9th and 16th, 2010, and notes of Social Worker Nixon and the evidence of Social Worker Davis. [98] I am of the view that R.B. cannot be taken seriously as a potential guardian of D.B or V.B. until he has successfully completed along-term treatment program and also a comprehensive assessment by the Ministry.

I consider that of the potential caregivers for D.B.,he is the weakest candidate, but acknowledge that if he did stay clean and sober and became more mature and responsible, he could havea potentially positive role to play in the lives of his children. [99] It would strengthen R.B.'s position if over time he demonstrated some or all of the following behaviours: 1. provision of regular financial support for either or both children; 2. completion of counselling with appropriate follow-up; 3. establishment of cordial working relationships with support people and Ministry workers; 4. a proven track record as a respite resource for V.B. performing actual parenting functions and a fullrange of such functions; 5. a continued absence from criminal behaviour; 6. provision of meaningful drug test results, i.e., such things as a hair sample.

Comments Re: S.K. [100] It is clear that S.K. has a longstanding substance abuse problem primarily with cocaine and that this and other issues in her lifehave involved her in the sex trade and low-level criminal activity. She is also having to deal with impulse control and temper issues,though not vis-à-vis D.B. directly.

It is unfortunate that her background seems to have predisposed her to be vulnerable to a series ofdysfunctional relationships with older somewhat abusive men. [101] This court concurs with the assessment of some of the Ministry witnesses that S.K. is, especially when clean, honest about hersituation and a generally reliable historian. The court notes that S.K. has been consistent in her attachment to D.B. and has goodparenting skills which is not always the case with substance abuse afflicted parents.

S.K. is also no longer in a dysfunctional and/orabusive relationship and has shown an ability to access and maintain community supports. It is unfortunate that she does not havestronger family supports. [102] S.K. is in something of a catch-22 situation as acknowledged in the evidence. On the one hand, she might be better in anotherlocation free of the past drug and sex trade associations that "haunt" her life in Campbell River, but on the other hand, it is unlikely thatshe would readily establish as good a support network anywhere else as she has done in Campbell River.

There are strong indicationsthat S.K. has, for the most part, overcome all her primary life problems which might affect her child parenting abilities other thansubstance abuse. [103] There is some sense from the evidence that the Ministry, at an institutional level, more so on the part of anyone workingpersonally with S.K., wrote her off, so to speak, as a parenting resource prematurely due to a number of factors: (

a) the prior removal of her two sons; (

b) a thought that S.K. herself may have fetal-alcohol syndrome issues which created a concern that S.K.could not care for a child on her own; (

c) the failed parenting of V.B.; (

d) an over-estimation of the parenting issues D.B. might present with and under-estimation of S.K.'sparenting skills. [104] With respect to V.B. and D.B., recent information has confirmed V.B.'s neurological disorder which would suggest her carewould be more difficult than for a normal child, but also indicates that D.B.'s development is normal and likely will not present with thesame challenges.

It is to be noted that with respect to her two sons and V.B., the handing over of care takes place in the context of herbeing in dysfunctional and/or abusive relationships with older males and that her present life situation is somewhat different. [105] It is also to be noted that D.B.'s physical health has always been good when he has come into the care from S.K. It is also to benoted that there is a sense to some of the evidence that S.K. has been reported upon as to her issues and failures from some sources with ahigher degree of frequency and condemnation than others in her situation might have experienced.

I believe that S.K. presents as worseon paper than as she does in person. Comments as to Reconciling the CFCSA Child Protection Concerns With Issues Where a Parent has Substance Abuse Problems [106] In cases such as R. v. Preston, (BC CA), 47 B.C.L.R. (2d) 273, and Health Employer's Association of B.C. v.B.C. Nurses' Union, 2006 BCCA 57, the British Columbia Court of Appeal has considered various approaches as to individuals withsubstance abuse addictions.

Those models are not directly relevant to CFCSA cases where the primary focus is always on the bestinterests of the child, but they are of secondary relevance where there is reason to believe that the affected parent or parents could be anappropriate caregiver for the child "but for" the addiction issue. [107] In active addiction situations, there is a difficult balance for the Ministry to maintain between the prospects of the parents' timelyrehabilitation and the pressing need for the child to have a secure and stable living situation.

