2014 ONCJ 197, 2014 ONCJ 197

Court File No. FO-13-00000146-0000 Citation: Children’s Aid Society of Brant v. C.G ., 2014 ONCJ 197 ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE IN THE MATTER OF The Child and Family Services Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C.11 AND IN THE MATTER OF A child apparently in need of protection THE CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETY OF BRANT Applicant - and - C.G. - and – C.L. Respondents REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BEFORE THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE G.B. EDWARD on January 31, 2014 at BRANTFORD, Ontario INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROHIBITED FROM PUBLICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 45(8) OF THE CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICE ACT APPEARANCES :

E. Capitano Counsel for the Children’s Aid Society T. Simpson Counsel for C.G. ONTARIO COURT OF JUSTICE T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Page 1

Transcript Ordered: January 31, 2014 Transcript Completed: February 12, 2014 Ordering Party Notified: February 12, 2014 FRIDAY, JANUARY 31, 2014 R E A S O N S F O R J U D G M E N T EDWARD, J . (Orally): I am writing this decision in a child protection case involving a now 16-year old First Nations mother. C.G. was 15 when she had her daughter, S., the subject matter of this application and C.G. is now expecting a second child due in February of this year. The Children’s Aid Society of Brant is asking I make a Crown wardship order without access so that the child, S., can be adopted.

I have read then Assembly of First Nation’s Chief Phil Fontaine’s speech of 2008 wherein, wherein he indicated some 27,000 First Nations children were living in state care. The accuracy of that figure has been challenged by many Children’s Aid Societies across Canada. Even if that figure was halved to 13,500, that would still be an astounding number of children in care. It would represent more than the on-Reserve population of the Six Nations, the most populated First Nations in Canada. The material filed in this case is an inch thick. There are pages and pages of affidavit material filed about mother.

But of that material, here’s what was said of mother’s background: 1) Mother’s extended family has been involved extensively with the Society while she was a child; 2) The Society had ongoing involvement with mother as a child and had an open file with respect to mother’s mother when she became pregnant with C.G.; 3) The Society wanted to ensure that appropriate supports were in place for mother, especially due to her young age and the Society’s knowledge of neglect and abuse that mother experienced as a child; and finally four: 4) Mother has not had the benefit of a positive parenting role model while growing up.

That is what this court has learned about the background of mother as provided by the Society. The Society brought its protection application in April of 2013. The Society’s request for Crown wardship no access was initiated in November of 2013. The child was born in […] of 2012 and the Society has been working with mother since the child’s birth. Two things concern me about this case. I know virtually nothing about mother’s formative years, that is how she grew up. I do know that she didn’t have a strong parenting role model, which leads me to my second concern.

The expectation of the Society is that mother is expected to learn how to parent in little over a year.

In fairness, the mother has lots of challenges. For example, she got lonely when she was placed with the child at Grace Haven and was allowed to move with S. to C.G.’s, to C.G.’s father’s residence, which failed miserably because C.G.’s father declared it was, “screwing up his life.” But here’s what the discussion should be in my view: In Brantford we’ve started an Aboriginal Persons’ Court for criminal offenders with First Nations backgrounds.

Our goal is to first find out as much as we can about the offender and then fashion a sentence to address his or her criminogenic factors, while at the same time holding them accountable for their behaviour. The background of the Aboriginal offender is so important. The effect of residential schools, poverty, displacements, substance abuse, all impact on why that person is before the court. Surely a thorough canvassing of those factors with the mother in this case would help us understand why she’s in child protection court.

Yet, with knowing virtually nothing about mother’s background, we’ve given her a grand total of 13 months to learn how to become a mother. Over the past 16 months we have seen a connection, dare I say a bond, between S. and her mother. But we’ve also seen a lack of supports that mother has to give us any confidence that placement of S. with mom would prove successful. She says she can rely on family, friends, and the Society, but it’s clear, with this motion for

summary judgment, the Society does not believe mom can parent S. for the long term. We know what her father’s opinion of helping mom is. We know C.G.’s mother provided no parenting model for C.G., and C.G. and her current boyfriend simply argue way too much, which speaks volumes to their chance of succeeding as a couple. So, what is it the mom could show at trial that would demonstrate any ability to parent S.? Sadly, apart from the love she shows to S., perhaps not much. And the case law suggests love itself cannot be the triable issue.

But in this case I’ve tried to articulate at least the need to better investigate the backgrounds of these young First Nations mothers to better understand their parental shortcomings. Once that’s identified, then we need to determine what can be done to overcome these parenting deficits. The information provided in this motion for

summary judgment does not adequately speak to mother’s background and, thus in my view, becomes that triable issue. In essence, the triable issue in this case can be summarized in three questions: 1 ) What was mother’s background and how that did or did not prepare her to parent? 2 ) What resources, aside from the Children’s Aid Society, are available to help mother learn how to parent? 3 ) What timeframe is realistic for mother’s rehabilitation as a parent in order to balance that with the child’s retaining the potential to be adopted? And so it is that I am dismissing the Society’s motion for

summary judgment and adjourning this matter to a trial management conference. There are two expectations for the court at this trial management conference:

1) The Society’s case really can almost go in by way of affidavit material. Secondly, and I stress this, not to put too much pressure on you, Ms. Simpson, the heavy onus will be on OCL counsel to marshal evidence on mother’s upbringing and alternatives to the Society working with mother, i.e., the potential for input from clan mothers and the Band’s social service agency. As the respondent, C.L., was previously noted in default, he shall not participate in the trial. On today’s date the court’s endorsement is: For oral reasons given, the Society’s motion for

summary judgment dismissed and matter adjourned to a trial management conference for –- and, Madam clerk, a date for a trial management conference? CLERK REGISTRAR: That’s in front of Justice Baker? THE COURT: In front of me. CLERK REGISTRAR: In front of you? There’s February 12 th at two o’clock. MS. SIMPSON: Is there a later date? I need time. CLERK REGISTRAR: March 12 th at three o’clock. MS. SIMPSON: I’m -- March Break, I’m not here. CLERK REGISTRAR: Oh, sorry. MS. SIMPSON: I’m sorry. CLERK REGISTRAR: March 21 st at 12:30? MS. SIMPSON: That would be agreeable. MS.

CAPITANO: I am in, we’re in Superior Court that day. MS. SIMPSON: Sorry, we are in Superior Court. CLERK REGISTRAR: March 25 th at 12:30? MS. SIMPSON: That’s agreeable. MS. CAPITANO: That’s agreeable. THE COURT: And just to confirm, I’ve reviewed the endorsement record. I have not settlement conferenced this matter and this court intends on holding onto this file. Any issues with that? MS. SIMPSON: No, Your Honour. MS. CAPITANO: I’ll have to seek instructions from my client. THE COURT: Thank you. For oral reasons given, Society’s motion for

summary judgment dismissed and matter adjourned to a trial management conference for? CLERK REGISTRAR: March 25 th at 12:30. MS. SIMPSON: Thank you, Your Honour. THE COURT: And if you do have an issue as a result of instructions from your principle, you can argue that prior to the commencement of the trial management conference on March 25 th , but you should prepare an affidavit deposed to by your principle indicating why this court ought not to hear the trial of this matter, given that the court has not conducted a settlement conference, has done the motion for

summary judgment. But in my view that in and of itself does not preclude the court from hearing the trial. ...WHEREUPON THESE PROCEEDINGS WERE ADJOURNED