MANAGER, CHILD v. YOUTH SERVICES, ZONE A, 2019 NLSC 79

court crest IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR FAMILY DIVISION Citation : Newfoundland and Labrador (Child and Youth Services) v. I.U. , 2019 NLSC 79 Date : April 4, 2019 Docket : 201802F0226 In The Matter of the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act , S.N.L. 2010,

chapter C-12.2 , as amended. Between: MANAGER, CHILD AND YOUTH SERVICES, ZONE A Applicant And: I.U. Respondent Restriction on Publication: There is a Publication Ban on the names and any other identifying information of the children referred to herein, as well as the names of their biological parents, relatives and foster families pursuant to

section 52 of the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act . Before: Justice Jane M. Fitzpatrick Place of Hearing: St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador Dates of Hearing: March 12, 13 and 15, 2019

Summary: Application by the Manager of Child and Youth Services for a continuous custody order of a baby removed from her mother at birth. The mother has cerebral palsy and a significantly low cognitive ability. Her physical and cognitive limitations, along with her lack of familial or partner support and inability to parent her two older children, prevents her from being able to parent the child. It is unlikely that

educational or supportive services would improve the mother’s long term parenting abilities. The order of continuous custody was granted and the child shall be profiled for adoption. Appearances: Cynthia D. Janes Appearing on behalf of the Applicant Michelle A. Coady Appearing on behalf of the Respondent Authorities Cited: STATUTES CONSIDERED: Children and Youth Care and Protection Act , S.N.L. 2010, c. C-12.2 ; Newfoundland and Labrador (Director of Child, Youth and Family Services) v. T. (A.) , 2009 NLUFC 15 ; Newfoundland & Labrador (Director of Child, Youth & Family Services) v.

R. (G.) , 2 009 NLUFC 22 ; Newfoundland and Labrador (Child and Youth Services) v. C.J. , 2018 NLSC 103 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT Fitzpatrick, J. : INTRODUCTION [ 1 ] This is an Application by the Manager of Child and Youth Services (hereinafter the “Manager”) for a continuous custody order of R.U., who was born in March 2018. This child is the daughter of I.U. The identity of the father has not been confirmed. The child was removed, by way of a Warrant, from the Health Sciences Centre shortly after her birth in 2018.

The child has been in the care of the Manager since that time. [ 2 ] From the outset of these proceedings, the Manager applied for a continuous custody order pursuant to the Children and Youth Care and Protection Act , S.N.L. 2010, c. C-12.2 (the “ Act ”), section 32(2) (d). The Manager lists protection concerns under section 10(1) (

a) and (c). No temporary custody orders of any kind have been granted in this case. This is the first Court hearing regarding this child. [ 3 ] The basis for the removal of the baby, R.U., is due to historic concerns of I.U.’s ability to parent a child. I.U. suffers from cerebral palsy and she has a significantly low cognitive ability. I.U. is also the mother of two older girls, A.A., born in 2006, and L.A., born in 2010. Neither of these children are in the mother’s care. These two older girls have the same father, D.A.

By consent, they are in the permanent care of the D.A.’s mother (paternal grandmother). background [ 4 ] I.U. was born in 1985 and is originally from Russia. She immigrated with her family to Canada in February 1996. I.U. suffers from cerebral palsy and a developmental delay as the left side of her brain is less developed. These facts are undisputed. Her developmental delay, in particular, is rather significant. [ 5 ] Little is known about I.U.’s history from birth to age 10 in Russia. From the ages of 10 to 19, I.U. was raised in St. John’s mostly by her maternal uncle.

Her grandmother died within about one year after arriving in Canada. It is known that, due to fairly significant cognitive delays, she attended school in St. John’s in a modified school program. She achieved grade 12 in this modified school program. Her uncle moved to British Columbia when she was 19 and she remained in St. John’s living with her then partner. Other than one aunt, she has little or no other family in the St.

John’s area, or in Newfoundland. [ 6 ] I.U. first came to the attention of Child and Youth Services in 2006 when staff at the Naomi Centre alerted them to the fact that she was at their facility, three months pregnant, and was kicked out of her residence by her then partner. She was approximately 21 years of age at the time. She did not have any known relatives or other persons who wished to parent her child. I.U. did admit there was domestic violence in her relationship, but indicated she wanted to try to maintain the relationship.