This is often accomplished through theshort and sometimes long-term intervention of other family members. Where such a resource is available, the Ministry may not feel the

need to press for a continuing custody order within the more normal timelines. [ 108 ] Where a child is in non-family foster care and, to a certain extent, where a child is younger, the Ministry may well feel that the best interests of a child cannot wait for the possible one to two-year period of being clean that is often looked upon as the benchmark with respect to recovering addicts. What might be referred to as the "illness" model in the above-mentioned cases, accordingly, has less application to many CFCSA situations. [ 109 ] Ms.

Feechuck, the forensic psychiatric nurse, noted that addiction is a "treatable" disease and that the relapse triggers for S.K. historically present as follows: (

a) stress; (

b) lack of coping skills; (

c) resort to drug use as an "escape." [ 110 ] She notes that S.K. has been consistent in seeing her and that perhaps stress is her most significant trigger. She says that S.K.'s strengths are in wanting to be clean, making all of her appointments, and enthusiasm about working on her issues. She says that S.K. presents as genuinely wanting to be well and that S.K. is handicapped by lack of strong family support and with her "past" in Campbell River. Ms.

Feechuck says it is possible for anyone to stay clean and sober and you cannot predict a specific outcome for a specific person. [ 111 ] She believes that S.K. needs to continue with her present programs and supports, develop some vocational skills, and possibly go to a facility such as the Okanagan Residential Treatment Centre. Ms. Feechuck notes that when D.B. was removed as a result of S.K.'s relapse in April of 2012, she, Ms. Feechuck, was away on vacation at the time.

Comments Re: Counsel’s Submissions [ 112 ] In general, the evidentiary summaries contained in the submissions on behalf of the Director and S.K. are more helpful and more consistent with the court's view of the evidence than that in submissions on behalf of R.B. Ms. Murphy's reply has identified some of the errors in that submission but there are others.

This is perhaps inevitable given that R.B.'s lifestyle (and also his evidence) appears to be based upon a mixture of denial, reconstruction and mainly meritless excuses. [ 113 ] One might note, for example, the following extracts from the written submission on his behalf: “This past spring was a confusing and difficult time for R.B., but he believed he was making every effort to address the situation and work towards D.B.’s return.” [ 114 ] If this was to be taken to be true, it would suggest that R.B. is easily confused and has little in the way of coping skills.

It would also suggest that his "every effort" does not amount to much. “There was no evidence that V.B. or D.B. have ever been negatively affected by their father's behaviour. He has acted consistently in the children's best interests.” [ 115 ] This strikes the court as particularly erroneous spin-doctoring of what has happened to the children and to their mother as a result of R.B.'s chosen lifestyle. He is a person who apparently has provided little, if any, financial support for his children or for anyone caring for them.

He has had little involvement in their substantive care in terms of providing food, shelter, or clothing. He has a minimal history of performing any daily care functions for either child. There is some recent evidence of him doing some recreational activities with V.B. and of visiting with D.B. which hopefully he will build upon, but essentially he has been an absentee or drop-in parent. [ 116 ] All counsel have been helpful as to the case law to which they have referred the court. Of the various cases referred to, I would note in particular the following: 1. B.C. (The Director) v. M.(J.), 2003 BCSC 187 ; 2.

Re S.M.S. , 2003 BCPC 396 , in particular, paragraphs 57 and 58; 3. C.(P.) v. B.C. (The Director), 2002 BCPC 126 . [ 117 ] None of the cases are directly on point but each has some aspects that are relevant to the case before me. V.B. is much younger than S.M.S. and the recent performance of the mother of M.S. had more positive indicators than that of S.K. D.B. is older than the child in the P.C. decision and would appear to have a stronger bond with his mother. [ 118 ] S.K. presents as being in a more positive situation than the mother in the P.C. case.

The facts in the M.(J.) decision are not relevant to the circumstances of this case, but the review of the application of the general principles of the Act in that particular context is of some assistance; see, for example, paragraphs 29 through 32. Other Factors 1. The noted "honesty" of S.K. and her history of cooperation with the Ministry and her positive attitude toward getting clean distinguish her from some other case situations.

2. The special relationship that she has with D.B.'s foster parents and his apparently secure situation at that placement are relevant factors. 3. In some cases, the intended placement of the child is quite specifically known as opposed to being only generally known and there is more cause to act without further delay. 4. D.B. does not appear to have any "special needs" issues that might be relevant to his potential placement, but he does appear to have some "life situation" issues that may impact how successful an outcome his adoption may have from various perspectives. 5.

