THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Applicant v. B.J.P and J.N., 2023 NBKB 174

2023 NBKB 174 COURT FILE NO: FDF-179-2023 IN THE COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK FAMILY DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FREDERICTON BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Applicant -and- B.J.P and J.N. , Respondent COUNSEL AT HEARING: Teri Wood, Solicitor for the Applicant Sophie Noël, Solicitor for the Respondent B.J.P. Alexandra LeBreton, Solicitor for the Respondent J.N. CORRIGENDUM WHEREAS the Decision and Reasons signed by Madam Justice Krista L. Colford on October 7, 2023 contained an error on page 1 at paragraph 1; NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1.

The first sentence at paragraph 1 on page 1 of the Decision and Reasons is amended to read as follows: “ In this proceeding, the Minister of Social Development seeks a guardianship order pursuant to section 56(1) of the Family Services Act S.N.B. 1980, c.F-2.2 (the “ Act ”), in relation to the child G.N. born […], 2014.” DATED at the City of Fredericton, Province of New Brunswick this day of October, 2023. _____________________________ Krista L. Colford, J.C.K.B.

2023 NBKB 174

2023 NBKB 174 COURT FILE: FDF- 179-2023 IN THE COURT OF KING’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK FAMILY DIVISION JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF FREDERICTON BETWEEN: THE MINISTER OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT Applicant and Respondent B.J.P. and J.N. BEFORE: Madam Justice Krista L. Colford AT: Fredericton, New Brunswick DATES OF HEARING: September 11, 12, 13, 2023 DATE OF DECISION: October 7, 2023 APPEARANCES: Teri Wood for the Applicant Sophie Noël for the Respondent B.J.P. Alexandra LeBreton for the Respondent J.N.

COLFORD, J. I. Overview [ 1 ] In this proceeding, the Minister of Social Development seeks a guardianship order pursuant to section 56(1) of the Family Services Act S.N.B. 1980, c.F-2.2 (the “ Act ”), in relation to the child G.N. born […], 2016. The Minister believes that a guardianship order is the only way to achieve safety, stability, and permanency for G.N. [ 2 ] The Respondents Ms. P and Mr. N are the biological parents of the child G.N. They both oppose the Minister’s request for guardianship and put forth a joint parenting plan that is premised on reunification subject to a supervisory order.

Alternatively, should the court decide reunification at this juncture is not in G.N.’s best interests, they seek a custody order extension based on the fact G.N. has only been in the Minister’s care for sixteen (16) cumulative months since March of 2022. [ 3 ] In the event a guardianship order issues they ask that a right of post guardianship access be preserved for the child on their behalf. [ 4 ] The matter proceeded to hearing on September 11, 12, and 13, 2023. The Respondents attended, each represented by counsel.

The Minister called 11 witness and relies on 37 affidavits, 21 of which where tendered pursuant to s. 9 of the Family Services Act . [ 5 ] Neither Respondent filed any pleadings or affidavits in response to the Application. Ms. P testified on her own behalf and called two witnesses. J.N. also testified on his own behalf. He called no further witnesses. [ 6 ] I have considered the totality of the affidavit and viva voce evidence tendered but summarized only that most relevant to the issues presented. II. FACTS [ 7 ] The Minister has a longstanding history with this family.

It dates back to 1996 and encompasses 29 investigations regarding concerns of emotional abuse and neglect. Historically, several intakes were substantiated for domestic intimate partner violence and substance use. [ 8 ] There have been six child protection cases open since 2002, two of which involve G.N. [ 9 ] On November 19, 2020 a six-month supervisory order was put in place amid concerns of neglect and emotional abuse. Specifically, the Minister was focused on Ms. P’s substance abuse and the Respondent’s collective inability to support G.N.’s well being.

Absences from school alerted the Minister to G.N.’s lack of routine in the home. This was the second supervisory order granted in 2020. [ 10 ] Ultimately a kinship services arrangement was put in place pursuant to a safety plan in effect between the months of January 2021 and September 2021. Pursuant to the plan, G.N. resided with her sister S.P. and her husband C. The impetus to the safety plan was the Minister’s continued concerns relating to Ms.

P’s substance abuse and domestic violence in the relationship. [ 11 ] Subsequent to September of 2021 when G.N. again began residing with her parents, the Minister remained involved to monitor these issues and G.N.’s school attendance. [ 12 ] A few short months later, in December of 2021 Ms. P and G.N. left the family home as a result of domestic violence and instability in the home. Ms. P disclosed a physical assault at the hands of Mr. N that occurred in G.N’s presence. A second safety plan was created wherein Ms. P agreed that Mr.

N would be prohibited from attending any location where she and the child were present. The plan further provided that access between Mr. N and the child would be supervised by the Minister. [ 13 ] Unfortunately, Ms. P’s substance use, housing instability, and Ms. P’s inability to ensure G.N.’s school attendance led the Minister to determine it was necessary to take protective care of G.N. on March 11, 2022. G.N. returned to the home of S.P. and C. pursuant to a kinship placement.

An up to six month custody order was granted on consent of the parties on June 23, 2022. [ 14 ] The Respondents continued living separately. [ 15 ] Over the summer months of 2022 Ms. P received services related to domestic violence counselling, parent aid and Riverstone Recovery Addiction Services. She was positively engaging with those services and gains were noted by the Minister. G.N. was reunified with her mother on September 11, 2022.

The Minister remained involved applying for a supervisory order and protective intervention order in an effort to continue to monitor the family and provide services. [ 16 ] Unfortunately, prior to the Minister’s application being heard, G.N. was again apprehended by the Minister on October 11, 2022. This was just 4 weeks after reunification. G.N. was again placed into the care of her sister.

[ 17 ] The Minister’s evidence sets out the events of October 11, 2023 in detail. The taking of protective care required a police presence. It was a dramatic event for G.N. [ 18 ] The concerns of the Minister remained Ms. P’s struggle to consistently engage in her addiction recovery program and at the same time maintain structure in the home that appropriately supported G.N.’s needs. The evidence of the Minister establishes that in the four short weeks G.N. was in Ms. P’s fulltime care, G.N. missed 14 out of 18 school days. Ms. P initially attributed those absences to G.N. being sick.

Ultimately, she conceded being overwhelmed by G.N.’s abrupt transition into her fulltime care. [ 19 ] The Minister applied for an up to six custody order. The Respondents consented, and the order issued effective October 18, 2022. [ 20 ] A Permanency Planning meeting was held on October 17, 2022. Ms. P acknowledged she was not ready for reunification and needed to continue with services to meet her own needs before she was ready to meet the needs of her daughter. [ 21 ] Conversely, Mr. N was of the view that he did not need services to address his parenting or any behavioral issues.

He initially declined engagement with a case plan but ultimately did agree to attending counselling services. Mr. N has remained steadfast in the position that he presents no child protection concerns as it relates to his daughter. As a result he has remained largely resistant to services and case planning with the Minister. [ 22 ] A case plan issued on October 18, 2022 ( Record at p. 147-150 ), wherein the Respondents would engage with G.N. by way of supervised visits until such time as they were able to demonstrate stability with respect to providing G.N. with appropriate supervision and care. The focus for Ms.

P was working with services to address mental health and addictions and recognizing the impact of intimate partner violence on G.N. [ 23 ] For Mr. N services were centered around treatment and counselling to address domestic violence, and understanding the impact it has on his himself and his family. [ 24 ] The review of the case plan indicates the Minister was looking for both Respondents to demonstrate a progression in parenting skills, abstinence from drugs and alcohol, follow through by Ms.

P in the Opiate Replacement Program, and sustained stable housing free from drugs, criminal activity and domestic violence. [ 25 ] Between October 2022 and April 2023 the Respondents, who remained living separately, were encouraged to participate in the following services to address the Minister’s concerns: • Drug testing • Addiction and mental health counselling services • Domestic violence counselling • Riverstone Recovery programs • Supervised visits with the child • Parent Aid Services • Counselling Services for the Child • Family Group Conference • Regular Departmental Meetings [ 26 ] The position of the parties diverges significantly on the Respondent’s compliance and success with case plan objectives over the six month period that followed the issuance of the October 18, 2022 case plan.

