Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services), 2023 NSSC 330

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) , 2023 NSSC 330 Date: 20231019 Docket: SFHCFSA , No. 127135; 125679 Registry: Halifax Between: Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) Applicant v. R.S. and J.L. Respondents Judge: The Honourable Justice Cindy G Cormier Heard: October 3, 4, 5, 6, 2023, in Halifax, Nova Scotia Counsel: Angela Swantee, for the Applicant Ashley Wolfe, for the Respondent, R.S. Katelyn Viner for Respondent, J.L.

Restriction on Publication: Pursuant to subsection 94(1) of the Children and Family Services Act , S.N.S. 1990, c. 5 , there is a ban on disclosing information that has the effect of identifying a child who is a witness at or a participant in a hearing or the subject of a proceeding pursuant to this Act, or a parent or guardian, a foster parent or a relative of the child. By the Court: Introduction [ 1 ] The Minister of Community Services wants 4 children placed in her permanent care and custody. The children are a 7-year-old boy, MA; a 6-year-old boy, MI; a 13-month-old girl, S, and a 13-month-old boy, J.

The children’s mother, Ms. S, was born in 1983 and their father, Mr. L, was born in 1990. They want the children returned to them. [ 2 ] The issues that will determine whether the children are returned to Ms. S and Mr. L are: (

a) Whether returning the children to Ms. S and Mr. L is the least intrusive alternative that’s in the children’s best interests under clause 46(4) (

c) of the Children and Family Services Act ; and (

b) Whether the circumstances that justify a permanent care order for MA and MI under section 46(6) of the Act are unlikely to change before October 19, 2023; and (

c) Whether the circumstances that justify a permanent care order for S and J under subsection 46(6) of the Act are unlikely to change before February 22, 2024. [ 3 ] On or about November 10, 2021, the Nova Scotia Minister of Community Services – Child Protection (Nova Scotia agency), became involved with the parties and their two eldest children after they received information from the Department of Children, Seniors, and Social Development in Newfoundland (Newfoundland agency). The Newfoundland agency advised they had had involvement with Ms. S and Mr.

L beginning after MA’s birth in 2016. [3] The Newfoundland agency advised the Nova Scotia agency they were concerned that Ms. S and the children had left Newfoundland during an open child protection investigation with many services still pending, that Ms. S had been referred to in-home support services, and there was an expectation Ms. S would follow up on referrals for the child(ren) to speech language pathology, and to an autism specialist. [ 4 ] The Newfoundland agency had identified concerns while involved with the family, including: family violence; substance

abuse; unfit living conditions; parental mental health; and inappropriate discipline of the children. The agency reported there were allegations of: emotional abuse and neglect; unsafe and unsanitary conditions of the home including food being left around and bugs in the home; risk of Ms. S becoming physical with the children; and the possibility Ms. S was experiencing suicidal ideation. [ 5 ] The Newfoundland agency specified they were also concerned that Ms. S had stated she had been diagnosed with Castleman’s disease and she was experiencing chronic pain. The Newfoundland agency reported that Ms.

S had advised them she was moving to Halifax, Nova Scotia for treatment and for support from the children’s paternal grandmother, Mr. L’s mother. [ 6 ] The Newfoundland agency advised they had informed Ms. S they would be referring her matter on to the Nova Scotia agency. They advised the Nova Scotia agency that they had returned the children to Ms. S’s care with the understanding that Mr. L had left Newfoundland and he had moved to Nova Scotia in or around April 15 th , 2018, and the parties understood they could not have contact in the presence of the children, and Mr.

L could not be left unsupervised with the children. [ 7 ] On cross-examination of the parties Mr. L stated that he: Tried to have a coparenting relationship with my children, which for a time worked out quite well, but it also came to my attention at that point (Ms.

S) started seeing T, and I met T on a couple of other occasions, I see him as an okay guy, but not somebody I would trust with my kids, so that kind of created conflict, you know. I didn’t have conflict with him, however, because of those interactions, there was one point where MA had looked up and called me (J). And I seen that as 100 percent disrespectful, I got escalated, however, I did hang up the call because these is going to get bad fast, I cant do it . After that, me, I mean myself and (Ms.

S) got in, I believe, an argument that night and … I didn’t know she was moving… I was blocked, she moved, I had no contact for … two and half years. [ 8 ] On cross-examination, Ms. S suggested she married T in 2019 and that they separated at the end of 2020 or before then. She was in relationship with T for about a year and a half. In counseling sessions, Ms. S admitted her husband, T, whom she married after separating from Mr. L, had been both physically and emotionally abusive toward her. In her family skills sessions with Ms.

West she confirmed the children were exposed to T yelling at her a lot. [ 9 ] The Newfoundland agency stated that in or around the spring of 2021 or the fall of 2021, when Ms. S suggested she would be moving to Nova Scotia, Ms. S, clearly understood the Newfoundland agency’s position that the parties should not have contact in the presence the children and that Mr. L could not have unsupervised contact with the children. Therefore the parties could not live together with the children. [ 10 ] The Newfoundland agency advised that Ms. S had stated to them that she had no intention of “having anything to do with” Mr.

L. She indicated to them that she would never put her children in danger by having them around Mr. L. [ 11 ] When meeting with child protection workers in Nova Scotia, Mr. L and Ms. S both claimed they had had no intention to reunite and that Ms. S’s circumstances upon arrival in Nova Scotia gave her no choice but to reach out to Mr. L for assistance with her living arrangements and with the children. I do not accept that Mr. L and Ms. S’s resumed contact was unplanned by them. [ 12 ] Ms. S and Mr.

L were described as defensive when the Nova Scotia agency workers challenged the parties about past concerns which had been identified by the Newfoundland agency, including concerns regarding domestic violence, concerns regarding Mr. L’s violence towards the children, and concerns regarding Ms. S’s follow through with respect to the safety plan discussed with the Newfoundland agency before she left Newfoundland to live in Nova Scotia. [ 13 ] Mr. L claimed there had only been “one domestic” and the parties had understood Ms. S could supervise Mr. L’s contact with the children. I do not accept that either Mr.

L or Ms. S misunderstood the direction given to them by the Newfoundland agency or that they were not aware of the safety plan Ms. S was required to follow, or that it was not Ms. S’s choice to connect with Mr. L and permit him to have contact with the children contrary to her representations and contrary to the safety plan. [ 14 ] With respect to the incident of “domestic violence” perpetrated against Ms. S, Mr. L explained that while in Newfoundland he had self-reported he had assaulted Ms. S and he cooperated with police. Mr.

L downplayed the seriousness of the incident by suggesting that during the police investigation there had been a mistake in the initial police report which suggested, in error, that the shotgun was found loaded under bed rather than on the bed, unloaded, with the breach open, as Mr. L claims. I do not accept there was only one incident of domestic violence while the parties were in Newfoundland. [ 15 ] Mr. L has stated that he and Ms.

S “did not refuse to participate in ‘Impacts of Domestic Violence,’” he suggested: We refused to agree that we were participating in family support work on the basis that domestic violence was a problem in our family . It is not a regular practice in our household to fight each other.

In the past we were under the understanding that domestic violence is between partners, however we now know that domestic violence includes anyone in the home.” The concern has always been about the parties lack of insight and their lack of recognition that the children’s difficulties regulating their emotions was likely in part related to the parties’ parenting choices. [ 16 ] The Nova Scotia agency became aware of the Newfoundland agency’s concerns about Mr. L and Ms. S residing together, either in Mr. L’s home at that time or in his mother’s home, and Mr.

L’s mother was considered as a possible supervisor for his contact with the children. The plan failed as Mr. L’s mother was not prepared to assist in the manner stipulated by the Nova Scotia agency. [ 17 ] To address the risk of harm to the children, the Nova Scotia agency’s expectation in November 2021 was that Ms. S and the children find alternative accommodations. Ms. S made an initial application for immediate funding and she was provided funding to stay at a local hotel with the children. The agency provided support for the children to be transported to school by taxi while the agency understood Ms.

S’s application for social assistance was being processed. It does not appear that Ms. S applied to the court for an order for child support or spousal support from Mr. L.