While neither the Ministry nor the courts can condone a parenting style that includes elements of substance abuse, criminal behaviour, and/or sex trade work, it might be naïve to underestimate the incidence of some or all of such behaviour and possibly unwise to have a "knee-jerk" reaction to some of its manifestations. 6.

That the "modern Canadian family" is more diverse and less nuclear that it may have been in the past and will encompass a broad range of economic and social parameters but will nevertheless be seen as "the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of a child" so long as, with "available support services," it can nevertheless provide a "safe and nurturing environment for a child." 7.

That "family" includes matters of "kinship ties", “extended family” and "cultural identity." In this regard, S.K. is the person best placed to connect D.B. with his half-brothers and the F/B family is best placed to maintain connection between D.B. and V.B. and the F/B extended family as a whole. The F/B family presents as a large family with extensive roots in Campbell River and one that appears to embrace cultural tolerance and diversity.

As with many large families, there is a spectrum as to how well individual members may do from time to time as they make their way in the world and what sort of things they may have worked through in the past or be dealing with in the present. The F/B family represent as best placed to connect D.B. with the various cultural factors in his background. When I refer to the F/B family, I am primarily referring to L.F. and R.F. and their children and in-laws, such as C.D. a whole, but also including R.B. as a person with potential to make a positive contribution. 8.

It may be said that while S.K.'s care of D.B. has not been model or exceptionally good, neither could his care be characterized as poor in the sense that there is any evidence that his mental or physical health has been adversely impacted. The Ministry's concerns primarily relate to historical concerns as to S.K.'s long-standing issues and the "potential" for harm. These concerns are nevertheless valid and real. 9.

It is also noted that S.K. has had significant periods of basically competent care of D.B. with decent parenting skills and she presents as one of the three people he is most attached to, the other being his present foster parents. In other cases where continuing custody orders have been sought, there is a lack of an actual attachment to the child and instead there is more a sense of a self-gratifying desire upon the part of the parent to have custody of the child, regardless, either blindly or wilfully as to the best interests of the child.

Judgment [ 119 ] I have found it very difficult in the circumstances of this case to determine which outcome will be in the long-term best interests of D.B. The available realistic options are either a continuing custody order to the Director or a last chance order. A continuing custody option may give rise to two most likely outcomes: 1. D.B. will be placed for adoption with relatives; 2.

D.B. will be placed for adoption with non-relatives with parent preference for a First Nations family. [ 120 ] The last chance order would see D.B. stay in his present foster care situation while his mother continued to seek treatment and while his father tried to establish some sort of credibility as a parental option with the Ministry. Under either option, the Ministry might continue to explore possible placements within the F/B extended family system. [ 121 ] There are two potential optimal outcomes that could happen for D.B. which I see as follows: A.

A very good adoption placement is found for him where he forms healthy bonds with both a mother and father figure and possibly has good sibling relationships, as well. This placement would also be one where all of D.B.'s cross-cultural backgrounds are supported. This placement would also foster D.B.'s contact with his sister, V.B., and his half-brothers. B. That D.B.'s mother and father get their lives in order and that they jointly and individually maintain and/or establish a viable working relationship with the Ministry and related community support systems.

Further, as they both present as having various deficiencies and character flaws, they would both need to establish a functional relationship with various elements of the F/B family as a safety net for D.B.'s ongoing care. [ 122 ] The Ministry would submit that outcome A is far more likely than outcome B. There are clearly a number of factors which diminish the prospects for outcome B. These include the following: 1. doubts as to the ability of either the mother or father to attain and/or sustain viability as a parent for

D.B.; 2. doubts as to the ability of the father to work with the Ministry; 3. doubts as to the ability of the mother and the F/B family to work together given past and recent animosity and distrust over various issues. [ 123 ] The most significant of these would centre around the guardianship and care of V.B.

It is unfortunate that this litigation and the prior litigation over V.B. has possibly entrenched the attitudes of those most involved with D.B. and it is difficult to see how this antipathy will be lessened or at least set aside without a great deal of effort and the passage of some time. [ 124 ] There are, however, some factors that would work in favour of this outcome: 1. While the mother has not overcome all of her addiction issues, she has had more success in separating herself from abusive relationships with much older men; a factor that tended to feed her addiction issues. 2.