A Permanency Planning Conference was held on April 6, 2023 with Ms. P at which time the Minister confirmed that regrettably, a Guardianship order would likely be sought. Paragraph 52 of Ms. Tolly’s affidavit (the lead social worker) sets out the reasons for the Ministers decision as follows, ( Record at page 33): On April 6, 2023 a PPC took place at the department. Present were chairperson Jennifer Bennett, supervisor Sarah Wasson, [Ms. P] and myself. Due to concerns of intimate partner violence a separate meeting was scheduled with [Mr. N] but he did not attend.

Due to concerns of emotional abuse and neglect, mental health, substance abuse, housing, the caregivers response to the child’s emotional and developmental needs, lack of cooperation with services, history with the department, and [G.N.’s] time out of her parents care, the decision was made that the Minister would apply to the court of King’s bench of New Brunswick, family division for a guardianship order with the activities outlined in the Case Plan. [ 27 ] Subsequently on April 13, 2023 another PPC took place which included representatives from the Minister and Mr. N.

At that time the Minister’s evidence indicates that Mr. N continued to deny the Minister’s concerns related to domestic violence. He disclosed at that time that he engaged in counselling only at the Minister’s insistence. In his view he was not the problem as it related to the issue of domestic violence. That issue he believed fell squarely on the shoulders of Ms. P. As a result, he advised he was declining to case plan further with the Minister and would not be attending court appearances.

[ 28 ] He confirmed that although he and Ms. P were living separately they continued to be in a relationship. [ 29 ] The filing of the guardianship application proceeded on April 14, 2023. A. The Minister’s Concerns [ 30 ] The Minister maintains that a lesser order is not appropriate and that guardianship is in G.N’s best interest. Tiffani Tolley was the lead social worker on the file. She has been involved with this family since March of 2022. Ms. Tolley testified at the proceeding and submitted affidavit evidence sworn to on, March 18, 2022, June 7, 2022, September 6, 2022, October 18, 2022, November 9, 2022, April 14, 2023, and August 30, 2023. [ 31 ] In

summary, Ms. Tolley identifies that the Minister’s main concerns relate to Ms. P’s addictions, intimate partner violence in the relationship and both Respondents inability to recognize and appreciate the impact of these issues on G.N. These issues, and the Respondents inability to follow through and remain consistent with services are the foundation of the guardianship request. [ 32 ] Ancillary issues relating housing and resource management also play a role. 1. Addictions/Mental Health - Ms. P [ 33 ] Ms. P admittedly has a significant history of substance abuse relating to both drugs and alcohol.

This is an issue that has remained central to the Minister’s involvement with this family both historically and throughout the period of care. [ 34 ] At some point subsequent to a car accident many years ago medication prescribed for pain morphed into a substance abuse disorder that Ms. P has since struggled to manage. Although very little evidence was dedicated to the issue of these injuries, the evidence does suggest that Ms. P has resulting mobility issues and on going pain to manage. [ 35 ] The testimony of Ms. P and the Minister’s evidence also confirms that Ms.

P has several health issues managed by a variety of medications namely, diabetes and high blood pressure, pancreatic issues, acid reflux and anxiety. Ms. P has also disclosed ADHD and an OCD diagnosis which have historically been managed by Biphentin. • Addictions Services through Riverstone Recovery Center – Evidence of Dr. Sarah Davidson [ 36 ] Ms. P enrolled in services at the Riverstone Recovery Center in July of 2020. She has remained involved with the Center’s Substance Use Disorder treatment program from that point forward to present day. In the years proceeding this program, Ms.

P also participated in the Addiction Medicine Program at the Fredericton Downtown Community Health Center. [ 37 ] Dr. Sarah Davidson is the physician that oversees the Riverstone Recovery Program. She testified at the hearing as was qualified as an expert in the area of Addictions Medicine and Treatment. She authored three reports with respect to P’s participation in programming, all of which were tendered into evidence on the consent of the parties, ( Exhibits A-2, 3, 4 ). [ 38 ] Dr.

Davidson describes the programming at the Center as a “harm reduction low barrier” approach to providing rapid access to medications. The end goal is not necessarily abstinence but rather the prevention of the harmful use of substances going forward. Dr. Davidson testified that she does not personally do one on one therapy with patients.

She testified that the focus of the program being “safe administration of substances” she does not do a “deep dive” into the underlying issues giving rise to a participant’s addictions. [ 39 ] The program prescribes both short acting hydromorphone in addition to long-acting opiate agonist medication to address opiate cravings.

The long acting opiate is the backbone of the treatment with the short acting hydromorphone prescribed on an as needed basis. [ 40 ] Participants, unless they qualify for take home “dispensed doses” or “carries,” of their mediation, must attend the pharmacy daily for their prescribed dose of each. [ 41 ] As stated, the Center does not demand abstinence to remain in the program however participants must attend a mandatory medical appointment or “group meeting” every 8 weeks. In the event the mandatory group appointments are missed, the dose of medication prescribed is reduced until the participant re-attends. Dr.

Davidson describes this as a gentle reminder to participants of the mandatory nature of the group meetings or appointments. [ 42 ] Dr. Davidson further confirmed that missed mandatory meetings presents a concern for increased potential of using substances outside of the program. As a result missed meeting also means a loss of the right to dispensed doses. She stated that the participant must show a return to “stability” before the right to dispensed doses is reinstated. [ 43 ] Additionally, there are voluntary group meetings that individuals can choose to participate in. [ 44 ] Collectively Dr.

Davidson’s three reports in conjunction with her viva voce evidence confirm that Ms. P currently requires both short acting hydromorphone and the long-acting opiate agonist medication to appropriately address her opiate cravings. Ms. P confirmed this in her evidence. [ 45 ] The evidence further confirms that to date Ms. P has not reached a point in her recovery where she qualified for a dispensed dose of her medications. She was at one point working towards that goal. However, Dr.

Davidson’s reports dated October 19, 2022 ( Exhibit A-2 ), March 15, 2023 ( Exhibit A-3 ), and September 8, 2023 (Exhibit A-4 ), confirm that Ms. P, has in the last six months missed her last three mandatory meetings. Her mediation dose was reduced as a result and she did attend subsequent group meetings to have her medication dose rectified.

[ 46 ] Ms. P was also advised by Dr. Davidson that she could complete four weeks of random urine screens to earn a dispensed dose of her medication. Ms. P completed two screens on April 5th and April 18 th , 2023 but missed the next four that were scheduled. [ 47 ] She officially stopped working towards a dispensed dose on May 30, 2023. [ 48 ] In her report dated October 22, 2022, Dr. Davidson indicates that Ms. P disclosed that should the program stop giving her short acting hydromorphone as needed she would have to return to purchasing opiates off the street. Ms. P did not dispute this disclosure. [ 49 ] Dr.

Davidson was clear in her evidence that substance use disorder is a chronic health condition like any other and that complete abstinence is not always attainable. She suggests that in terms of prognosis, cessation of opiate use may not be realistic. Ideally, her hope is that Ms. P’s use will only occur in a clinical setting or pursuant to a treatment agreement, should she not be able to achieve abstinence. Dr. Davidson was clear recovery is very specific to the individual and that everyone defines “recovery” differently. [ 50 ] Dr. Davidson conceded that Ms.

P’s missed meetings and drugs screens “brings into question the level of stability” in her recovery progress. [ 51 ] For her part Ms. P testified that while she does not qualify for dispensed doses she is managing her pain and addiction by attending at the pharmacy each day for both the long and short acting medications. She maintains she is not using drugs outside of the program. [ 52 ] In her view she has made significant inroads in her addiction and points to her progress with respect to alcohol use. Ms. P concedes that at the time she left her home with Mr.

N in December of 2021, her alcohol addiction was out of control. She was consuming inordinate amounts of whiskey daily and testified that she was not in her right mind and not able to function. She described this in her evidence as “wet brain” and conceded she doesn’t remember much during that period of time. [ 53 ] The evidence of Mr. N corroborates this. He confirmed that Ms. P’s alcohol use at that time contributed to her misuse of family resources to the point that the couple almost lost their home on two separate occasions.

He also confirmed it impacted her ability to properly meet G.N’s needs including getting G.N. to school. [ 54 ] Ms. Tolley in her evidence recognizes Ms. P’s progress and success with her alcohol addiction. She however remains concerned that she has simply transitioned to opiates to address her cravings. [ 55 ] S.P. similar to Ms. Tolley, acknowledges Ms. P’s success with her alcohol use. However she also believes her mother is still abusing drugs outside of the Riverstone Recovery Program. She bases this on disclosures to her by Mr. N. [ 56 ] Mr. N did not dispute this evidence. • Mr.