[ 18 ] Initially, in or around early November 2021, Mr. L was offered supervised parenting time with the children through the Nova Scotia agency but he declined the offer as he was not interested in attending access with the children if a worker was going to supervise his contact or he would only agree to do so if his mother could attend and she could record his supervised parenting time with the children. In or around the end of November 2021, Mr. L identified and the Nova Scotia agency approved a person to supervised Mr. L’s parenting time with the children. [ 19 ] Mr.

L has stated that when the agency representative, Ms. W, first called to introduce herself as the parties’ new long-term worker, he told her that other social workers working with the Nova Scotia and Newfoundland agencies did not “leave a good taste in my (his) mouth.” He indicated that although he did want to participate and services offered through or work with the Nova Scotia agency, he advised he could be “mildly hostile” when speaking with workers as he felt the agency was a threat to his children and his family. Mr.

L explained about his “Luciferian religious bloodline” which he stated made him extremely protective and possessive over “that which he considers his” and that it also “enforces his primitive rights to be human”. [ 20 ] When Mr. L was asked about services he had received since arriving in Nova Scotia, from Newfoundland in or around 2018, he advised he attended the Abby Lane hospital in 2020, due to “delusions and hallucinations” he had been experiencing. Subsequently, Mr.

L has stated he had not stated he had been suffering from “delusions or hallucinations” when admitted to hospital in 2020, but he was admitted to the Abby Lane hospital after a suicide attempt due to depression related to the pandemic. [ 21 ] Mr. L claimed that while he was admitted to the Abby Lane hospital the staff told him that his “spirit guide” was nothing more than “voices in his head.” He claimed that he was prescribed medication by injection, but the medication made him extremely sore and taking it was debilitating. He decided to discontinue his medication. [ 22 ] I would note that when Mr.

L spoke with Dr. Mulhall while participating in a psychiatric assessment, Dr. Mulhall had noted that Mr. L had reported that the medication he was prescribed while at the Abbey Lane Hospital made him feel like a zombie or zoned out. At one point in time, Mr. L has stated he has refused to “get rid of (his) voice inside (him), as “he’s” the best thing that’s happened to me.” However, Mr. L did not appear to have shared any information about a “voice inside him”, when Mr. L participated in a psychiatric assessment with Dr. Mulhall.

In any event, perpetrators of family violence or child maltreatment may or may not have formal mental health diagnoses. [ 23 ] Mr. L claimed he had almost finished a “No One’s Perfect” program through a Family Resource Centre. The Nova Scotia agency completed a collateral contact with the Fairview Family Resource Centre and the Centre suggested Mr. L had completed the “Nobody’s Perfect Program,” a general parenting support program for parents of children ages 0-5 years old in 2017 (however there is no evidence he was in Nova Scotia before 2018), and the Centre suggested Mr.

L may have completed some services in 2018. [ 24 ] The agency representative also completed a collateral contact with an individual Mr. L stated had been a previous employer of Mr. L’s. The individual spoke very positively about Mr. L. [ 25 ] On December 7, 2021, Mr. L contacted the Nova Scotia agency and he left a message stating he understood the Nova Scotia agency had a copy of the Newfoundland agency’s file and agency representatives would be making collateral checks. Mr.

L requested a meeting the next day, demanding the matter be taken before a Supreme Court judge within ten days as he would be “suing the actual fucking life out of everyone.” [ 26 ] On December 9, 2021, an agency representative completed another collateral contact, this time with the Major Crimes Division. Mr. L’s criminal history was reviewed. The Agency was advised Mr. L did not appear to be on any outstanding conditions. [ 27 ] On December 19, 2021, the Nova Scotia agency decided Mr. L’s contact with the children no longer needed to be supervised and they would offer the family voluntary services.

The parties were advised of the agency’s expectation that Ms. S would continue to act protectively with respect to the children, meaning that if Mr. L became escalated or inappropriate, Ms. S would do what was necessary including: contacting the police; asking Mr. L to leave; or leaving with the children herself. [ 28 ] The Nova Scotia agency offered to continue to work with the family on a voluntary basis and to fund counseling for the parties and / or to arrange and fund autism assessments for the children.

The parties declined. [ 29 ] The Nova Scotia agency recommended the parties engage in services including but not limited to: the Parenting Journey Program; mental health counseling; the Schools Plus Program; and suggested that they connect with Autism Nova Scotia to arrange for the children to be assessed. Mr. L and Ms. S denied they needed counseling. Most Recent Involvement [ 30 ] In or around March 21, 2022, the Minister of Community Services received a referral from the children’s school.

They advised that MA had stated “my daddy slammed me on the floor and then my tooth got loose.” [ 31 ] On March 24, 2022, the children were interviewed at their school by an agency social worker. 1. MI disclosed that his father held his brother up and “hit him down” and “made his tooth bleed.” MI then “put his hands around his own neck and motioned lifting up with his hand still around his neck.” 2. When asked what had led up to this happening, MI said MA threw a knife at his father.

When MI was asked about rules in the home and consequences, he stated there were no rules in the home but when he gets in trouble, he is required to place a book on his head. 3. MA stated there were lots of rules at his house and that if he broke a rule he had to stand in the corner with a heavy book on his head and that it hurt. When MA was asked if there were any other consequences for breaking rules MA indicated that his father would spank him on the bum with his hand.

4. MA then disclosed that when he had been standing in a corner with a book on his head his father tried to spank him but MA threw the book at his father and his father picked him up and slammed him on the ground and his tooth bled. MA explained that his father lifted him by placing one hand to his throat and the other hand under his armpit. [ 32 ] On March 28, 2022, the children’s school reported Mr. L had attended the school on Friday March 25, 2022 and he had provided them with a note indicating his children were not permitted to speak with social workers at school without a parent present.

While delivering the note, Mr. L told a school staff person he was involved in an ongoing lawsuit in Newfoundland, he was taking social workers from Nova Scotia to court, and that he would include school staff in a lawsuit if the school staff permitted his children to be interviewed at the school. Mr. L then stated that MA was a liar. [ 33 ] On March 30, 2022, an agency representative met with Mr. L and Ms. S and learned that the children had been home from school for several days. They further noted that during their conversation with Mr.

L he described the children’s behaviours as “out of control” while in the home. [ 34 ] The issue of excessive discipline and several other issues were discussed with the parties. The agency representatives engaged in a discussion with Mr. L about how he had been physically beaten and abused as a child and the representative suggested to him that he did not want the same for his children. [ 35 ] Mr. L agreed some of the discipline used on him by members of his family of origin was abusive, but he stated that he believed some of it worked. Mr. L suggested that some level of fear works. Mr.

L shared that he also felt it was appropriate to use soap in children’s mouths as it does not cause them any physical harm. [ 36 ] Mr. L also observed that the agency uses fear as a deterrent. As an example, Mr. L stated that before the agency representatives arrived to meet with them he had wanted or he intended to slap one of the children in the mouth for calling him a “cocksucker,” which he acknowledged is a word the children have heard him call the dog, but instead he had chosen not to do so.

He explained that his fear of the agency’s potential reaction to him slapping a child in the mouth and the potential consequences were a deterrent for him. [ 37 ] Mr. L did not and still does not have the insight to see the parallel between how his fear and distrust of the agency affects his ability to work with the agency and benefit from their support and services can be compared to the children’s fear of Mr. L hurting them / their distrust affecting the children’s ability to potentially benefit from Mr. L’s guidance. The social worker described Mr.

L as cooperative during the meeting but as showing no insight into the risks of using excessive discipline and / or potentially emotionally abusive discipline methods with children. [ 38 ] On April 22, 2022, an agency representative was text messaging with Ms. S in an effort to ensure she had adequate pre-natal care in place and Ms. S raised some questions about how to complete home schooling documentation for the children. Following their communication the agency representative dropped off prenatal vitamins for Ms. S at her home. [ 39 ] On April 27, 2022, Mr.

L contacted an agency representative stating he was unhappy and he wanted to meet with an agency representative that day as he wished to discuss the parties right to homeschool their children and his request that the agency no longer be involved with his family. The agency representative observed that throughout the conversation Mr. L repeatedly requested the worker confirm whether the agency representative felt the parties’ children were at risk, and Mr. L became “quite escalated and loud.” [ 40 ] The agency representative indicated that during their conversation she asked Mr.