The mother has established support networks in the community to assist her in working out stressful emotional issues and matters of personal judgment without defaulting to substance abuse. 3. The father has indicated some tendency to finally mature and stabilize. The father has always had the huge advantage of the F/B family support group. This support has largely been squandered by him, much like his personal injury settlement. It is possible that the family support has in a way enabled the father to be a largely self-indulgent and peripheral personality.

If the father followed through with counselling and treatment and if key players in the F/B family worked with this counselling to develop a more effective relationship strategy with the father such that he would be held accountable to act as a more meaningful, consistent, and responsible resource for his children, this would be beneficial. 4. The mother needs to realize and the F/B family needs to be reassured that primary guardianship of V.B. would not be disturbed.

Emotionally, the mother may always want to be reunited with V.B., but realistically she should be aware that her limited resources should be directed to assuming the care of D.B. followed by increasing her contact time with V.B. to facilitate David's contact with his sister. The mother has to be aware that if she tried to take on the care of both V.B. and D.B., there would be a substantial risk of a breakdown where she could lose both. There is also the contingency that D.B. may yet develop issues similar to those presented by V.B. such that on his own he would require greater care. 5.

While the mother and father have been through a lot together and had what presents as at least a dysfunctional relationship and possibly even a toxic one, they present as having reached a time in their lives where they would be capable of communicating with each other responsibly over childcare concerns. Also, through experience and what might be referred to as "street smarts," they are well situated to be aware of and to monitor any regression into substance abuse and other detrimental behaviour which might require supervision and/or removal of D.B.

This monitoring function is to be distinguished from actions which consciously or unconsciously are designed to undermine or diminish the role of either as a parent to D.B. [ 125 ] If the mother and father, respectively, clean up their behaviour and do not get back into a dysfunctional relationship either with each other or some other partner, there is an increased likelihood of willingness on the part of the younger and more socially established elements in the F/B family to support their efforts. [ 126 ] The mother and father did not do this with V.B.

Their irresponsible behaviour understandably prompted C.D. and her husband to devolve the primary care of V.B. to L.F. and R.F. There is a risk that age and health concerns might diminish L.F. and R.F as a long- term resource for V.B. which would seem to be unfortunate. [ 127 ] If the mother, the father and the main elements of the F/B family recognized that as a coalition they could possibly provide a viable parenting resource for D.B. they could work towards making that a reality.

This would not require them to have a lot of contact each with the other but would require that the contact be respectful and supportive. [ 128 ] There would need to be a recognition that each element of the triad had a role to play in D.B.'s life.

There would need to be acceptance that if any element had a temporary inability to care for D.B. or have contact with him due to illness, relapse, or treatment issues, that at least the initial response to such a development would be a cooperative effort to work through the rough spot and not use it as an opportunity to attempt to monopolize D.B.'s care or shut anyone out from contact with him. [ 129 ] At a subjective level, it is understandable that each party believes they are capable of caring for D.B. and that they are the best person to care for him.

At an objective level, all of the parties should be aware that an institutional preference to a continuing custody order for D.B. is very real and that for a number of reasons his placement could be with a non-related family even if a family person came forward which has not happened so far. [ 130 ] From what is known of the F/B family, it is at first take somewhat surprising that no resource there has come forward on D.B.'s behalf. There are valid possible reasons for this, however, which might include: (

a) a reluctance to undermine the father's efforts to take over D.B.'s care;

(

b) a reluctance to be involved in ongoing contact and/or interference from the mother and/or father so long as either or both continue to have substance abuse and other lifestyle issues; (

c) a sense that caring for V.B. will be enough of an issue for the family without the additional complication of D.B.'s care; (

d) an acknowledgement that the F/B family has not had a lot of contact with D.B. from the outset as opposed to V.B.'s situation and the long-term possibility that taking D.B. eventually means taking V.B., as well, which would substantially alter any existing family dynamic. Consideration of the Direct to Continuing Custody Order [ 131 ] The submission of Ms. Murphy as to the substantial grounds for making a continuing custody order and for not considering a s. 49(7)(

b) order is very thorough and well-reasoned. In pure legal terms this position has more to favour it than any other result.