N [ 57 ] The Minister’s evidence suggests Mr. N has also engaged in illicit drugs such as speed. He testified he has done so in the past but never in the presence of his daughter. He testified that currently he does not do drugs and rarely drinks alcohol. [ 58 ] Mr. N has refused to participate in drug screens as set out in the case plan. A drug screen conducted on November 10, 2020 however was positive for Methamphetamines. Mr. N denied the results. [ 59 ] In or around the same time G.N. disclosed seeing her father “crush pills” and had observed him “smoking out of a yellow and white tube”. [ 60 ] Ms.

P testified that during the period of 2021/2022 Mr. N had an “issue with speed.” Mr. N refutes disclosures made by Ms. P relating to his drug use. He states it is all untrue. [ 61 ] In her evidence S.P. stated that she has observed drugs in the home and witnessed Mr. N “misuse substances.” She stated further that she has “known the Respondents to constantly have no money, be low on food in the home and to spend what money they do have on alcohol and/or drugs .” 2. Family Violence [ 62 ] Domestic violence has been a child protection concern for the Minister stemming back many years.

In the 29 investigations caried out by the Minister over the years many have been substantiated for intimate partner violence. [ 63 ] The Minister’s evidence establishes that Ms. P has been very candid about her struggles with Mr. N on this front. [ 64 ] Most recently, in January of 2021 the Minister received a referral that police had received a call that Ms. P felt unsafe in the home. The Minister’s evidence suggests the discord in the home at that time related in part to Ms. P’s intoxication and Mr. N wanting her out of the home.

It was at this point that G.N. began living with her sister pursuant to a safety plan. [ 65 ] In December of 2021 Ms. P disclosed a physical altercation that precipitated her ultimately leaving the home with G.N. who has only returned to her parent’s care approximately three months prior. The Minister’s evidence sets out that Ms. P stated she “fled” the home because she was being "pushed around” by Mr. N and that he and another male had “pinned her down” until she handed them money for drugs. [ 66 ] At that time Ms. P confirmed to the Minister a “lengthy history of domestic violence,” and the fact that Mr.

N had served time in jail for assaulting her. She described Mr. N as jealous, controlling and obsessive. She stated he assaulted her during pregnancy, destroyed

property and that she was “fearful of him”. [ 67 ] She further disclosed that G.N. was often witness to the violence. [ 68 ] Ms. P did not refute any of these disclosures in her testimony. [ 69 ] G.N. has made her own disclosures to Minister’s representatives. As far back as 2020 when she was only 5 years old, she disclosed that exposure to fighting in the home left her feeling “scared.” She has further disclosed that yelling in the home forces her to “plug her ears,” and that she goes to her room and “hides under her bed,” during altercations.

G.N. has also expressed concern about she and her mother returning to the home based on her fear that the fighting and yelling will continue. [ 70 ] When Ms. P left the marital home with G.N. in December 2021 she sought assistance from Transition House in Fredericton which resulted in her being placed in a number of hotels for a period of time. She also sought support services through Liberty Lane an organization that like transition house provides support to individuals impacted by abuse. [ 71 ] A Danger Assessment was completed in December of 2021 by Ms.

Rachel Quigg who is a life coach and Outreach Support Worker with Liberty Lane. This assessment tool applies a weighted scoring system to an individual’s responses to yes/no questions posed. The resulting score identifies the risk of lethal violence in the relationship. Its purpose is to assist in safety planning strategies. [ 72 ] In the end, Ms. P scored 33 on the assessment. Ms. Quigg’s evidence confirms that anything over 18 is considered “high risk” and indicates that Ms. P was in “extreme danger.” Based on this, she and Ms. P moved forward with services which included finding Ms.

P alternative housing. [ 73 ] Ms. Quigg advocated for Ms. P to secure accommodation through N.B. Housing and was ultimately successful in April of 2022. Once immediate needs were addressed, Ms. Quigg’s involvement transitioned to safety planning within Ms. P’s relationship. The focus was the impact of domestic abuse on both she and G.N. and supporting Ms. P emotionally. [ 74 ] On balance Ms. Quigg would see Ms. P in person approximately every 6-8 weeks, but communications were also maintained through telephone, email and text messaging. [ 75 ] Ms.

Quigg administered a second Danger Assessment on September 11, 2022. This was close in time to G.N.’s attempted reunification with Ms. P. This assessment concluded with a similarly high score of 30 which carries the same high risk and extreme danger concerns as the test completed in December of 2021. At this point Ms. P had not resided with Mr. N for approximately nine (9) months. [ 76 ] Ms. Quigg testified that in her view Ms. P over the course of their time together had made progress in her ability to be open and share her issues. She sensed an increased level of confidence and a more positive attitude.

However, Ms. P on being evicted and from her N.B Housing unit and resuming cohabitation with Mr. N did not initially share that news with M. Quigg. That only happened at their scheduled meeting in July of 2023. [ 77 ] Ms. Quigg in her evidence confirmed that Ms. P did not disclose how long she had been back in the family home, but stated that she presented as “happy in the relationship,” stating that Mr. N was acknowledging her needs. In short there were no “no red flags,” suggesting intimate partner violence was present. Ms.

Quigg did conduct a third Danger Assessment on September 7, 2023 approximately one week before the hearing of the Minister’s Application to assess the present situation for Ms. P. [ 78 ] The results tabulated from that assessment indicated a significant change in Ms. P’s answers to the questions posed, when compared to the two previous assessments. Her score was 8 which reduced Ms.

P’s risk of harm from “Extreme” to “Increased”. [ 79 ] A review of the questions posed indicates that some of the questions changed from a ”yes” to a “no” as a result of the fact the Respondents had only recently began cohabiting after living separately since December of 2021. By way of example Question 3 asks, “Have you left him after living together during the past year?” [ 80 ] A complete review of all the responses provided by Ms. P establishes the following changes between September of 2022 and September of 2023: • Mr. N no longer owns a gun, • Mr. N no longer threatens to kill her, • Mr.

N no longer avoids being arrested for domestic violence, • Mr. N no longer tries to choke /strangle or cut off her breathing to the point of being dizzy or blacking out • Mr. N no longer uses illegal drugs, • Mr. N no longer is violent and constantly jealous • Mr. N no longer follows or spies on her [ 81 ] Ms. P answered yes to all the above related questions in September of 2022. [ 82 ] Ultimately, Ms. P did not disclose her eviction from her N.B. Housing unit or her decision to move back in with Mr. N to the Minister or to Ms. Quigg who had been supporting her through Liberty Lane.

She did not seek any further assistance from either for an

alternative solution to her housing issue prior to her relocation back to the family home. [ 83 ] On cross examination Ms. P was asked if “but for the eviction would you have moved back in with Mr. N?” She stated that, “yes, I would have eventually.” [ 84 ] In her view, after 29 years in a relationship with Mr. N, she “knows him,” and things are different now. • Evidence of S.P. relating to Domestic Violence [ 85 ] S.P. provided direct evidence in relation to her experience growing up in the Respondent’s home.

Paragraphs 5, 7, and 8 of her affidavit sworn to on August 31, 2023, (Record at p. 120), provides as follows: 5. I grew up living part time with my father and part time with [Ms. P] and [Mr. N.] I can confirm that the same things that [G.N.] has experienced with my mother and [Mr. N] namely horrible domestic violence, lack of school attendance, seeing substance abuse in the home, housing insecurity, and the feeling of unsafety, I experienced. I remember social development visiting me at home and school several times, police being called to our home, eviction notices and [Mr. N] being arrested.

I suffer the effects of all I went through with my mother and Mr. N which manifests mainly in extreme anxiety and distrust today. 7. I have personally witnessed [Mr. N’s] violent temper with my mother and his family, and I have seen [G.N]. in the middle of [Mr. N’s] violence against his own father. On one occasion, [Mr. N’s] father, A, (who had Alzheimer’s), had held his cane up towards my mother and [Mr. N] threw him onto the couch and screamed loudly in his face. I hid [G.N.] in the back room while others were begging [Mr. N] to stop. [Mr.