L to speak more respectfully to her and she confirmed with him her belief the parties’ children were “at risk.” She went on to state to Mr. L that despite his request for the agency to “leave his family alone,” the agency would continue its investigation regarding potential risk to the parties’ children. [ 41 ] Later on April 27, 2022, the Nova Scotia agency received a copy of the parties’ Parental Capacity Assessment which had been completed in Newfoundland in 2017. Therein, historical concerns about Ms. S such as: her mental health; her anger management; her violence toward Mr.

L; and her use of cannabis were reviewed. Concerns about Mr. L were also considered including: his mental health; his anger management issues; his admission regarding assaulting Ms. S; his use of cannabis; and his difficulty with being “triggered” when MA would cry. [ 42 ] The report from the school in March 2022 and the children’s disclosures when interviewed at the school a few days later led the Nova Scotia agency to open a new investigation.

In addition to the school referral information, the agency subsequently received and reviewed the Parental Capacity Assessment referred to above, and would also have considered: Mr. L’s demands for the Nova Scotia agency not to have any contact with his family; Mr. L’s and Ms. S’s refusal to work voluntarily with the Nova Scotia agency; Mr. L’s and Ms.

S’s apparent lack of insight about the potential risks of physical or emotional harm when using excessive and / or physical discipline with children; the parties’ decision to home school their children, thereby limiting regular oversight of the children by third party professionals who would be in a position to identify necessary interventions or concerns; and the agency would also have considered Mr. L’s position that the children’s behaviour in the parties’ home was “out of control” when the agency was determining whether the children were at risk of harm with the parties. [ 43 ] On April 28, 2022, given Mr.

L’s previously heightened emotional responses when interacting with agency representatives in both Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, and given his heightened emotional presentation when he had previously attended the agency offices, a safety plan was put in place in advance of a scheduled meeting with Mr. L at the agency offices. A decision was made to have two child protection social workers meet with Mr. L together, while three police officers were available to assist as necessary. [ 44 ] At the meeting, agency representatives spoke with Mr.

L about the agency’s overall concerns as noted above, touching on the agency’s concerns about his mental health and the agency’s position that the discipline he was using with the parties’ children was inappropriate and / or excessive generally and placed the children at risk of ongoing physical and emotional harm. When Mr. L was advised of the agency’s intention to take the children into care, Mr. L became emotionally escalated. [ 45 ] Mr. L argued that the meeting with his worker the previous day had gone fine and he wanted to go to court and “sue all of

(your) asses.” Mr. L also argued that the Minister would require a court order before the agency could take the children into their care and custody. [ 46 ] Mr. L also argued that the agency representatives could not take the parties’ children into their care and custody as the children were not where the agency representatives believed the children would be. When Mr. L learned Ms. S and the children had been located by the agency and police, he accused the police of corruption generally and he alleged babies were being taken by the agency and by police and being sold for a profit.

He suggested the parties’ children would be “sold to the Ukraine.” [ 47 ] Mr. L was observed to gesture toward an agency representative and state in a loud tone directed at police about the representative, “just think what would happen to them if you weren’t here today.” A police officer directed Mr. L not to gesture toward the agency representative and then police attempted to explain to Mr. L that the social worker’s role was to protect children. [ 48 ] Meanwhile, as noted above, police and an agency representative had located the vehicle where Ms. S and the children had been directed by Mr. L to wait. Ms.

S was observed to become “escalated” when she was advised of the agency’s intention to take the children into their care and custody, after having determined the children were at risk of ongoing physical and emotional harm. [ 49 ] Ms. S claimed the agency had their information wrong and that Mr. L had not assaulted her in Newfoundland, that she had instead been trying to stop Mr. L from killing himself and that Mr. L had never hurt the children. When Ms.

S was asked to step out of the vehicle she was in with the children, she immediately began “screaming” and she directed the children to lock the car doors, telling the children bad people were trying to take them away. While still in the children’s presence, Ms.

S stated that children die in foster care and she claimed the Minister had previously killed her baby and the Minister would be responsible for her losing the babies she was carrying at that time. [ 50 ] After the children were taken into care and while final arrangements were still being made to secure a foster home placement for the children, the agency representative who had care of the children observed they presented as generally relaxed and happy when transported to buy necessities and visiting a playground.

However, the agency representative reported the children did make comments such as: “my daddy is a bad guy” and “daddy said we would be safe in the car and that the bad people wouldn’t be able to take us.” [ 51 ] In addition, the agency representative observed MA stated “well you know I am a liar ” and that when MA was asked what would happen when he lied, MA stated “daddy will smack my butt really, really, hard” and MA stated that sometimes he is afraid (scared) of his father.

Although MA shared that his parents had told him the social worker was a “bad guy,” MA advised the agency representative that he did not think she was bad, but instead he believed she was “really nice.” [ 52 ] The agency representative observed that throughout the day both children told her they loved her. She reported that she responded to the children by stating that she wanted to make sure they were happy, healthy, and safe. She also spoke with the children about police officers wanting them to be happy, healthy, and safe.

She also observed that upon the children’s arrival at the foster home for the first time, they did not present with any concerns. [ 53 ] The matter of the Minister of Community Services v. R.S. and J.L SFHCFSA 125679, involving the two eldest children, MA and MI first came to court on May 5, 2022.

The first disposition hearing was completed on October 20, 2022, and the initial Agency Plan for the Children’s Care was dated September 21, 2022 and was reviewed by the court. [ 54 ] Reviews of the Agency’s Plan dated September 21, 2022 were subsequently completed by the Court on January 12, 2023, and on March 30, 2023. An updated Agency Plan for the Children’s Care seeking placement of the children in the Minister’s permanent care and custody is dated May 9, 2023 and was filed in advance of a court review on May 30, 2023.

In addition, a combined review hearing, including both files and all four children, was completed on August 29, 2023, and evidence was heard during four days of trial in October 2023. [ 55 ] On or about May 13, 2022, while an agency representative was transporting the children to an access visit with their mother, Ms. S, and their father, Mr. L, MA stated he did not wish to see his father but only wanted to see his mother.

MI was observed to present as indifferent about seeing his father but as excited about a visit with his mother. [ 56 ] Despite the agency representative explaining to MA that someone would be in the room with them for the visit and in response to MA’s questions, assuring MA they would be returning to their school / daycare and to their foster home after the visit, MA insisted he did not want to see his father that day. Mr. L and Ms. S were advised MA had expressed he did not wish to see his father. Mr. L agreed he would allow Ms.

S to see the children alone. [ 57 ] Subsequently, the agency representative supervising the access visit between the children and Ms. S observed that Ms. S was focusing a considerable amount of time and effort speaking to the children about including their father in the visit, and that she had eventually elicited interest from one of the children. Despite direction from the agency that Mr. L would not be participating in the visit that day, Ms. S telephoned Mr.

L and she suggested to him that he return to the agency offices to participate in the visit. [ 58 ] The commissionaires responsible for safety and security at the building where the agency offices are located advised an agency representative that at the agency’s request they had intervened when Mr. L attempted to re-enter the building. When Mr. L was told he could not enter the agency building he demanded to speak with a supervisor.

When he was not able to speak with a supervisor he suggested he would be contacting the police and he left the immediate area. [ 59 ] When the agency did not reverse their position about Mr. L’s visit that day and the agency did not immediately arrange for an agency representative or supervisor to meet with Mr. L that day, Mr. L was overheard on Ms. S’s telephone telling her he would be contacting the police to intervene. Mr. L was also overheard commenting to Ms. S about someone having seen his knife in his possession. [ 60 ] Mr.

L left a voicemail message for the agency representative facilitating access that day, questioning how he could be banned from a public building. Mr. L stated that he expected the agency representative who had been involved in the decision to exclude him

from the visit that day, and involved in the decision to exclude him from future visits would not be in court, as Mr. L believed therepresentative was afraid of him. [61] Mr. L stated to the agency representative that he “would be willing to meet him any time of any day and that he would makesure he was there.” The agency representative interpreted Mr. L’s message as Mr. L’s invitation to “meet him to fight.” [62] The commissionaires noted that when Mr.