This partner was D.A., who is the father of her two oldest girls. [ 7 ] In May 2006, social workers discovered that D.A. was brought to the hospital with suicidal/homicidal ideation. He was described as “very immature”, admitting violent thoughts of harming other people. At one time, he broke a beer bottle over his head requiring 17 stitches. Also at that time, there were concerns that I.U. may not be able to care for herself and would require assistance for daily living activities, possibly even hygiene. The Manager had appropriate professionals complete medical and educational assessments on I.U.

The assessments indicated she had a mild form of cerebral palsy resulting from a “significant lack of development on the left side of the brain”. It was noted that academically she performed at an extremely low level. Given these challenges, the mother’s first child (born in November 2006) was removed by a Warrant to Remove within days of birth. [ 8 ] In September 2007, a parenting capacity assessment was completed by Brian Kenney, psychologist. He indicated that I.U.’s parenting capacity was severely compromised by her low cognitive ability and absence of a social support system. She also had physical

disabilities impeding her parenting ability. His opinion was that as the child grew, and the caring for the child became more stressful and complex, I.U. would likely be unable to properly care for a child without significant supports. He concluded that she has a measure of competency in providing basic parenting, but, this would be insufficient for her to properly parent a child in the long term. [ 9 ] In November 2007, a consent order was signed between the paternal grandparents, I.U. and her ex-partner, D.A., which gave sole custody of A.A. to the paternal grandparents.

I.U. was granted liberal supervised access. [ 10 ] I.U. continued her relationship with D.A. Their second child, L.A., was born in June 2010. Originally this child was to be raised by her paternal aunt; however, this did not work out and eventually the paternal grandparents also took this child to raise with her sister, A.A. Today both girls continue to reside with their paternal grandparents in St. John’s.

I.U. has liberal supervised access to both girls. [ 11 ] When I.U. became pregnant with her third and youngest child, R.U., she named the man who she thought was the father of the child; however, DNA testing eliminated him as the father. She then named the other man who she said had to be the father of the child. The second man denied a physical relationship with her and was uncooperative with social workers for DNA testing. This is the reason why the father’s identity has not been confirmed. I.U. is certain that this man would have to be the father.

Without his cooperation or interest, nothing further can be done to confirm paternity. [ 12 ] The matter before me involves I.U.’s third child, R.U., and the Manager’s request for continuous custody of that child. This request is premised on various concerns about I.U. including: the effects of her significant developmental delay, physical safety issues due to her cerebral palsy, some instability in her lifestyle and housing, a history of bad choices of partners, limited family or social supports and a lack of current contact with her two older children.

The Manager’s position is that educational or supportive services would not improve her situation and she cannot parent a child. [ 13 ] I.U. admits to casual use of marijuana. The Manager is not concerned that she suffers from any sort of addictions issues. There are no allegations that she is violent or inappropriate or uncooperative with the Manager. On the contrary, I.U. is quite open with social workers and has a fairly good working relationship with them. Also, the mother has been extremely consistent with access to the baby. Since removal in March 2018, she has barely missed an access visit.

She is noted to be loving and kind to the baby. She currently lives alone in a one-bedroom apartment in St. John’s. She works part-time at McDonald’s and is supplemented with social assistance. Her only family here, her aunt, is not interested in getting involved with parenting the child R.U. ISSUES [ 14 ] There are two distinct issues before me to be decided: a. Is the child in need of protective intervention? and b.

If the child is in need of protective intervention, what is the appropriate type of order? analysis [ 15 ] During the course of the hearing, I heard testimony from two social workers, psychologist Dr. Sarah Agnew and I.U. herself. I had the opportunity to review the social worker’s Affidavits, Daybreak home visit reports, and the information contained in the Information to Obtain a Warrant and Plan of Care submitted by the Manager. I also had the opportunity to review two parenting capacity assessments.

The first parenting capacity assessment was completed in September 2007 by Brian Kenney, a local psychologist who has testified many times before this court (hereinafter “PCA#1”). The second parenting capacity assessment was completed in February 25, 2019 by Dr. Sarah Agnew, a psychologist (hereinafter “PCA#2”). Is the child in need of protective intervention? [ 16 ] The applicable legislation to this case is the Act , in particular section 10(1) (

a) and (c). The Manager has made their application pursuant to these sections, which state as follows: Definition of child in need of protective intervention 10.