N] grabbed A by the throat, head-butted him and told him he was going to kill him. I needed to physically shove and hit him to get him away from A. When [C] and I tried to leave with [G.N], [Mr. N] was very aggressive - to the point of not allowing me to put her in my car, slamming my car door closed, and chasing me down the road while [G.N] was in my arms - calling me names and threatening to call the police on me for kidnapping her. 8. I have seen [G.N.] witness the fighting between my mother and [Mr. N] which included physical violence, name calling and threats to each other, and damage to their surroundings.

I have watched [Mr. N] throw dishes, punch walls, doors, windows, my mother, other people, and himself. [ 86 ] For his part, Mr. N concedes that there has been “arguing and yelling,” in the home. But maintains that the extent of the domestic violence as disclosed by Ms. P is untrue. When asked about his previous arrest he was evasive about the nature of the charges stating that it was over ten years ago and he “never touched anyone.” [ 87 ] Mr. N did not provide a response to S.P’s evidence relating to domestic violence in the home or G.N.’s presence through it all. [ 88 ] He did respond to Ms. P’s allegations.

Mr. N maintains that the root of the discord in the home in 2021 before Ms. P left, was Ms. P’s drinking and mismanagement of household funds. In his view her most recent allegations of domestic violence are “lies” used by her to divert attention away from her drinking and misuse of the family’s resources. He stated that “she lied herself into a corner she couldn’t get out of.” [ 89 ] He states that Ms. P did not flee the home in fear, rather she “ran” instead of facing the consequences of using money allotted for utilities and the mortgage, to buy drugs and alcohol.

The result is that her actions nearly left himself and the couple’s two roommates, homeless. [ 90 ] He concedes being angry. He feels betrayed by Ms. P. In the end he states that her conduct and lies have cost him his child, his name and almost his home. [ 91 ] He is also angry at the Minister for not listening to him a long time ago about Ms. P’s alcoholism and for believing her rendition of events as they unfolded in December of 2021. [ 92 ] Despite this, he has welcomed Ms. P back into the family home. He testified that he and the other two occupants of the home have now taken control of paying the bills.

The financial situation has improved and he has made inroads on the bills left by Ms. P. This, along with the fact Ms. P’s alcohol and drug use is managed, has in his view, eliminated the discourse in the relationship. He testified that the change has been like “night and day.” [ 93 ] Two witnesses were called by the Respondents to corroborate these improvements in the couple’s relationship. Ms. Misty Laagland, is Ms. P’s cousin and has been the couple’s roommate for approximately 3 years. [ 94 ] She currently lives in the Respondent’s home with her boyfriend who is a quadriplegic.

She confirmed previous financial stressors between the couple led to tensions in the relationship. [ 95 ] In her view things have improved. She testified she has seen improvements in Mr. N, he is less introverted and reaches out for help more readily. She also has noted improvements in his relationship with Ms. P. She testified that they all work together in the home and “there is no fighting.” She characterizes this as a change from 2021 when Ms. P left the home. [ 96 ] Ms. Esther Greenslade is a friend of Ms. P’s. They met a few years ago when Ms. P was really struggling. Ms. P had reached out to Ms.

Greenslade for support and the friendship grew. She testified that tensions in the relationship between Mr. N and Ms. P have eased since she first met the couple. In the beginning she confirmed that Ms. P was “scared” of Mr. N, that he had a “temper” and was “verbally abusive.” She testified that she would on occasion pick Ms. P up just get her out of the house. [ 97 ] Ms. Greenslade testified that recently on occasion she has assisted the couple with errands such as groceries and in those

moments she has observed positive interactions between the two. She has not had opportunity to observe the two in their home environment but confirms that Ms. P has disclosed the couples relationship is “much better.” • Domestic Violence Counseling for Ms. P [ 98 ] Ms. Alyssa Boudreau is a therapist at Family Enrichment and Counselling Services Fredericton Inc. she has engaged in counselling services with Ms. P since June of 2022. Ms. P has completed approximately 20 telephone sessions with Ms. Boudreau who testified that Ms.

P’s attendance and engagement with counselling was positive. [ 99 ] The initial treatment goals were to address issues of intimate partner violence, however early on in the relationship the objectives transitioned to issues more specific to Ms. P. As a result, treatment goals were redefined to focus on self care strategies that provided Ms. P space for emotional support as she navigates the Minister’s involvement with her family. [ 100 ] The collective evidence of Ms. Boudreau and Ms. P is that the two had a good working relationship.

Currently sessions are on hold pending the outcome of the Minister’s Application. Ms. P would like to see her sessions with Ms. Boudreau continue. • Domestic Violence Counselling Sessions For Mr. N [ 101 ] Mr. N although initially resistant, agreed to participate in counselling. To this end he engaged with a retired social worker who now works part time at Family Enrichment, counselling men with respect to intimate partner violence. Mr. Alexander (Sandy) Gordon testified that he received a referral for services for Mr. N in or around March of 2023. Mr.

N participated in 5 sessions which were divided between in person and telephone visits. Two of the 5 sessions were dedicated to building rapport. The treatment goals were focused on understanding the Minister’s intervention and how to bring resolution to the Minister’s involvement with his family. [ 102 ] Mr. Gordon testified that Mr. N was very upset that the Minister was acting on the false accusations of Ms. P relating to domestic violence. He was adamant the accusations were false and was frustrated and angry that the Minister was not listening to him on this front. [ 103 ] Mr.

Gordon provided suggestions and tools that Mr. N could use to interact with the Minister positively instead of “defensively.” He advised Mr. N to be aware of his emotions and “handle them,” so that he might be able to have civil conversations with the Minister. [ 104 ] In Mr. Gordon’s view Mr. N “seemed to understand,” the advice, “it made sense to him.” He felt his time with Mr. N was positive and successful. He observed improvements with his exchanges with Mr. N. He conceded that he was unaware of whether his communications with the Minister improved. He also conceded that Ms.

Tolly had requested that he have additional sessions with Mr. N, but no further sessions were scheduled. [ 105 ] Ms. Tolly was asked on cross examination about the impact of Mr. Gordon’s sessions on Mr. N and the child protection concerns raised by the Minister. She testified that in her view they had little to no impact on Mr. N. in that he continues to deny family violence and his role in it as a child protection concern. Further, subsequent to engagement with counselling Mr. N shut down all communication with her. He will not speak to her, be alone in a room with her or allow her into the home. [ 106 ] Ms.

P, when asked on cross examination if she understood Mr. Gordon’s engagement with Mr. N ultimately was limited to communication issues, and not intimate partner violence, she conceded the point. [ 107 ] She also confirmed that while they are both open to it, they have not, to date, done any couples counselling related to intimate partner violence. Mr. N testified that for his daughter he would engage in couple’s counselling. 3. Parenting / Supervised Visits [ 108 ] During the period of March through to September of 2022, Ms. P had visits with G.N. 2 to 3 times weekly ranging from ½ day to a full day.

After reunification attempts failed in September of 2022 Ms. P asked that visits with G.N. occur only once a week for a period of time while she addressed a few issues. Supervised visits once weekly remained in effect until approximately December of 2022 when they increased to twice weekly for approximately 2.5 hrs each. That

schedule has remained in effect to until September of this year when they again reduced to once weekly. [ 109 ] Since June of 2023 Ms. P’s visits have transitioned from her home to the community. This was due in part to renovations occurring at Ms. P’s housing unit. Ultimately, they have remained in community because of Ms. P’s relocation back to the family home, an arrangement she did not disclose or discuss with the Minister. [ 110 ] Mr. N has throughout the period of care exercised supervised parenting time once weekly in his home.

There was suggestion in the evidence that visits were set to transition to unsupervised status in or around March of this year. However discussions that unfolded at the April Permanency Planning Conference ultimately saw the Minister proceed in a different direction. It was at that meeting that Mr. N confirmed his engagement with counselling was not because he felt domestic violence was an issue, but because the Minister insisted. This, followed by the Respondents new living arrangement and the Minister’s inability to assess the new arrangement, resulted in visits for Mr.