L had returned to the agency to attempt to gain entry to the access visit the “knife hehad been wearing on his hip was gone.” A report was filed by the commissionaires. [63] Subsequently, Mr. L was “banned” from the Gottingen Street agency and a decision was made to serve him with a Protection ofProperty Act Order if he returned. Mr. L’s access with MA and MI was suspended on a go forward basis. Mr. L’s behaviour wasexcessive and threatening, showing an inability to problem solve and work with the agency in the children’s best interests. [64] The agency suspended Ms.

S’s in-person access with MA and MI and substituted virtual access, due to her involvement in thedrama. [65] On May 30, 2022, joint interviews for the children with an agency representative and a member of the Halifax Major CrimesDivision, were scheduled at the IWK Hospital, the children disclosed as follows: 1. MA stated that when he gets in trouble, he is made to stand in a corner facing the wall and has to hold books on his head. MA saidthat this hurts his head and his arms. At one point during the interview, MA said “Mr. Wolf is a bad guy”, and confirmed he refers to hisfather as Mr.

Wolf and he is punished for 6 minutes… and that MI is punished for 5 minutes. 2. When asked about any other punishments MA stated that if he does not listen, sometimes his father smacks him on the butt andthat his father is strong and fast… In terms of when his father smacks him on the butt, MA said that it hurts a lot and that he cries a lot. He also spoke about his father yelling at him a lot. 3. Near the end of the interview, when asked if there was anywhere other than his bum that Mr. Wolf hits him, MA said “sometimeshe slams me on the floor”.

When asked why this happens, MA said that it was because he threw a book at his father because he did notwant his father smacking him on the butt. 4. MA explained that his father was coming toward him, his father looked like he was going to smack MA on the butt, and MA threwa book at his father and then his father “picked [him up] and slammed [him] on the floor.” MA said he remembered his mother tellinghis father to be gentle and that his father grabbed him on the neck and then slammed him onto the floor.

MA stated that this happened inthe corner and after that his father put him on his bed, told him to open his mouth, and then his father said “ah a little blood”. MA saidthat his father then slammed the door right in his face. 5. MA said that his mother told his father to apologize to MA, but that his father did not apologize. MA said that once his father wasno longer mad, his father said he was sorry. 6. When asked whether there were any other punishments, MI said that his parents put him in a dark room and that he hates the dark.

Evidence - Credibility [66] In L.M. v K.M, 2022 BCSC 689, the Court found: Credibility and Reliability [274] The credibility of the witnesses and the parties in particular is, as I have indicated, a critical issue in this case. [275] Credibility or truthfulness and reliability or accuracy are related but distinct concepts. A truthful witness, for example, may bemistaken about what they recall. [276] Credibility and reliability are not all or nothing concepts. The trier of fact may believe some, all, or none of a witness’sevidence and attach different weights to different part of their evidence: R. v.

R. (D.), (SCC), [1996] 2 S.C.R. 291,[1996] S.C.J. No. 8 at para. 93. [277] The proper approach to assessing the truthfulness of any interested witness was articulated many years ago in Faryna v.Chorny, (BC CA), [1952] 2 D.L.R. 354, [1951] B.C.J. No. 152 (C.A.) at 357, with these words: The credibility of interested witnesses, particularly in cases of conflict of evidence, cannot be gauged solely by the test of whether thepersonal demeanour of the particular witness carried conviction of the truth.

The test must reasonably subject his story to anexamination of its consistency with the probabilities that surround the currently existing conditions. In short, the real test of thetruth of the story of a witness in such a case must be its harmony with the preponderance of the probabilities which a practical andinformed person would readily recognize as reasonable in that place and in those conditions. [278] Bradshaw v.

Stenner, 2010 BCSC 1398at para. 186, aff’d 2012 BCCA 296 [Stenner], identified several factors that may beconsidered when assessing both credibility and reliability, which I summarize as follows: the capacity and opportunity of the witnessto observe the events at issue; the witness’s ability to remember those events; the ability of the witness to resist being influencedby their interest in recalling those events; internal and external inconsistency in the witness’s evidence, meaning did theirtestimony change between direct and cross-examination, between prior statements, their discovery evidence and their evidenceat trial; whether the witness’s evidence harmonizes with or is contradicted by other evidence, particularly independent orundisputed evidence; whether their evidence seems unreasonable, improbable or unlikely, bearing in mind the probabilities

affecting the case; and the witness’s demeanour, meaning the way they presented while testifying. [279] Regarding the last factor, Faryna and other authorities have discussed the dangers of relying too heavily on the demeanour of awitness to determine their credibility, recognizing the risk of misinterpreting the testimony of the better actor as truthful, and conversely,the poor presentation of an honest witness as deceptive (see: R. v. Jeng, 2004 BCCA 464at para. 54; R. v.

Tyers, 2015 BCCA 507atpara. 18). [280] The law also prohibits unsupported stereotypical reasoning and speculation about human behaviour, from affecting theassessment of credibility. It is now understood and well accepted that there is no typical victim or typical perpetrator or typicalways in which a victim or perpetrator will behave. [281] I also note the recognized need to assess the evidence of children somewhat differently based on their age at the time of thealleged events. In R. v. B. (G.), (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 30, [1990] S.C.J.

No. 58 at para. 56, Justice Wilson observed: [56] … While children may not be able to recount precise details and communicate the when and the where of an event withexactitude, this does not mean that they have misconceived what happened to them and who did it. [282] Finally, I remind myself of the relationship between the civil burden of proof, on a balance of probabilities, and the assessment ofcredibility, as described in F.H. v.

McDougall, 2008 SCC 53: [49] In all civil cases, the trial judge must scrutinize the relevant evidence with care to determine whether it is more likely than notthat an alleged event has occurred. … [86] However, in civil cases in which there is conflicting testimony, the judge is deciding whether a fact occurred on a balance ofprobabilities. In such cases, provided the judge has not ignored evidence, finding the evidence of one party credible may well beconclusive of the result because that evidence will mean explicitly or implicitly that the other party was not believed on theimportant issue in the case.

That may be especially true where a plaintiff makes allegations that are altogether denied by the defendantas in this case. … Admitting and Assessing Hearsay Evidence [283] I now turn to discuss the legal principles that govern the admission and assessment of M’s sexual abuse disclosures, or hearsaystatements. Primarily concerned with an inability to test out of court statements through cross-examination, the hearsay rule provides thatout of court statements are presumptively inadmissible to prove the truth of what was said, subject to the traditional and principledexceptions: R. v. Khelawon, 2006 SCC 57.

The evidence of a child’s disclosures of abuse may be admitted for their truth under theprincipled exception to the hearsay rule (Khelawon at para. 42). At common law, this exception requires that the evidence is bothnecessary and reliable. [284]

Section 202 of the FLA provides that in a proceeding under the Act, having regard to the best interests of a child, the Courtmay “admit hearsay evidence it considers reliable of a child who is absent”, indicating that the only criterion is reliability. In anyevent, it is well accepted that the potential for significant harm or trauma to a child, particularly a young child, if required to testify aboutalleged abuse by a parent, is more than sufficient to establish necessity. In R. v.

F. (W.J.), (SCC), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 569,[1992] 12 W.W.R. 587 (S.C.C.), the Supreme Court of Canada recognized that the reasons for the necessity may be diverse: “rangingfrom total testimonial incompetence to traumatic consequences to the witness testifying” (para. 36). [285] The case law provides that threshold reliability must be established before an out of court statement can be admitted forits truth, and if admitted, assessed for its ultimate reliability.

Although there is a distinction between threshold reliability, whichconcerns admissibility, and ultimate reliability, which concerns the degree to which the hearsay evidence is relied on or accepted, bothmust be assessed in accordance with the principles in Khelawon and R. v. Bradshaw, 2017 SCC 35[Bradshaw]. Essentially, all relevantfactors must be considered, including the presence of supporting or contradicting evidence: Khelawon at paras. 2 and 4. [286] Khelawon and Bradshaw also discussed two types of reliability.

The first, referred to in Bradshaw as procedural reliability, isestablished where there is no real concern about the truth or accuracy of the out of court statement because adequate proceduralsafeguards were present at the time it was made: para. 31. A statement made under oath or affirmation at a preliminary inquiry is anexample. The second type of reliability, substantive reliability, arises from the circumstances in which the statement came about orwas made.