(1) A child is in need of protective intervention where the child (

a) is being, or is at risk of being, physically harmed by the action or lack of appropriate action by the child’s parent; (

c) is being, or is at risk of being, emotionally harmed by the parent's conduct and there are reasonable grounds to believe that the emotional harm suffered by the child, or that may be suffered by the child, results from the actions, failure to act or pattern of neglect on the part of the child's parent; [ 17 ] In any child protection matter, the paramount concern is the best interests of the child.

This requires an analysis of the child’s emotional and physical needs, family connections, and community and cultural connections. [ 18 ] The contents of PCA#1 and PCA#2, tendered at trial, both indicate that this is an appropriate case for a determination that this is a child in need of protective intervention. Both counsel for the Manager and counsel for I.U. agree that this child is in need of protective intervention.

[ 19 ] I agree that this is an appropriate case to conclude that the child is in need of protective intervention pursuant to section 10(1) (

a) and (

c) of the Act . The mother has struggles that would prevent her from parenting on her own at this time. She has severe cognitive and some physical limitations. She has very little support, whether familial or in the broader sense, such as the support of a suitable partner or other social supports. She has historically struggled with housing issues. Currently she has no other children in her care and relies heavily on the assistance of organizations such as The Gathering Place and Choices for Youth. What is the appropriate type of order? [ 20 ] The Manager is seeking a continuous custody order pursuant to

section 32 of the Act . Counsel for I.U. is suggesting a six month temporary order pursuant to section 32(2) (

a) of the Act . [ 21 ] The test for this situation is well stated by Fry, J. (as she then was) in Newfoundland and Labrador (Director of Child, Youth and Family Services) v. T. (A.) , 2009 NLUFC 15 , at paragraph 119 , as follows: 119 …Balancing the needs of parents for time to overcome obstacles and develop the necessary skills to parent their children with the needs of the children for a safe, healthy and stable home is important in assessing the children's best interests at various points of time.

There comes a time when it is not in the child's best interests to leave them in a situation where they move back and forth between parents and foster parents for so long that it compromises their opportunity for a permanent, secure, stable family relationship. [ 22 ] I find that this is an appropriate case for an order of continuous custody pursuant to section 32(2) (

d) of the Act . I say this for several reasons. [ 23 ] I.U. has a long history with the Manager, due to the fact that this is her third child. She gave birth to A.A. in 2006 and L.A. in 2010. These children are both in the full-time care of their paternal grandparents. The Manager was heavily involved with I.U. from the time the first child, A.A., was born in 2006. At that time it was noted by professionals that I.U. had to be prompted to pick the child up, feed her and change her.

In 2007, I.U. chose to remain in an abusive relationship with her then partner, D.A. [ 24 ] PCA#1, completed in September 2007, indicated that I.U. could do basic parenting with supports and modifications. The report indicated that she lacked a much needed social support system, partly because she is originally from Russia and partly because of her poor partner choices. One of the significant findings of this report was that she had a very low cognitive function which greatly compromised her ability to parent. In addition to low cognitive function, she suffers from cerebral palsy which impedes her physically.

Without significant social supports, such as extended family, the physical aspects of parenting were challenging for her. He concluded that I.U. required some supports for daily living due to these physical impediments. Physical impediments impacted her ability to handle the child, but her low cognition was the greatest concern in terms of her parenting ability. [ 25 ] The same issues arose with the second child, which the Manager removed at birth. This case also never went to trial. This child also ended up in a permanent consent arrangement whereby she is in the custody of the paternal grandmother.

Both girls remain together with the paternal grandmother to this day in St. John’s. I.U. is still allowed liberal supervised access to her two daughters. I.U. eventually discontinued her relationship with D.A. after several years. [ 26 ] At the time her first daughter, A.A., was born, the Manager did attempt some services, such as Daybreak, with the mother. Daybreak is a service whereby a professional attends the home with the mother to coach her and provide guidance on parenting so that she may learn necessary parenting skills.

I agree with counsel for the mother that Brian Kenney, in the PCA#1, does indicate that this service resulted in some improvement in the mother’s skills. The issue is that, overall, PCA#1 is not different in its conclusions than PCA#2 completed in 2019. The conclusions, outlined in these reports, is that long-term improvements in the mother’s ability to parent, without significant supports, are likely not possible. [ 27 ] It is obvious that I.U. can respond well to concrete tasks that are demonstrated to her, such as changing a diaper or making a bottle.