N remaining supervised and being transitioned to community. [ 111 ] The Minister presented evidence from nine (9) family support workers. On balance the evidence presented from these workers establishes that attendance at visits by both parents has been consistent and engagement was generally positive. Mr. N’s attendance has waned somewhat since visits transitioned out of his home and into the community. [ 112 ] The most notable concern raised is in relation to Ms. P’s visits and her tendency to engage G.N. in adult conversations relating to both Mr. N and the Minister’s involvement with the family.

[ 113 ] In or around the fall of 2022, shortly after protective care was taken, The Minister’s evidence discloses that Ms. P counselled G.N. to “watch what she said to Ms. Tolley,” and made reference to the Minister “taking her again.” [ 114 ] Ms. P was questioned about the Minister’s concern on this front in her direct examination. She responded frankly, advising that in her view G.N. had a right to know about things going on her life. She denied however discussing court proceedings with the child. [ 115 ] The evidence confirms G.N. has become very resistant to attending visits, mainly with Ms. P.

Collectively evidence tendered from the Minister’s representatives, S.P, school personnel and the parent aid worker indicates that G.N. becomes anxious and her behavior difficult to manage on visit days. [ 116 ] G.N. has been very vocal with respect to her wishes on this front.

Her hesitancy is grounded in the fact she feels uncomfortable hearing the Respondents speak negatively about each other and most notably discussions focused on her custody arrangement and her preferences on that font. • Parent Aid Services - Shellany Brewer [ 117 ] In terms of the Respondent’s parenting abilities, both have participated in previous parent aide services. Ms. P again enrolled in the service in June of 2022 through to February of 2023, through New Techniques. Mr. N declined the service. [ 118 ] Parent Aid worker Shellany Brewer was assigned to assist the family.

She tendered affidavit evidence sworn to on September 1, 2022, October 17, 2022 and April 13, 2023 and provided viva voce evidence. She provided a balanced representation of Ms. P’s strengths and weaknesses as it relates to her ability to parent G.N. [ 119 ] She testified that she has a good relationship with Ms. P and that on balance she found Ms. P accepting of services. Her evidence confirms that she met weekly with Ms. P for the purpose of providing specific parenting programs and techniques. Areas of focus for Ms.

P encompassed household management, organization, keeping track of appointments and implementing /maintaining structure and routine for both mother and daughter. Relationship building between the two was also a theme central to the sessions. [ 120 ] Ms. Brewer testified that strategies discussed to assist Ms. P with structure and routine included preparing G.N. for school in the mornings, getting her to and from the school and cementing a daily

schedule that included her ability to get to and from the pharmacy (at that time twice daily), for her medications. [ 121 ] Ms. Brewer was encouraging a

schedule that would have Ms. P attend the pharmacy in the morning after G.N. went to school and then later after she returned home. Ms. P disclosed that most days she was only getting to the pharmacy once per day. Ms. Brewer often assisted with transportation but encouraged Ms. P to try and find her own way there. [ 122 ] Mobility issues were noted by Ms. Brewer relating to Ms. P’s shoulders, arms/wrists/legs/hips. Ms. P testified that she has benefitted off and on from the services of a personal support worker (“PSW”), to assist with home maintenance and errands.

This was a service she became eligible for when diagnosed with an aortic aneurysm a few years ago. She testified she has recently been re-approved for PSW support three days a week. [ 123 ] Ms. P also disclosed to Ms. Brewer that her pain was not managed sufficiently for her to be able to walk G.N. to and from the bus stop when school commenced in the fall of 2022. Ms. Brewer encouraged Ms. P to reach out to the school district and advise of her challenges on this font. There was no evidence provided as to whether or not Ms. P followed through on this.

The evidence confirms that G.N. was not getting to school on reunification in September of 2022. The reasons were not fully explained in the evidence by Ms. P, other than G.N. was sick and the

schedule was a struggle for her. [ 124 ] The goal in terms of Ms. Brewers engagement was to assist Ms. P with increased structure in the home. This would facilitate longer visits and ultimately a transition of G.N. back into the full time care of her mother. In terms of preparing her housing unit for G.N.’s reunification, Ms. Brewer observed that Ms. P’s home was appropriately outfitted with the items needed for G.N. [ 125 ] Three months into services with Ms. Brewer the attempt at reunification was made. Ms. Brewer testified that at that time she remained concerned that Ms.

P was not able to organize herself such that she was able to appropriately incorporate her daily trips to the pharmacy into her schedule. [ 126 ] She also remained concerned about her financial situation. Ms. P had disclosed missed rental payments but attributed it to her banking institution and alleged fraudulent activity associated with her account. [ 127 ] In the end Ms. Brewer’s concerns were realized and ultimately reunification was unsuccessful. As stated Ms. P struggled and was not able to consistently get G.N. to school.

Eventually, she admitted to feelings of being overwhelmed on G.N.’s reunification. [ 128 ] Ms. Brewer in her evidence confirmed that it was only “after the fact” that Ms. P advised her of her struggles on reunification. This was not something she disclosed at the time. Ms. P also subsequently communicated to Ms. Brewer the behavioral challenges she experienced with G.N. when she was reunified. Ms. P indicated that she found G.N. defiant and some of her behaviors were triggering for Ms. P. She disclosed that she struggled to follow through on consequences. [ 129 ] Initially Ms.

Brewer’s observations of the mother-daughter interactions were positive. However subsequent to the failed reunification attempt Ms. Brewer observed G.N.’s hesitancy to visit her mother. Ms. Brewer also observed that G.N. would become upset when Ms. P would attempted to discuss Mr. N or her foster care placement. [ 130 ] The Minister thought having Ms. Brewer attend during visits more frequently might assist. It did seem to have an impact until G.N. realized Ms. Brewer’s role was to help her mother work towards reunification. Subsequent to that, G.N. refused to attend whether Ms.

Brewer was going to be there or not.

[ 131 ] Ms. Brewer worked with Ms. P consistently for approximately 8 months seeing her weekly. During this time she states that she was easily persuaded that Ms. P loves G.N. and wants what is best for her. She testified that Ms. P tries very hard to provide for G.N.’s wants and needs and that she is attuned to G.N.’s likes and dislikes. She would have food in the home that G.N. preferred and toys and bedding themed to match G.N.’s interests. She noted that Ms. P prepared appropriate meals and the apartment was clean. [ 132 ] However, in the end she concluded that Ms.

P was not able to make gains with respect to parenting routines and adhering to schedules. [ 133 ] Subsequent to the failed reunification attempt, Ms. P asked for visits with G.N. to be reduced for a time to once a week. This coupled with G.N. refusing visits, meant Ms. Brewer wasn’t able to meaningfully move forward with her work on parenting skills and schedules. In particular, she was unable to asses if Ms. P could manage a structured scheduled for G.N. and still be able to attend the pharmacy for her prescription doses. [ 134 ] Ms.

Tolley and other supports were unable to get G.N. to a place where she felt comfortable with consistently attending visits and expanding on their duration and frequency. As a result, services with Ms. Brewer ended in February 2023. [ 135 ] The plan was that when G.N.’s visit

schedule increased services relating to parent aid would be re-introduced. 4. Housing Instability/Resource Management [ 136 ] S.P. in her affidavit evidence stated the following with respect to historical issues the Respondents have had with resource management: 9. I have known Mr. N and my mother to constantly have no money, be low on food in the home, and spend what money they do have on alcohol and or drugs. They moved often with [G.N.] and would live a party lifestyle with suspicious people living with them or coming and going from the home. This behaviour existed when I lived at home as well.

I recall living in at least 18 different apartments or houses throughout the years. [ 137 ] The Minister’s evidence confirms that as early as 2020 the Respondents were struggling to manage resources to cover necessities such as food and medications. Disclosures made to the Minister by Mr. N with respect to Ms. P mismanaging the families resources in 2021 were confirmed by Mr. N in his viva voce evidence. Mr. N has managed with the assistance of his room mates to address monies owing on the mortgage and power bill. He is still working on the water bill. He, like Ms. P, is on social assistance.

That income supplemented by odd jobs and the rent he receives from Ms. Laagland and her partner permits him to meet his financial responsibilities. [ 138 ] Financial issues have however continued to plague Ms. P. Issues with consistently paying rent on her housing unit were noted in the Minister’s evidence. Ultimately, Ms. P was evicted from her N.B Housing unit at some point in or around the spring of this year.