It may be established where there are “sufficient circumstantial or evidentiary guarantees that the statement is inherentlytrustworthy”, or the statement was made in circumstances where cross-examination would add little or be unlikely to changeit: Bradshaw at para. 22 and Khelawon at para. 62. [287] With respect to children’s hearsay statements, the indicators or factors to be considered in assessing reliability have beenidentified as including: the timing of the statement; the demeanour of the child; their personality, intelligence and understanding;the child’s age, whether the statements were made spontaneously or in response to non-leading questions; the absence of a motiveto fabricate on the part of the child; the absence of motive to fabricate or bias on the part of the person testifying to the child’sstatement; the absence of suggestion, manipulation, coaching, or undue influence; and consistency over time: R. v.

Khan, (SCC), [1990] 2 S.C.R. 531,1990 CarswellOnt 108 at para. 30; DAM v. DAT, 2013 BCSC 259 at paras. 23-26; and D.D.R. v.K.T.R., 2019 BCSC 1805at para. 102. Assessment of the Evidence [288] I begin by observing that, although the parties attacked one another’s credibility, and to a lesser extent that of some of theirwitnesses, they made limited submissions about how I ought to assess the credibility and reliability of any of the evidence. (myemphasis)

[67] The Court in In L.M. v K.M, 2022 BCSC 689, also stated: [268] Family violence, identified in s. 37(2)(

g) and (h), is defined in s. 1 of the FLA. The definition includes sexual abuse, attemptsat sexual abuse, and for a child, direct or indirect exposure to family violence. [269]

Section 38 requires the court to assess family violence, in this case alleged sexual abuse or attempts at sexual abuse, based on arange of considerations.

Relevant here are the nature and seriousness of the family violence, its frequency, whether the familyviolence was directed toward the child; the harm to the child’s physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and wellbeing as a result of the family violence; whether the child was exposed or directly harmed, and any steps taken by the personresponsible to prevent further family violence from occurring. [270] Significantly, s. 37(3) provides that an order is not in the best interests of a child unless it protects, to the greatest extentpossible, their physical, psychological and emotional safety, security and wellbeing. [271] The parties dispute the burden of proof that applies to allegations of sexual abuse in family proceedings, with reference to on anumber of authorities including Leveque v.

Leveque (1983), (BC CA), 54 B.C.L.R. 164, [1983] B.C.J. No. 2213(C.A.). In Leveque, the Court of Appeal established a real risk approach: [13] … When the welfare of children is concerned, the question is not so much whether specific allegations of misconduct with athird party have been proven, but whether on the whole of the evidence there arises a real risk to the children if access is givenwithout protection against that risk.

The degree of risk can only be determined by carefully weighing all the evidence, and that mustnecessarily involve the credibility of the witnesses and the judge’s assessment of the character of the parties.… [272] Leveque has continued to be followed since the enactment of the FLA (see for example M.H. v. A.M., 2016 BCSC 1664;and N.D.T. v. T.F.T., 2016 BCSC 134).

In N.D.T., a case that involved allegations of physical abuse and neglect, Justice Saunders alsointerpreted the real risk approach as implicit in the best interests imperative of s. 37(3): [103] It has long been recognized, however, that in cases dealing with the well-being of children a court is not obliged to reach aspecific factual conclusions as to what has transpired while children have been in their parents’ care, in making an orderregarding parenting arrangements: see Levesque (sp.)….

This principle is recognized implicitly in [s. 37(3)] of the Family Law Act,which provides only that the best interests of a child be advanced through an order that protects a child’s physical, psychologicaland emotional safety, security and well-being to the greatest possible extent.

This wording contemplates that evidence in familycases is often of a type that may be only suggestive of the truth, and that resists specific conclusions being drawn. [68] I find MA’s disclosure to have both procedural and substantive reliability and that based on the incident in question and theoverall circumstances and history of parental care, there was a real and ongoing risk to MA’s and MI’s physical, psychological andemotional safety, security and wellbeing as a result of the family violence. [69] I have turned my mind to affidavits filed by the Minister of Community Services and the testimony of Minister’s agents,including the testimony of Alex Nelson; Anita Smith; Carol Habicht; Katie Brown; Martin McLean; Amy Whynot; Angel Sperry; andCheryl West.

I have considered any discrepancies raised in cross-examination or argument and resolved them to my satisfaction. Although I am obligated to be mindful of potential biases, there is a certain expectation which is of course rebuttable that the above-noted persons do not have a “horse in the race” so to speak and are motivated to provide the most accurate information they can. Anydiscrepancies and / or inconsistencies raised with respect to the evidence given has been considered. [70] I accept the evidence of the professionals who provided expert testimony including Dr.

Mulhall; Danny Patterson; Janet Budd;and Wendy Green. I have also considered professional reports filed by other professionals who did not testify including MarileeBurwash-Brennan; Susanne Cassidy Duggan; and the late filed report of Fiona Davidson, Ph.D. Registered Psychologist and AshtonParker, M.A. Registered Psychologist, remembering none of the above-noted professionals had the benefit of reviewing all of the writtenevidence or hearing the oral evidence. [71] On May 30, 2022, the foster parent reported that MI had been exhibiting some behaviours which were of concern.

At daycare,MI had pushed a little girl and he had stated to her “you’re ugly, you’re stupid, I hate you” and MI became quite escalated. [72] They also reported that: MI hit MA when they were in the car and MI could not be redirected; previously, MA had not spokenabout his parents, but then he had stated he wanted to see his mother, Ms. S.; and MI had been waking up with nightmares since his firstin-person visit with Ms. S on May 13, 2022.

The foster parent suggested the children could benefit from psychoeducational assessmentas she had noted some developmental delays. [73] On June 1, 2022, an agency representative reported to Ms. S that although the children appeared to be settling in the fosterhome, there had been an incident with MI being aggressive with another child, pushing her over, and that MI appeared to be continuingto have nightmares. Ms.

S responded by stating that was not how MI usually presented although he could be aggressive when “boys[were] being boys” and she believed MI’s nightmares were related to a “head on collision” she was involved in August 2021, as thenightmares started almost immediately after the accident. [74] In or around July 25, 2022, Mr. L reported he was homeless after the parties’ income assistance was cut off. He blamed theagency. [75] In early August 2022, Ms. S reported she was living at a cottage which was being paid for through the Shelter DiversionSupport Program and that her rent was paid to the end of August 2022.

She stated that Mr. L was not living with her. She claimed hewas living in his car and he would often bring her supplies. [76] An agency representative met with Ms. S at her new home. Ms. S stated that her plan was to first get the children out of careand then to consider what she and Mr. L would do, indicating Mr. L was a good partner and he treated her well.

[ 77 ] In or about August 2022, Ms. S communicated to the agency her commitment to ensuring in-person access visits with MA and MI would be “drama free.” The agency reversed its decision and Ms. S was approved for in-person access visits with MA and MI, which was reinstated on August 22, 2022. [ 78 ] On August 18, 2022 Mr. L advised an agency representative that he believed the agency was guilty of “criminal negligence.” [ 79 ] On August 30, 2022, Ms. S advised an agency representative about her preparations for the twins arrival. She also advised she was no longer living at the cottage.

She had moved to a hotel in Bedford, Nova Scotia. She stated that she and Mr. L were no longer in an intimate relationship and he had accepted work in Alberta and would be leaving soon. She stated that Mr. L continued to live in his car. [ 80 ] On September 1, 2022, Mr. L asked if the agency would be taking Ms. S’s twin babies into their care and custody if he left the jurisdiction. He stated, “you already have two of my kids that you should not have, there is no reason for you to take these ones from Ms. S, no reason whatsoever.” [ 81 ] The agency representative advised Mr.

L that a decision would not be made until the children were born. Mr. L responded “I am just going to tell you, that it is not a good idea to take those babies. Make of that what you will, but if anyone takes those kids, well I will just leave it there.” [ 82 ] The parties’ 3 rd child and 4 th child, a boy and a girl were both born on September 3, 2022. The matter first came to court on September 12, 2022. First disposition was completed February 23, 2023 and subsequent reviews on May 5, 2023; and a combined review on August 29, 2023.