This applies to her personal life, such as learning the Metro Bus routes to get around town or learning how to pay bills for herself. The major difficulty is that the two PCAs, taken together, indicate that she functions in the extremely low cognitive category. What this means is that she will do well with concrete tasks and can learn some things, but may not remember to apply them every time. It also means that she would need constant training throughout every stage of the child’s life to be able to adapt to a growing child.

This is practically not possible. [ 28 ] Counsel for I.U. does not dispute her Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (hereinafter referred to as “WAIS”) score of 47-56 is in the extremely low category. The point made for the mother is that one cannot predict how this science actually translates into what kind of a parent a person will be in the future. I agree this is a difficult thing to predict. Unfortunately, the mother’s chances of success here are minimal given her overall lack of formal supports. The best interests of a small child lies in the balance. [ 29 ] The testimony of psychologist Dr.

Sarah Agnew is very insightful. She is the author of PCA#2 conducted in 2019. Dr. Agnew told me that the WAIS score puts the mother in the extremely low range of functions, which is less than 0.1 percent of the population compared to others her age. This is their lowest classification possible on this test. Dr. Agnew said that this, combined with other testing, indicates that the observations made in the past about her parenting and ability to learn remain unchanged. [ 30 ] For example, Dr. Agnew says I.U. would be a very concrete thinker who would tend to perceive people as either all good or all bad. Dr.

Agnew gave the example that the mother would see her child as an amazing child and would never be able to foresee this child misbehaving or what she would do in that case, as she would never foresee it as a possibility. Dr. Agnew also indicated that I.U. would generally see herself in a very positive light that would exceed what reality would indicate. In times of stress, however, I.U. may be more negative about herself. [ 31 ] Dr.

Agnew said I.U. is someone who could learn basic tasks and perform them well; however, when it came to problem- solving and more complex tasks these would be more difficult, if not impossible, for her. Due to her low cognition there is no way to improve this situation. What the mother generally lacks is the ability to think, and problem solve, in an abstract way and understand why people do what they do. She would see people in a black and white fashion and would believe that she can “tell” if a certain person is

good or bad, without knowing anything about their history. She would therefore be unable to assess who would be a good person to have around the child or who would be a good role model. Dr. Agnew pointed out that this diagnosis is consistent with the type of partners that I.U. has chosen over the years. [ 32 ] Dr. Agnew told me that I.U., like all human beings, has the basic need to be loved. Dr. Agnew noted that the mother has few people in her life and this contributes to her history of bad partner choices. It makes her more vulnerable to holding onto a bad partner. [ 33 ] Dr.

Agnew agrees with what the social workers and what everyone who has dealt with the mother confirm: that I.U. loves this child and would never to do anything to deliberately harm her. I.U. has bonded to her daughter and deeply loves her. The problem is that, without supports, I.U. may inadvertently do something to put the child at significant risk. [ 34 ] Serious emotional risks arise from her cognition issues. I.U. will be unable to grow with the child because she would require training at every phase of child development, which is impossible. Dr.

Agnew testified that the child would likely surpass the mother intellectually as the child appears to be thriving and developing normally on all levels. As the mother has no formal supports, this would not result in a good outcome for the child. Also, the mother is likely to continue to expose the child to risk of others with her inability to assess who should be around the child. I.U. has a history of choosing inappropriate boyfriends. This is predicted to continue. [ 35 ] The testimony of I.U. solidified what Dr. Agnew described.

The mother testified that she saw R.U. as a good child and could not foresee that she would ever misbehave. She saw herself in a very positive light as someone who could do what anyone else can do. The mother indicated that she understood she might have to get rid of her new partner, J.F., if the child was returned to her. She also said that she believed that everyone, even J.F., deserved a “second chance”. She admitted that social workers told her about his criminal history, but, commented that she never saw any paperwork on it herself. I.U. did say she would choose the baby over her boyfriend, J.F.

Her testimony left doubt as to whether she really understands the dangers of boyfriends like J.F. around her child. [ 36 ] The mother has been observed over the past year at supervised visits. It is clear she has learned certain basic parenting skills but her cognition affects her ability to apply them consistently. It is also believed that I.U.’s physical limitations prevents her ability to parent a child. [ 37 ] At visits it was observed that sometimes I.U. could safely place the baby on the floor but at other times, really struggled with this task.