The date was never confirmed in the evidence. [ 139 ] The Minister’s evidence suggests this was due to a failure to stay current on her rent and to comply with necessary renovations on the unit which were related to water damage and mold. Ms. P denies this and believes her eviction was unfounded. She attributes her inability to pay rent to a “fraud,” that occurred at the bank. B. The Child G.N. [ 140 ] G.N. is eight (8) years old turning nine (9) in a few weeks.

The lion’s share of the evidence presented with respect to this child points to a very bright spirited young lady whose current struggles are grounded in the environment she has faced in the Respondent’s home. [ 141 ] S.P., as indicated is G.N.’s sister. She is however significantly older the G.N. She is in her mid twenties, is married and employed as a registered nurse. She has been called on to step into the role of care provider for G.N. many times over the last several years. [ 142 ] S.P. provided affidavit and viva voce evidence relating to the time G.N. has been in the care of she and her husband.

She testified that G.N. has in total resided with the couple for approximately 2 years, consistently for the last 12 months. [ 143 ] S.P. testified that in the beginning when G.N. began living with them she presented with daily outbursts or tantrums. This occurred often when there was an attempt to correct her behavior. She stated that G.N. has a tremendous fear of getting into trouble and would often cry in fear of consequences. [ 144 ] Her behavior included yelling and throwing things.

S.P. and her husband implemented a no tolerance policy in relation to these behaviors and in S.P.’s view G.N. has responded positively to this. [ 145 ] She has also observed a positive response to the general structure, routine and boundaries imposed in the home. Behavioral issues do sometimes still present but they are no longer “daily.” Currently S.P. notes behavioral issues arise just before or on visit days with the Respondents. G.N. will often have trouble sleeping the night before or after a visit because she is having a “flashback,” about what it would be like to return home.

She also worries about conversations she has had with social workers being communicated to her parents. [ 146 ] G.N. has communicated to S.P. and Ms. Tolley that conversations occurring at visits make her feel uncomfortable.

[ 147 ] G.N.’s grade 3 teacher, Ms. Alexandra Woods provided similar evidence. Ms. Woods was G.N. ‘s teacher for the 2022/23 academic year at Royal Road Elementary School. She tendered affidavit evidence and testified at the hearing. Ms. Woods confirmed that on visit days G.N. has communicated to her directly that she was feeling anxious about the impending visit. She stated that G.N. would often present on those days crying and with behaviors that required mediation. [ 148 ] Ms. Wood testified that G.N. is a smart and engaging child who is outgoing, friendly and kind.

She has, similar to S.P., observed moments of impulsivity where G.N., if she becomes angry or frustrated, may yell or become “hands on.” Ms. Wood indicated that this was something they worked on throughout the school year and she noted G.N. made improvements on this front. [ 149 ] She also confirmed that school attendance was not an issue during the 2022/2023 academic year. [ 150 ] In S.P.’s view, behavior improved and G.N.’s anxiety lessened when she was no longer being forced to attend visits.

S.P and the Minister have worked together to find strategies that will encourage G.N. to feel more positively about attending visits. Suggested activities like going to the park have had some success and G.N. has attended and had a successful visits on those occasions. [ 151 ] S.P. confirmed the Respondents have also exercised telephone/video contact outside of scheduled visits. She stated that both Respondents call often and she lets G.N. decide if she would like to take the call. [ 152 ] G.N. commenced school this year at Keswick Valley School which services students in grades K-8.

G.N. takes the bus each day and S.P has noted an overall enthusiasm to get up each morning and get ready for school. The transition to this new school appears to be going well and S.P. has noticed an improvement in her bedtime routines. [ 153 ] Academically G.N. appears to have met her curriculum outcomes for each subject last year. She reads but does require some support in math. S.P. testified she earns extra tablet time by doing math pages. [ 154 ] S.P. testified that currently G.N.’s extra curricular activities involve horseback riding and gymnastics. • Voice of the Child – Ms.

Elaine Howell [ 155 ] A Voice of the Child was ordered by the Court on April 18, 2023 . It was conducted by Ms. Elain Howell who testified at the haring and tendered a report ( Record at p. 61 ). Ms. Howell’s evidence confirms that the purpose of her assessment was to place before the court G.N.’s wishes, interests, and concerns regarding her custody and to determine if those views were voluntarily expressed. [ 156 ] In her disclosures to Ms. Howell, G.N. stated that Ms. P “tried to hit her once.” She also recounted for Ms. Howell two occasions where Mr. N hit Ms. P and she had to hide from her father.

She confirmed that while she has never been physically injured by either parent, her father was responsible for giving her mother a black eye. [ 157 ] In terms of living with her mother she stated “I’m scared to live there,” She stated that her mother confronts the issue with her asking “don’t you want to come home?” In response G.N. disclosed that she says yes because she doesn’t want to hurt her mother’s feelings however she stated, “I’m scared if she ever tries to hit me again.” [ 158 ] In describing visits with her father she stated, “sometimes he gets angry and that sort of makes me uncomfortable.

At the visits he sort of gets mad.” She further disclosed an occasion where she and her mother were in a hotel and “he burst through the door,” which resulted in them having to change hotel rooms. She stated that she hid from him on that occasion. She disclosed that her father has told her that she does not need to be scared of him however she confirmed she “would be sort of scared,” if she was alone with him. [ 159 ] Ms. Howell concluded that G.N. indicated very clearly her desire to remain living with S.P. and C. Ms. Howell concluded that G.N.’s wishes on this front were voluntarily expressed.

This point was tested on cross examination, but Ms. Howell’s position remained steadfast. She stated that G.N.’s statements, responses and reasoning were all age appropriate and freely expressed. There was no hesitation or language used in hr view that suggested she had been coached. • Ms. Kimberley Woodley – ISD Counsellor [ 160 ] Ms. Woodley is an Education Support Teacher/school counsellor with the Child and Youth Team, Integrated Service Delivery program. ISD programming provides services and support to families who have experienced trauma.

Providing strategies to assist with emotional self regulation is one such area of support. [ 161 ] Ms. Woodley began working with G.N. just prior to the Christmas break in 2022. She commenced with bi-weekly sessions focused on basic emotional education to help her understand complex emotions and feelings of being overwhelmed. They worked on emotional regulation strategies finding those that worked best for G.N., helping her to stay calm in emotional situations. The goal for Ms.

Woodley was to help G.N. find ways to express herself with words instead of the survival instincts of “fight, flight, or freeze.” [ 162 ] Ms. Woodley identifies in her affidavit evidence that G.N. was able to identify situations that evoked differing emotions for her. For instance she stated that living with her sister made her feel happy and calm because she feels safe there. She further stated that fear and worry were emotions or feelings that presented when she thought about the possibility of having to move back home with her mother. She disclosed to Ms.

Woodley that while she recognized that her mother was trying her best to do better and she felt safe at the visits, she remained afraid to live with her full time. [ 163 ] When Ms. Woodley finished the academic year with G.N. she was of the view that she had learned appropriate ways to voice her frustrations with others through “I feel statements”. In her view G.N. had become better able to share her feelings and set boundaries. [ 164 ] Ms. Woodley indicated that Ms. P was offered a spot in the virtual parenting support group called Nurturing Change. Ms.

P initially accepted the opening however after several unsuccessful attempts to log into the virtual sessions it was determined that in person sessions would be better. Unfortunately, attempts to

schedule in person sessions with Ms. P were not successful and the file was

eventually closed. [ 165 ] Ms. Woodley confirmed her contact with the Respondents was minimal and only at the Family Group Conference in or around May of this year. III. ISSUES [ 166 ] The issues in this matter, simply put, are as follows: • Is it in G.N’s best interest that a guardianship order issue, transferring her custody care and control to the Minister on a permanent basis, or should an alternative order be granted? • In the event a guardianship order is granted, is it in the best interests of G.N. that a right of access be reserved for her with respect to both Respondents? IV. ANALYSIS A.

Credibility [ 167 ] Although not raised by the parties or openly argued by any, the issue of credibility in my view is clearly a live one that warrants discussion. This Court in A.(A.) v. B.(M.) 2014 CarswellNB 409 , at paragraph 97 , stated “Assessing credibility is a sifting of nuances, impressions and observations, impacted by such things as a witness’ demeanor, tone and candor as well as the context of his or her evidence.