An Agency Plan of Care was filed dated January 26 th , 2023 and an updated Agency Plan of Care was filed dated April 24, 2023. [ 83 ] A representative from the Provincial After-Hours Response Team (PART), attended at the IWK hospital to speak with Ms. S and Mr. L, regarding their ability to care for the babies if the babies were released in the respondents care. The PART representative was unable to engage in a conversation with Mr. L or Ms. S as both were agitated immediately upon the worker attempting to introduce herself. [ 84 ] The PART team representative reported that upon her arrival Mr.

L was yelling, using profanities, stating that the Notice of Taking Into Care was fake, and directing the PART team representative to leave the room before he lost his temper, that if she did not leave the room, he would physically remove her from the room. [ 85 ] Mr. L and Ms. S stated to the PART team representative that they would be leaving the hospital with the twins and that MA and MI were in the process of being returned to his and Ms. S’s care. As she left the room, the PART team representative served the respondents with a Notice of Taking Into Care.

The newborn children, S and J, were taken into the care of the Minister of Community Services on September 3, 2023. [ 86 ] While in hospital, Mr. L was overheard stating he would “rather be dead than allow any social worker to take his children.” Mr. L was observed to stand up and make a motion as though he was going to fight with the PART representative and police intervened. Then Mr. L became even more escalated, alleging the police were working with the Nova Scotia agency and stealing babies. [ 87 ] Ms. S was overheard stating that if they took the twins there was no reason for her to live.

She indicated she had a terminal illness and was fighting to survive. Mr. L indicated he was ready to die or kill someone and he was cautioned by the police for making those statements. Mr. L was observed to be extremely loud and to be yelling profanities in the children’s hospital. Police noted that Mr. L advised them he knew various social worker’s personal addresses. As Mr. L was leaving the hospital police saw him kiss the twins and state “see you in heaven.” [ 88 ] A Protection of Property Act Order was placed against Mr. L preventing him from returning to the IWK hospital. [ 89 ] Mr.

L’s behaviour while at the IWK hospital was abusive. His behaviour had the potential to cause trauma to Ms. S, their children, other newborn patients, their families, IWK staff, and visitors. Mr. L’s emotional responses in times of stress are maladaptive and potentially harmful. [ 90 ] The parties have argued: Ms. S had appropriate housing arranged; Ms. S had the necessary items to care for the twins; and Mr. L was not residing with her, and therefore the twins should have been allowed to go home with Ms. S. However, Mr. L has acknowledged the PART representative was unable to assess Ms. S’s or Mr. L’s plan(

s) as they were both too highly agitated for her to do so. At no point does Mr. L fully acknowledge that his exaggerated and uncontrolled emotional responses in times of stress may be the more likely reason for certain intrusive interventions into his family life. Mr. L has often opted to argue for instance that others have been negligent in their duties, they are corrupt, or they wish to steal babies and sell them. [ 91 ] In-person access visits were arranged for Ms. S with the twins, S and J twice per week. Ms.

S did not attend access on October 3 rd , 2022 or on October 17 th , 2022. [ 92 ] On September 16, 2022, Mr. L swore an affidavit stating that his future goal was to have “himself and his family live solely off the land, away from Canada’s broken and unjust systems and governments.” His stated goal was in conflict with his previous communicated plan to separate from Ms. S and move to Alberta. [ 93 ] On or about September 21, 2022, an agency representative was advised that Ms. S and Mr. L had referred themselves to the Parenting Journey Program at the Fairview Family Resource Centre.

A representative from the Family Resource Centre, Ms. Garagan, confirmed a one hour weekly session could be arranged for Ms. S and Mr. L. The agency identified the need for education and skill development regarding structure, routine, positive discipline, “hands off” parenting, and caring for children as a single parent (as Ms. S had advised the agency of Mr. L’s intention to move to Alberta).

[ 94 ] On October 12, 2022 Mr. L contacted an agency representative to request contact with his children. He stated he believed he was a good parent and he claimed he had stopped using cocaine about two years previously. He indicated that a friend of his who was living in Alberta had offered him a job as a live in nanny, and offered this information as evidence of his ability to care for his children. Mr. L stated he was willing to learn “hands off” parenting from a program not associated with the agency . The agency representative advised Mr. L that the agency would be supportive of Mr.

L participating in the Parenting Journey Program. [ 95 ] On October 20, 2022, an agency representative, Ms. S, and Mr. L met with the Family Resource Centre representative, Ms. Garagan. Ms. S and Mr. L had indicated they wished to participate in the program as a couple. Ms. Garagan confirmed she had offered to work with Ms. S individually. [ 96 ] On October 27, 2022, while the agency representative, Ms. S, and Mr. L were meeting with Ms. Garagan, Ms. S asked why she needed to go to counseling to talk about family violence if there had only been 2 incidents of violence with Mr. L.

During the session, the parties acknowledged Mr. L had listened in on Ms. Burwash Brennan facilitating a virtual counseling session intended for Ms. S. Ms. S requested a different therapist. Mr. L stated that hearing how Ms. Burwash Brennan talks “makes him want to punch her out.” Ms. S stated it was good the sessions were virtual or she would “smack” Ms. Burwash Brennan. [ 97 ] The agency representative observed that while they were speaking about disciplining the children, Mr. L stated his belief that it was appropriate to hit a child, tell them to sit down, and tell them to shut up, but then Mr.

L demonstrated what excessive abuse looks like by punching his fist into the air 4 or 5 times. The agency representative noted that Ms. Garagan suggested to Ms. S and Mr. L that they should reconsider the discipline they had been using and she could provide information to teach them how to guide children’s behaviour without using physical discipline which can scare and traumatize them. Ms. S stated that she had no concerns about how Mr. L disciplines the children. [ 98 ] When Ms. Garagan asked the parties if there were other issues they wished to cover, and the agency’s representative raised the issue of Mr.

L’s reported sensitivity to children crying, Mr. L confirmed that when crying or screaming gets to a certain volume, “it sets him off. ” Mr. L stated that on one occasion when he was changing MA and MI was screaming, he “just snapped,” left the room he had been in with MA, and went into another room and “ended up breaking a dresser.” Mr.

L suggested that the action he took was due to his military training. [ 99 ] In or around the end of October 2022, MI exhibited extremely aggressive behaviour at his day care, reportedly “sending three daycare workers to hospital” and breaking another child’s nose, and MI was asked to leave the daycare. Due to MI’s foster parents’ work schedules and because MI could not return to daycare, MI was placed in a temporary emergency arrangement during the week and MI continued to spend weekends at his previous foster home.

On November 19, 2022 MI was able to return to his previous foster parent’s home on a full time basis as alternate arrangements were made for his after school childcare. [ 100 ] In November 2022, Ms. S raised concerns related to the children, S and J, being vaccinated. The child in care worker advised that with respect to S and J’s physical development, the foster parent had noted that S’s muscle tone appeared to be more developed than J’s, and J’s head was noticeably misshapen.

J’s doctor had referred him for physiotherapy / occupational therapy to address the issues. [ 101 ] On or about December 2, 2022, MA and MI saw Mr. L parked in his vehicle outside the access visit location where Ms. S had been exercising access with the children. Previously, she had stated she would make arrangements for someone other than Mr. L to transport her for the children’s access visits to avoid “drama.” [ 102 ] In or around the first part of December 2022, Mr.

L began participating in virtual access visits with MA and MI. [ 103 ] On December 6, 2022, MA’s and MI’s foster parent reported that MI had begun having nightmares since seeing Mr. L in his van while he was leaving an access visit with his mother as noted above.

In addition, the foster mother reported MI had a bad day the previous day, exhibiting aggression towards school staff and peers, and that MI had just been suspended from school for having a “major flip out” including throwing a chair at his principal. [ 104 ] On December 9, 2022, the foster parent reported to an agency representative that while MI was residing at the temporary emergency arrangement he had continued to present with significant aggressive behaviours when attending school. [ 105 ] The foster mother also reported that MA’s teacher was seeing an increase in MA not listening and sometimes leaving the classroom without asking.