Her physical limitations mean she sometimes is unable to quickly respond or move. For example, she could not move a hot coffee from the reach of the baby at one visit. At another visit, either due to physical or cognitive issues, she did not remove the choking hazard of a wrapper from the child’s reach. [ 38 ] I am certain that I.U. truly loves her child and understands the basic needs of dressing the child, feeding the child and changing diapers. Unfortunately, I.U. lacks an overall awareness of the baby’s long-term developmental needs. This is unlikely to change because of her significant cognition issues.

For example, I.U. is unlikely to really see the dangers which a child may face as they grow and need to explore their surroundings. Her likelihood of success would be better if she had a suitable partner or other family supports. These would certainly help minimize risks to the child. Unfortunately, in this case, no such supports exist. She lives alone and her current boyfriend is deemed “unsuitable” to be around children. She has only one aunt in St. John’s with whom she has minimal contact. [ 39 ] In the past, I.U. had to move due to at least one eviction and she, at times, lived in shelters.

Her housing has not always been stable. I.U. currently has a stable living arrangement, a one bedroom apartment. She indicated that last year she wanted to find suitable housing for her new baby. Greg Quinn of Choices for Youth helped her find this apartment in the fall of 2018. The mother did say she tried to look herself, but, admits Mr. Quinn found this apartment for her. It is unlikely that she would have found such an apartment by herself due to her issues. [ 40 ] I.U. has also has relied on Greg Quinn for other help such as rides to Court and other places.

She denies that she still relies on him and tells me that he deals with ‘youth’ at Choices for Youth and she no longer qualifies as a ‘youth’. Yet, Mr. Quinn has been a significant support for her and has obviously gone over and above the call to duty to assist her in many ways. [ 41 ] I.U. also relies heavily on the services of The Gathering Place for things such as meals on a daily basis or to do her laundry. The Gathering Place is an agency that, free of charge, assists people in need with many aspects of living. It deals strictly with adults and therefore does not allow children.

Despite her testimony that she would figure something out, it is unclear how I.U. would replace the support provided by the Gathering Place if she had a child in her full-time care. Without the Gathering Place, Mr. Quinn, or her boyfriend, she has no one else to rely upon or assist her in any way. [ 42 ] The unfortunate situation is that I.U. does not have any supportive family in the area and her partner is not suitable. Her current partner, J.F., has a significant criminal history and does not have any contact with nor care of his own children. He has been deemed inappropriate by the Manager.

While she does say she would not be a relationship with him if she were to get custody of her daughter, she does not seem to fully appreciate the risks of having such a person in her life. Her past boyfriends, including the father of her two oldest children, had similar issues. This indicates a pattern of choosing inappropriate partners. This is predicted to continue according to the testimony of Dr. Agnew. [ 43 ] I.U. struggles physically with tasks such as dressing the child, putting the child on the floor, tightening the car seat straps, removing the child from the supervised access place during a fire drill.

I.U. denies that these issues affect her parenting as the social workers have stated; however, her denial does not negate what others have consistently seen. I.U. relies on the city Metrobus for transport or Gregg Quinn for rides. How will she manage with a baby and a stroller? This aspect of her case would be less concerning if she had some familial or partner support. Her issues would impact the care of a vulnerable small child without any support person in her life.

This situation places this child at tremendous risk. [ 44 ] I appreciate the submissions of counsel for the mother that neither Daybreak nor occupational therapy services, for her physical issues, were implemented with this child as was the case with her first child. Counsel for I.U. rightly points out that PCA#2 was not even begun until January 2019. The Manager cannot rely on PCA#2 to justify the fact that absolutely no services were put in place from the time the child was born in March 2018. This absence of services cannot be explained by results of PCA#2 as this report did not exist

until February 2019. Counsel for I.U. argues that no one can fully predict what advances Daybreak or occupational therapy serviceswould have made had they been tried with the mother. Counsel for the mother argues that it is very difficult to predict, even with I.U.’slow cognitive function, how she would have reacted or learned from these services. She argued that, had some services been attemptedand failed, the Court could take more comfort in a continuous custody decision. [45] I agree that it would be preferential if some of these services had been tried and failed.

In most cases this lack of services mightbe a significant factor to warrant a temporary custody order. In this case, unfortunately, I can conclude from PCA#1, PCA#2 and thetestimony of Dr. Agnew that these services would almost certainly have been futile. Due to the extreme cognitive limits of I.U., hertraining would likely not overcome these concerns. I recognize that her WAIS scores are only a predictor of her success; however, veryfew people fall into the extremely low category.