The court went on to point to several for the court to consider including, the reasonableness of the evidence, internal and external consistency, self interest, capacity of expression and the powers of observation and recollection. • Minister’s Evidence [ 168 ] Ms. Tolley’s evidence is the back bone of the Minister’s case. She presented as a credible witness. Her affidavit and viva voce evidence were consistent.

She was straight forward and forthright in response to both direct and cross examination questions. [ 169 ] She was strenuously cross examined on several issues including her reasons for not progressing to unsupervised visits, why the Minister has not assessed the current living arrangement and generally why, despite progress and engagement with services, the Minister continued to pursue a guardianship order. Her position at all times remained consistent while under cross examination.

She was able to refer back to particulars in the evidence including dates and events to support her position. [ 170 ] I accept her evidence as reliable and truthful. [ 171 ] Generally, the witnesses put forth by the Minister in my view presented with no issues impacting their credibility. All had good recall, answered questions without hesitation and presented as having a good grasp on the details related to their engagement with the family. [ 172 ] The affidavit and viva voce evidence presented by each was consistent. There were no glaring areas of internal or external inconsistencies.

Each in my view presented genuinely on issues relating to the Respondents strengths and weaknesses. None presented as biased on impacted by self interest. [ 173 ] One of the most important witnesses for the Minister was S.P. Her response to questions posed both on direct and cross examination were forthright and presented without hesitation. This was true even in relation to questions that were no very emotional issues for Ms. P.

I accept the veracity of her evidence in its entirety. [ 174 ] In particular, I accept her evidence as it relates to her experiences living in the Respondent’s home as a child, her observations of drug use and domestic violence in the home then and presently, and G.N.’s exposure to these issues. Neither Respondent directly refuted her evidence on this front.

Accordingly, where there is a conflict in the evidence as it relates to that presented by S.P or either Respondent, I accept the evidence of S.P as the more credible. [ 175 ] In particular, I accept the evidence of S.P. as it relates to communications between herself and Mr. N relating to Ms. P’s current drug use outside of the Riverstone Recovery Program. • Respondents Evidence [ 176 ] In terms of the Respondents, while there were aspects of the evidence presented by each that I found forthright and truthful, there were also certain frailties in their respective testimonies that I will elaborate on.

[ 177 ] Both presented evidence that I believe was impacted by self interest in that it was not plausible in the face of the sizable body of evidence to the contrary. The most notable is that relating to family violence. Mr. N concedes only a past history of yelling and arguing between he and Ms. P. A circumstance brought on by her drinking and money mismanagement. Any allegations of domestic violence disclosed by Ms. P he testified are not true and were an attempt by Ms. P to redirect attention away from her own short comings. [ 178 ] However, Ms.

P has disclosed longs standing violence in the home that predates the issue of her drinking and the associated financial issues present in the home in the latter part of 2020 and throughout 2021. [ 179 ] The Minister’s involvement amid concerns of substantiated domestic violence intakes, stems back to at least 2002. The criminal charges raised in the evidence relating to assault and uttering threats occurred several years ago. Mr. N was evasive in his response to cross examination questions relating those charges, testifying he “couldn’t remember.” [ 180 ] Ms.

P disclosed being abused “during pregnancy.” While the evidence does not confirm which pregnancy, her youngest child is almost 9 years old. She consistently responded “yes” to that question on the Danger Assessments caried out in 2022 and 2023. The remaining questions posed on the Danger Assessment included positive responses to questions about choking and death threats. [ 181 ] All of this confirms that there has been significant domestic abuse in the home for a very long time. [ 182 ] Further, Ms. P’s disclosures to the Minister, Ms. Quigg, Ms. Woods, (G.N.’s teacher) and Ms.

Greenslade, are all consistent and establish that intimate partner violence continued to be an integral part of their relationship at least up until her departure in 2021. [ 183 ] Lastly, the evidence provided by S.P. and the disclosures of G.N. relating to the domestic violence in the home and Mr. N’s role in it, cement for this court that domestic violence has been a pervasive issue in the home for a long time. [ 184 ] I do not accept Mr. N’s evidence that the violence in the home was limited to yelling and arguing with the rest being only misrepresentations by Ms.

P. [ 185 ] I further do not accept his evidence with respect to his drug use as credible. The combined evidence of Ms. P, who testified that Mr. N had an issue with speed, and S.P. who stated she has observed Mr. N “misuse substances,” along with a drug screen positive for methamphetamines in 2020, all collectively point to drug use. [ 186 ] Further I draw an adverse inference form Mr. N’s refusal to participate in drug screens. [ 187 ] In terms of Ms. P’s credibility, I believe her overarching desire for reunification with her daughter tainted the veracity and reliability of much of her evidence.

Most notably that related to domestic violence and her addictions. Her responses to pointed cross examination questions appeared in my view scripted to bolster her position as opposed to being forthright. Her demeanor throughout her testimony, while at times forthright, also at times provided responses that in my view were not plausible. [ 188 ] Ms. P’s evidence was subject to issues of both internal and external inconsistencies. The evidence does suggest that Ms. P has a tendency to misrepresent the truth to suit her purposes. The most notable example was that related to her relationship with Mr.

N and the presence of domestic violence. As stated her disclosures on the subject are significant throughout the evidence, however in her testimony she attempted to down play it, indicating the relationship had not been a physical one for a long time, including when she departed the home in December 2021. [ 189 ] However her disclosure to the Minister at that time was that Mr. N and the other male occupant of the home had pinned her down and choked her until she gave them drug money. [ 190 ] Ms. P continued to downplay her concern for domestic violence in the relationship testifying that she is of the view Mr.

N has changed in light of his sessions with Mr. Gordon. She stated that after 29 years together she knows Mr. N and he has changed. She testified that she did not move in with Mr. N solely because of the eviction, that she was planning on it eventually because of this. [ 191 ] In my view, Ms. P is and was very aware that progress with the Minister and her case plan is contingent on providing G.N. a safe and secure home environment free from domestic violence. She remained living separately from Mr. N for a significant period of time.

She only returned on being evicted from her home, a situation she was intentionally not forthcoming about to the Minister. The reality is that Ms. P had no where else to go. She needed the Minister and ultimately this Court to accept that her home and relationship with Mr. N is a positive environment for G.N. [ 192 ] For this reason I do not accept the credibility of her evidence that the relationship with Mr. N and her current living arrangement do not present a risk of domestic violence. I further do not accept the veracity of the September 2023 Danger Assessment. I do not believe Ms.

P provided truthful responses to that assessment. [ 193 ] I further do not accept Ms. P’s evidence relating to her struggle to remain current on rent at the N.B. Housing Unit. She testified it was due to “fraudulent,” activity at the bank. The lack of detail and corroborating evidence weakens the credibility of that evidence. That along with the fact that she did not disclose the eviction to the Minister or Ms. Quigg suggests it was something she did not want them to know or assist her with. [ 194 ] In my view, Ms.

P is still struggling to manage resources. [ 195 ] In terms of the witnesses called by the Respondents in support of their case, I found Ms. Greenslade to be credible, but Ms. Laaagland less so. While Ms. Laagland was candid about her own struggles with alcohol and child protection in the past, she struggled at times on cross examination to remember dates and details in answer to questions posed. I found her responses at time evasive. [ 196 ] Accordingly, while I accept Ms. Greenslade as credible and her evidence as truthful, I also am mindful of the limited opportunity Ms.

Greenslade has had to observe the couple together in recent months. She has not had opportunity to see them day to day in the home.

Also much of what she understands to be happening in the relationship is premised on disclosures to her form Ms. P. B. Application [ 197 ] The power of the Court to render guardianship orders is found in

Part IV of the Act , more specifically at subsection 56(1) : The court may make a guardianship order transferring from a parent to the Minister on a permanent basis the guardianship of a child, including the custody, care and control of, and all parental rights and responsibilities with respect to, the child. [ 198 ] On a Minister’s application for guardianship the Court is mandated by subsection 53(2) of the Act to place the best interests of the child above all other considerations.