I have earlier referred to this position as outcome A and return to consider it in more detail. [ 132 ] The Director submits that outcome A will accomplish the following: 1. provide D.B. with a "permanent and stable home which is sensitive to his cultural heritage"; 2. provide D.B. with a safe living situation that will meet his physical and emotional needs; 3. provide D.B. with a family that will act in his "best interests at all times"; 4. provide D.B. with parents who will be more attentive to him, better able to advocate on his behalf and better able to assist him with any possible developmental difficulties; 5. that preference may be given to an adoptive family that will assist D.B. in maintaining his aboriginal cultural and racial roots.

Counter-considerations to Outcome A 1. While it is understood that reasonable efforts are made to screen prospective adoptive families and to provide children with a "good fit," no process is fool proof. 2. There are many adoption success stories, but also examples of adoptions breaking down and/or being considered as having adverse or mediocre outcomes. 3. It is assumed that adoption is the preferable outcome without specific or general data to substantiate this. This assumption is certainly valid in the many cases where there has been a complete failure on the part of the natural parent.

It should not necessarily be extrapolated to the situation where the natural parents' deficiencies are less egregious. 4. It is likely that most adoptive families would offer D.B. more than either his mother, his father, or the extended F/B family could offer him on their own. It is less likely that any adoptive family would suit his particular needs as much as some healthy combination of the above could do. Conclusion [ 133 ] I have gone into a great deal of detail as to the evidence in this hearing in

part in case it may be of assistance relative to any future application and/or appeal. I am aware that while S.K. was doing comparatively well when the matter was heard in June, she had likely relapsed in September and, as of the date of this judgment, she may be doing better or worse. I am aware that there may be dynamics at play between the various parties that have not been fully revealed by the evidence. [ 134 ] I have determined that it is in the best interests of D.B. and not contrary to the spirit and intent of the CFCSA to grant a last chance order pursuant to s. 49(7)(

c) for a period of six months from today's date. [ 135 ] I express the hope that everyone involved with D.B. take advantage of this six-month period to re-explore cooperative options for his future care in light of some or all of the observations that have been made in this judgment.

It would seem possible that, with R.F. as spokesperson for the F/B family and with S.K. using the assistance of persons in her support network, a viable plan could be developed for D.B.'s transition to his mother's care with extensive contact with the F/B family including his sister, V.B., and his father, R.B. [ 136 ] I believe that the Ministry has possibly resorted too quickly to the continuing custody outcome due to a variety of factors including the concern that D.B. has special needs, over-reliance on the precedent that happened with S.K.'s other children and a somewhat unilateral approach to the addiction issue. [ 137 ] In many cases that this court sees with respect to parents with addiction issues, some or all of the following factors are present: (

a) the addict has no or an inadequate support network; (

b) the addict even when "sober" has minimal or dysfunctional childcare skills; (

c) the addict is actively uncooperative with Ministry assistance;

(

d) the addict resists supervision; (

e) the addict persists in unhealthy relationships and behaviours; (

f) the motives of the addict for having guardianship of the child are essentially selfish; (

g) the addict has a “cluster" of problems, not merely addiction; (

h) the child has in fact little or no real bond with the addict due to a consistent history of absence and/or neglect. [ 138 ] S.K. does not fall entirely within this category but does need to be aware that she needs to be more disciplined in her recovery and needs to perhaps turn over a new leaf in how she interacts with the F/B family. [REASONS FOR JUDGMENT CONCLUDED] ADDENDUM DATED JANUARY 10, 2014 TO THE ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGE COWLING GIVEN DECEMBER 18, 2013. [1] In the judgment delivered on December 18 th , 2013, I neglected to make a formal finding that the child D.B. was in need of protection at the time of his removal on May 8 th , 2012. [2] This removal took place at a time when the mother, S.K., had a serious relapse with respect to her addiction issues, had a breakdown in her living situation and was being investigated with respect to a complaint concerning her daughter, V.B., amongst other issues.

While some of this was happening the mother arranged with the Ministry for D.B. initially to go into respite care and then after the removal S.K. enrolled in the Peardonville program and re-oriented her life with the assistance of that program and the help of others on her return to Campbell River. Nevertheless, at the relevant time based on the file history and the then known information, D.B. was clearly in need of protection for reasons relevant to Sections 13 (1) (

d) and (

e) of the CFCSA. BY THE COURT J. COWLING, PCJ.