The behaviours described in PCA#1 and PCA#2 are strikingly similar, as well as reportsfrom social workers during supervised access visits. Testimony of the mother herself is consistent with the diagnosis of her limitations. [46] Another concern is that the mother has not continued access to her older daughters. I could not determine exactly how long ithas been since I.U. has visited A.A. or L.A., but, it is certainly around two years ago. I.U. said she started work at MacDonald’s aroundthat time and has to use the bus to get to and from work.

She said that her work schedule, combined with the schedules of her now 12and 8 year old girls, made getting to see them very difficult. [47] I.U. also has issues with the dynamics between her and the paternal grandmother. This relationship is not always good andappears to have affected her seeking access. She also says the paternal grandmother always has her son, D.A. (her ex-boyfriend) there atthe home and she does not want access with him present. Overall, she describes that household as having too much drama and she wantsto see her girls in “peace and quiet”.

Since her ex, D.A., is there all the time, she ceased access. [48] The reality is that this is a situation whereby services are extremely unlikely to improve the mother’s long term parentingabilities. Since the test is what is in the best interests of the child, I cannot conclude that I should delay this further to try services wherethe mother’s chances of improved parenting are as poor as they are in this particular case. Starting right now, R.U. deserves a securepermanent home starting while she is still very young.

Further delay is detrimental to the child. [49] I recognize that I.U. is a gentle caring mother who has been extremely loving, caring and consistent during her visits with herchild over the past year. It is unfortunate that I have to come to this decision, but, the best interests of the child are paramount. DISPOSITION [50] The appropriate order here is an order of continuous custody pursuant to

section 32 of the Act. I note Fry, J. in Newfoundland& Labrador (Director of Child, Youth & Family Services) v. R. (G.), 2009 NLUFC 22 at paragraph 28, where she states: 28 With respect to the Child, Youth and Family Services Act, it is true that the Act contemplates no more than three temporaryorders during a child's lifetime. There is, however, absolutely nothing in the Act that requires the granting of three temporary orders priorto consideration of a continuous custody order.

In fact, the legislation permits a continuous custody order without ever having atemporary order first… [51] With respect to ongoing access to I.U., it is my understanding that the Manager is not opposed to this suggestion, as long as it isindicated to be in the best interests of R.U. Sheahan, J. in Newfoundland and Labrador (Child and Youth Services) v.

C.J., 2018 NLSC103 at paragraph 59, summarized the considerations for access following continuous custody as follows: 59 The Supreme Court of Canada considered the issue of access after a continuous custody order in the decision of Nouveau-Brunswick (Ministre de la santé & des services communautaires) c. L. (M.), (SCC), [1998] 2 S.C.R. 534, [1998] S.C.J.No. 52 (S.C.C.). Referring to the applicable principles involved, the court stated at paragraphs 38 and 39: 38 An order for permanent guardianship is the result of a consideration of the best interests of the child.

In considering whethervisiting or access rights should be granted, the judge cannot ignore the fact that he or she has first found it necessary to remove the childfrom the parents' care completely and permanently, so that the child's welfare will not be jeopardized any further. The judge musttherefore consider whether more limited contact might still be beneficial for the child. 39 My consideration of whether access should be granted is based on the following principles. First, there is no inconsistency inprinciple between a permanent guardianship order and an access order.

Second, access is the exception and not the rule. Third, theprinciple of preserving family ties cannot come into play in respect of granting access unless it is in the best interests of the child to doso, having regard to all the other relevant factors. Fourth, an adoption, which is in the best interests of the child, must not be hampered bythe existence of a right of access. Fifth, access should not be granted if its exercise would have negative effects on the physical orpsychological health of the child

[ 52 ] I am told that access between R.U. and her two older sisters is currently being explored. I strongly suggest that this be explored and, if possible, implemented. Every child has a right to know that they have siblings and hopefully grow up actually knowing their siblings. I strongly encourage sibling contact. [ 53 ] In conclusion, I find that R.U. is a child in need of protective intervention pursuant to section 10(1)(

a) and (

c) of the Act and I order that she be placed in the continuous custody of the Manager pursuant to s. 34(2) (

d) of the Act . The Manager is encouraged to pursue permanency planning for R.U. Ongoing access to I.U. shall continue, as long as it is determined to be in the best interests of the child, up to the point of placement for adoption. _________________________________ JANE M. FITZPATRICK Justice