The Court is guided by the abundance of caselaw in New Brunswick that fortifies the child centric perspective of the best interests of the child analysis. As stated by the Court of Appeal in V.C and J.C. v. The Minister of Social Development 2015 NBCA 28 , the best interest of the child test is the sole test employed to determine child custody. [ 199 ] In accordance with its definition as set out in

section 1 of the Act , “best interests of the child,” requires consideration of the following: (

a) the mental, emotional and physical health of the child and his need for appropriate care or treatment, or both; (

b) the views and preferences of the child, where such views and preferences can be reasonably ascertained; (

c) the effect upon the child of any disruption of the child’s sense of continuity; (

d) the love, affection and ties that exist between the child and each person to whom the child’s custody is entrusted, each person to whom access to the child is granted and, where appropriate, each sibling of the child and, where appropriate, each grandparent of the child; (

e) the merits of any plan proposed by the Minister under which he would be caring for the child, in comparison with the merits of the child returning to or remaining with his parents; (

f) the need to provide a secure environment that would permit the child to become a useful and productive member of society through the achievement of his full potential according to his individual capacity; and (

g) the child’s cultural and religious heritage. C. The Best Interest Test (

a) The mental, emotional and physical health of the children and their need for appropriate care or treatment, or both and the need to provide a secure environment that would permit the children to become a useful and productive members of society through the achievement of their full potential according to their individual capacity [ 200 ] I find this is an appropriate case in which to combine paragraphs (

a) and (

f) of the best interests of the child analysis. [ 201 ] The evidence establishes that G.N. is a healthy eight-year-old child on the eve of her 9 th birthday She has no physical or cognitive impairments that require any specific interventions. She has by all accounts successfully transitioned into grade 4 at a new school and on balance things are going well. [ 202 ] She is responding well to the structure and routine in her foster care placement and behavioral issues are improving.

Additionally, she has responded well to counselling through the ISD program and is learning how to process complex emotions and generally “emotionally regulate,” when faced with feeling of anger or frustration. [ 203 ] She is feeling “heard,” and has gained the confidence necessary to set boundaries and apply those boundaries to the adults in her life. [ 204 ] Despite this positive trajectory in her development, the Court recognizes that her mental, emotional and physical needs are still significant at her age.

G.N. requires a safe secure and stable environment now and going forward in order for her to continue to meet her milestones and to reach her potential developmentally. [ 205 ] The Respondent’s home has historically presented child protection concerns as far back as when S.P. resided there as a child. The evidence satisfies me those concerns remained until the triggering events of 2021 which led to Ms. P’s departure from the home.

I am further satisfied that the Respondent’s home environment for reasons related to addiction, drug use and domestic violence negatively impacted G.N.’s psychological wellbeing for several years.

[ 206 ] The Respondents have not, for a very long time been able to discharge their responsibility as parents to meet G.N.’s needs and provide her with a secure and safe environment. Drug and alcohol use, addictions, financial instability and a relationship defined by issues of historical family violence created a perfect storm. At the center of that storm was a very young child. [ 207 ] On more than one occasion this child has been forced to hold her hands to ears to drown out the screaming and hide under her bed for safety.

Her fear of the violence was palpable then and in my view remains current today. [ 208 ] The impact of that environment will no doubt be as lasting for G.N., as it has been for S.P. The similarity between what S.P. experienced in the home as a child and what she has observed G.N. experience was striking. That evidence had an impact and is a foreshadowing of things to come for G.N. if she does not immediately have her needs supported via a secure and safe home environment. [ 209 ] Ms. P has disclosed to many, a very long history of violence in the relationship. She has disclosed to many being fearful of Mr. N.

Considering what she disclosed in the Danger Assessments in 2021 and 2022, it is clear the violence and the threats were significant. [ 210 ] I am not persuaded that the risk of intimate partner violence continuing has been sufficiently mitigated over the period of care. I accept that Ms. P has received support from Ms. Quigg as a life coach and an outreach worker. I further accept this has been a great support for Ms. P, however, Ms. Quigg is not a professional certified and trained to address the psychological issues at the heart of intimate partner violence. [ 211 ] Ms.

Boudreau is, however her sessions with Ms. P focused only on self care. While I do not fail to appreciate the value in these interventions or Ms. P’s commitment to engaging with them, I remain concerned that she is not equipped to recognize and address the issue of domestic violence should it present itself again. Ms. P’s decision to move back into the home, whether by necessity or choice is concerning. Particularly in light of Mr. N’s continued denial that domestic violence is an issue. A position that Ms.

P is well aware of. [ 212 ] In my view this demonstrates an inability to appreciate and meet G.N.’s need for a safe and secure environment. It further demonstrates that she does not appreciate the impact the environment has had on her psychological well being previously and the importance that must be placed on ensuring that she is not at risk of again being subjected to discord and violence in the home. Ms. P is aware of G.N.’s position on this front yet chose to move back in with Mr. N. [ 213 ] It is unfortunate that Ms. P di not pursue the Nurturing Change Program with G.N. with more vigor.

That program’s intervention may have assisted Ms. P in appreciating and understanding more fully the impact of domestic violence on G.N. and the how to protect her from it going forward. [ 214 ] Additionally, Mr. N also has not in the face of cogent evidence to the contrary, acknowledged that domestic violence was present in his home and that it had an impact on his daughter. Mr. N has consistently maintained, and articulated well in his evidence, that he will not engage with the Minister because he does not believe he has any parenting issues that negatively impact his child. [ 215 ] In his sessions with Mr.

Gordon he maintained the allegations of domestic violence by Ms. P were false. His work with Mr. Gordon at no time progressed to addressing the issues of violence in the relationship because Mr. N at no time accepted it. The sessions focused on Mr. N’s anger at the Minister and how to improve communications with the Minister. In the end even that goal was not achieved. [ 216 ] Collectively, all of this is a significant red flag for the court, one that cannot be ignored. Ms. P’s relocation back into the home without notice to the Minister and Mr.

N’s continued denial that intimate partner violence is an issue, presents a significant risk of the domestic violence recurring in the home in the presence of G.N. [ 217 ] Mr. N and Ms. P have been together for 29 years. The evidence was clear that despite living separate and apart the relationship continued. There is a co-dependency that I believe it will sustain the relationship going forward despite their historical discord. [ 218 ] Mr. N remains very angry at Ms. P for her deception in 2021.

He testified that as a result of her actions and lies “he lost his child, his name and nearly his home.” Yet, despite this anger which was evident in his testimony, he refers to her as his “best friend,” and he has welcomed her back into the family home. Ms. P, for her part, despite her past allegations of significant domestic violence at the hands of Mr.

N is prepared to live there. [ 219 ] There was nothing presented in the evidence that satisfied me there has been any changes in the foundation of this 29 year relationship that will assist the couple in avoiding the pattern of domestic violence that presented in the past. [ 220 ] Ms. P has historically not been able to shield G.N. from experiencing the domestic violence that is an integral part of that relationship. I don’t believe she will be able to do that going forward. [ 221 ] Of further concern, is that Ms. P has not in my view reached stability in managing her addiction issues. It is conceded that Ms.

P has engaged with the Minister on this front and presents as an individual willing and capable of accessing the appropriate services and resources from professionals and the community. She has and is trying. She has made progress and has effectively conquered some aspects of her addiction. [ 222 ] Despite these gains I do not accept that she has reached a point in her recovery where her addiction no longer presents a risk to G.N.’s security. While Ms. P is presently managing her alcohol abuse, she remains an addict. Her recovery is a work in progress. Ms. P’s addictions are long standing.

It will take time to achieve sobriety or at the very least a point where there is no risk of her looking for drugs outside of Dr. Davidson’s program. [ 223 ] At this juncture I am not satisfied that she can maintain focus on her continued recovery and simultaneously meet G.N.’s needs. I accept the opinion of Dr. Davidson that her inconsistency in presenting at mandatory group meetings is evidence of that. She has yet to reach “stability” in her recovery journey. Adding credibility to that opinion is the accepted evidence of S.P. that she continues to use outside the parameters of program.

[224] Accordingly, I do not believe Ms. P is able to prioritize her daughter’s needs and provide her a secure environment while trying tofind stability in her recovery process. Regrettably, the evidence did not convince me that Ms. P will be able to successfully manage heraddiction within a time line that is consistent with G.N.’s best interests. In reaching that conclusion I am also mindful that Ms. P has notengaged in any mental health or addictions counselling other than the self care strategies and Ms. Boudreau discussed. [225] Lastly, while Mr.

N’s engagement in drug use was not a central focus for the Minister, I am cognizant the case plan mandateddrug testing for both Respondents. The Minister seeks a home environment for G.N. that

[…]