The teacher had reported that it took significant effort to convince MA to clean up and focus on his work, and he had presented as needing extra attention and hugs. [ 106 ] On December 12, 2022 the foster mother observed MI’s behaviours appeared to be improving in her home. [ 107 ] On December 19, 2022, Ms. S and Mr. L were introduced to a new long term worker and Mr. L asked for his access to be expanded. [ 108 ] On December 21, 2022, Mr. L’s mother attended the agency offices and she requested to be permitted to attend the children’s access visit with Ms. S.

After an agency representative referenced her last name, Mr. L’s mother demanded to know how the agency representative had heard the name and she became increasingly loud and threatening. After being advised that her behaviour was inappropriate, Mr. L’s mother continued to present as escalated. [ 109 ] Following the exchange between agency representatives and Mr. L’s mother, he demanded a meeting and was observed to present in a “threatening and disrespectful” manner. Mr.

L was advised that his mother was denied approval to participate in the access visit due to her escalated behavior. [ 110 ] On December 28, 2023, Carol Habicht reported that Ms. S had stated she had moved to Nova Scotia to receive treatment for Multicentric Castleman Disease. Ms. S had stated that without treatment she would be deceased in two years.

[ 111 ] On or about January 4, 2023, Ms. Garagan, facilitator with the Family Resource Centre, stated that Mr. L indicated to her he was opposed to working on information related to the impact of domestic / family violence on children , and that neither Ms. S or Mr. L would discuss their past counseling with her. [ 112 ] On or about January 9, 2023 J was seen by his pediatrician Dr. Crouse. [ 113 ] On January 10, 2023 family support worker Cheryl West was assigned to work with Ms. S and Mr. L.

She was asked to provide information and direction regarding positive discipline, structure / routines, effects of domestic violence on children, and household management. The goals were for the parties to develop “hands off” parenting skills which would promote positive behavior and for the parents to develop an understanding of the impact that domestic violence has on children in the home. [ 114 ] On or about January 17, 2023, Mr.

L advised the agency representative he was unwilling to work on issues related to the impact of family violence as he himself had been exposed to family violence as a child and already knows about the impact personally . Mr.

L was advised that the issues related to the impact of family violence needed to be addressed. [ 115 ] On or about January 23, 2023, MA and MI’s foster mother reported there was no longer any punching or physical fighting between MA and MI and they were only being contacted by the school approximately once per week rather than daily. [ 116 ] On January 31, 2023 a meeting was arranged including an agency representatives (a long term worker and child in care worker), Ms. Garagan from the Family Support Centre, Mr. L, Ms. S, and the new family support worker Cheryl West. Mr.

L took the position that the only reason the agency was involved with his family was because he asked for help . Mr. L and Ms. S stated they did not believe in science based practices and their belief system was rooted in spirituality. [ 117 ] Mr. L confirmed he was homeless and working on obtaining stable housing. Mr. L shared that he intended to start counseling with the New Start program. On March 21, 2023 Mr. L signed a consent to allow an agency representative to speak with Hilary Bowdridge, his New Start counselor, whom he stated he had already attended several sessions with at the New Start program.

On April 20, 2023 Hilary Bowdridge confirmed she would be leaving New Start but Mr. L’s file would be transferred to another practitioner. [ 118 ] Ms. Bowdridge confirmed Mr. L had attended 10 sessions with her and that he was “engaged in the materials.” She indicated they talked about coping strategies and when she was asked if Mr. L had acknowledged his use of violence and abuse with his children and partner, she responded by stating “yes and no” then later that “he is not all the way there yet” and then stated there was “no acknowledgement of abuse or violence. Mr. Bowridge noted that she had told Mr.

L that New Start does not condone violence and he had referenced

section 43 of the Criminal Code . [ 119 ] In July 2023 Mr. L indicated he had been referred to a new New Start counselor Robert Leek. Mr. L stated he cancelled his first scheduled appointment due to issues with his vehicle. He later indicated his first scheduled appointment would be July 18, 2023. [ 120 ] On February 23, 2023, Ms. Garagan reported to Cheryl West and on March 8, 2023, to an agency representative that she would be “phasing out” her work with Ms. S and Mr. L, whom she had been working with since July 2022. As appears from a review of both reports, Ms.

Garagan confirmed that the Parenting Journey Program had provided Mr. L and Ms. S with a “lot of support and advocacy throughout the program” and that the respondents gained a lot of positives and now that they had consistent counseling and family support in place, she would phase out. [ 121 ] However, on March 8, 2023 Ms. Garagan reportedly stated to an agency representative that Ms. S and Mr. L had “not been making any progress and she had done everything that she felt within her role could be provided to them.” She stated Ms. S was a “lovely person” and could likely care for the children without Mr.

L, but it seemed unlikely they would separate. [ 122 ] On April 5, 2023, as a follow up following a recent session Mr. Garagan had with Mr. L, Ms. Garagan advised the agency that Mr. L had stated that he believed a war would break out in Canada in July 2023, that he knew where the children were living in their foster placements and he would get the children from their placements when the war started. [ 123 ] On March 21, 2023 an agency representative met with Mr. L and Ms. S and observed Mr. L dominated the majority of the interaction as he spoke at length about his distrust.

In addition, she observed that at times throughout her meeting with Mr. L and Ms. S, Ms. S was hostile toward her, alleging the agency was responsible for her losing her housing. [ 124 ] The agency representative advised Ms. S and Mr. L that the agency’s child protection concerns had not yet been addressed, and up to that date neither Ms. S or Mr. L had demonstrated to the agency that they had gained any insight about the safety risks leading to the children being placed in the agency’s care in or around March 2022. Mr. L stated that if MA and MI did not want him in their life he would leave. Ms.

S stated that if the boys did not want Mr. L around, she would choose the children. Ms. S also stated she did not find her therapist to be helpful. The agency representative stated she would arrange for another therapist. [ 125 ] Mr. L stated that his legal counsel had been working for the last month and a half trying to figure out how the agency wire tapped his van. He stated that he is the children’s biological father which equals “their possessor.” However, he indicated that if he heard from Ms. Green that the boys are scared of him and do not want him around, he would leave.

That he trusts information received directly from Ms. Green as she is not a representative of the government. [ 126 ] On March 28, 2023, a risk management meeting was held and the agency’s history of involvement with the parties was reviewed. The agency found the children had likely demonstrated some negative reactions attributable to the re-introduction of Mr. L by videoconferencing in or around the first of December 2022. Mr.

L’s request for in-person contact with the children was denied and his virtual access with the children was placed on hold pending the parties having an opportunity to speak with Wendy Green about the children expressing fear of their father. The Minister decided to apply for permanent care and custody of the children. [ 127 ] On March 28, 2023, Ms. S advised that she did not believe the children were afraid of Mr. L. She stated that in a recent access visit with the children she told MA and MI that when they come home, they would get a king sized bed. She indicated the boys asked

her if Mr. L could sleep with them in the king sized bed. [ 128 ] On April 11, 2023 a virtual meeting was held with Ms. Green to allow both Mr. L and Ms. S to ask any questions they may have. Mr. L indicated he wanted to know whether Ms. Green’s reports were updated and if they reflect the boys’ current perspectives of him. Mr. L stated he had a “huge point” to prove, not just that the boys were not scared of him initially but also they are not scared of him any longer. [ 129 ] Ms. Green stated that the boys are very honest in their sessions with her and they have expressed being fearful and scared of Mr.

L, and that both boys are scared that Mr. L is not working on his anger and feelings as they have been working on theirs. Ms. Green stated that both boys want him to work on his anger and feelings as both boys say that Mr. L scares them and that they experienced a lot of anger with him. [ 130 ] Mr. L stated that he wants the boys to know that “this society is not here to help them” and Mr. L said that he believes in physical discipline. Mr. L stated that he wants to “vacate the society,” he wants to leave Canada, he has places to take his family, and that there are much better countries. [ 131 ] Ms.

Green stated that the boys had expressed wanting “to be parented by a responsible parent who is emotionally responsive to their needs.” She stated that MA and MI did not feel safe with Mr. L. [ 132 ] Ms. Green asked Ms. S if she agreed with Mr. L’s position on parenting. Ms. S stated that she does not use physical discipline but she agrees with Mr. L that there is a place for physical discipline if the boys return to their care. Mr. L then interjected and stated that “the punishment must fit the crime,” and he would only hit his children when they hit, and not when they yell. [ 133 ] Ms.

Green stated that MA and MI wanted to be parented with kindness, patience, managing their feelings, non-aggression, and problem solving.” Mr. L stated that he was raised to believe that “severe / serious actions deserve severe / serious consequences.” He stated that he wants his children to know that when you “physically attack” authority and you lie, that there are consequences. [ 134 ] On April 12, 2023, Mr. L asked an agency representative why he could not have contact with his children.

He was advised that the children’s therapist had clearly stated that the children were fearful of him and that the children become dysregulated following contact with him and this was having an impact on their foster placement, their school placement, and their development generally. [ 135 ] In or around April 21, 2023 Mr. L’s virtual access with S and J was put on hold. [ 136 ] On April 27, 2023, MI was seen by his doctor, Dr. Yamada, who referred MI to the IWK Autism Team and also made a referral for a private assessment.

MI disclosed to the doctor that his “dad smacks his butt” and he talked about how hard his dad “hits.” MI is prescribed Biphentin for his ADHD and aggression. Family support work with Ms. West [ 137 ] On January 23, 2023, Ms. West, Ms. S and Mr. L participated in a joint meeting regarding the goals related to family support. Ms. West noted that Mr. L dominated the interaction, and he was escalated and combative. She further noted that Ms. S was hostile, particularly toward the long term social worker during most of the meeting. [ 138 ] Ms. West observed that Ms. S and Mr.

L struggled to communicate in a respectful, positive, and effective manner. After Mr. L spoke about his way of disciplining the children, Ms. West and the long term social worker attempted to explain to Ms. S and Mr. L that using physical force of any kind with children is not appropriate or indicative of positive discipline. Mr. L and Ms. S repeatedly stated they did not believe in science based practices and that their belief system is rooted in spirituality. [ 139 ] On February 9, 2023, Mr. L stated he had taught the children to fight, and that it was more than teaching them to wrestle. Ms.

S indicated that she uses Facebook Messenger to allow Mr. L to interact with the children during access and the agency has approved his attendance. Mr. L acknowledged he had used “excessive force for an excessive circumstance.” [ 140 ] On February 17, 2023, Mr. L discussed the physical discipline he had received as a child and reported that it taught him a valuable lesson. Ms. West identified Mr. L’s parenting style as a power struggle, which he acknowledged. He reported having difficulty communicating with children. He reported gaining a new perspective on disciplining the children when Ms.

West highlighted the size disparity between he and the children. During his meeting with Ms. West Mr. L reported he had been diagnosed with “ADHD; a Major Mood Disorder; Psychosis; and possibly ‘psychotic depression.’” [ 141 ] On February 28, 2023, Ms. West spoke to Mr. L and Ms. S about the agency expectation that they make appropriate decisions in order to keep the children safe and for Mr. L to commit to not using harsh punishment. Mr. L suggested his children were not afraid of him and love him. Ms.

West pointed out that victims can love their abusers and this did not mean they were not scared of him. [ 142 ] Mr. L acknowledged his punishments with the children had been “a little harsh” and he suggested he had changed. Ms. S stated that she found Mr. L’s punishments were harsh and she had told Mr. L they were harsh and she had threatened to contact the police. [ 143 ] Mr. L suggested that the children needed to be somewhat scared in order for discipline to work and that Ms. S had always had control issues with the boys. Mr.

L talked about rewarding the boys with “bars” and allowing them to watch him play violent video games such as Grand Theft Auto as they enjoyed it. Ms. West suggested there were studies which appeared to indicate exposure to those games could be detrimental to some children’s development. Mr. L asked if the studies were scientific and suggested that if they were not, they were not valid. [ 144 ] The parties acknowledged using a “dark room” explaining it was used as a “sensory reset” if the boys were out of control. [ 145 ] On March 3, 2023, Mr. L talked about trauma he and Ms. S had endured as children. Mr.

L stated that he felt he needed to engage

in private therapy to deal with the trauma he had suffered before he could move on and not let it keep impacting himself and those around him. He stated he was not necessarily ready, but he knew it needed to be addressed. Mr. L returned to the theme of needing to learn to communicate effectively with children. [ 146 ] On March 8, 2023, Ms. West attended an access visit with MA and MI which Ms. S attended in person and Mr. L attended virtually. She noted that at one point in the visit, MI indicated he was angry but he did not want to talk about why. Mr.

L suggested he would make a deal with MI, that either MI could tell him or Mr. L would let MA tell him. Mr. L suggested that if MA had to tell him “it’s gonna be 100 times worse.” On the other hand, Ms. S was reported to provide MI with appropriate support when discussing the issue with MI. [ 147 ] Ms. West indicated Mr. L expressed an interest in the concept of “time in.” He stated that his “final recourse” had been violence and he understands that is the reason the agency is involved. Mr. L acknowledged that the situation was 100% about him and Ms. S was an unfortunate casualty. [ 148 ] On March 13, 2023 Ms.

West noted that she had attended a visit with all 4 children which Ms. S attended in person and Mr. L attended virtually. Ms. West determined the visit went well. [ 149 ] On April 3, 2023 Ms. West noted that Ms. S stated that the boys were being told that she and Mr. L are a “package deal” but she said that she had already left Mr. L three times and if it needed to be “bye bye” that it would be. Ms. West noted that when she was discussing the concept of “natural punishment” that Mr.

L stated “that’s my entire philosophy right there,” stating he would laugh at a child if the child fell and scraped his knee and became upset. Ms. West talked about the need for comforting at the appropriate time and about the benefits of “time ins.” [ 150 ] On April 14, 2023 Mr. L acknowledged that he spanked the boys. He talked about the law related to corporal punishment and about his two methods, including how he uses his fingers in a flick-like fashion as a warning or cupping his hand to make a louder noise, using it as a deterrent. Ms. West pointed out that Ms. S and Mr.

L use two extremes of discipline, with Ms. S being “too soft” and Mr. L “too harsh” and spoke with Mr. L and Ms. S about a “middle ground.” [ 151 ] On April 19, 2023, when reviewing information about communication, Mr. L observed that “if you hugged out of affection that was okay, but if you hugged to soothe a child, the child would not learn to self-soothe.” Ms. West spoke about children needing to learn how to self-soothe and indicated there was a difference between helping a child to learn to self-soothe and rescuing your child and not allowing them to learn to problem solve. Ms.

West discussed the parties respective roles, with Mr. L perceived as disciplinarian and Ms. S as nurturer, questioning where that leaves Ms. S if Mr. L is not at home, and how Ms. S may not be perceived as having authority. [ 152 ] On May 10, 2023, Ms. S and Mr. L advised Ms. West they had a discussion about disciplining the children and that moving forward Ms. S would be in charge of disciplining the children. She would make the rules and decide the consequences and Mr. L would use his “dad” voice only if it was necessary to get the children’s attention. Ms.

West reviewed information about “how to talk to children so they listen” and Mr. L once again identified that he found it difficult to communicate on a child’s level and that he had a tendency to talk a lot. Ms. S stated that she would intervene by stating “babe too much” and that Mr. L will stop talking. [ 153 ] Ms. West spoke with Mr. L about the benefits of not having any reaction to children’s behaviour. Mr. L indicated not reacting would be impossible for him as he has a “reaction disorder diagnosis” and that is why he smokes cannabis. [ 154 ] On May 17, 2023, Mr.

L expressed that he had a particular concern about children lying, as he had been lied to his whole life, and his family are pathological liars. Mr. L stated that Ms. S is the more lenient parent and they have decided she will decide about discipline and consequences for their children. [ 155 ] Ms. West then discussed the issue of use of bad language by children, challenging Mr.

L to consider his proposition that he had no issue with bad language if it was used in the proper context, suggesting that based on his stated view was it not arguable that when MA had called him a “cocksucker” he had used the term in the proper context. [ 156 ] On June 6, 2023 both Mr. L and Ms. S acknowledged they’d had disagreements in front of the children in the past. Ms. S stated that when she was married to T that MA and MI had witnessed T shout at her a lot. Ms. S stated that MA had recently mentioned T and she had told MA he did not need to worry about T. Ms. West discussed

[…]