Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) v J.H., 2022 NSSC 282

SUPREME COURT OF Nova Scotia Citation: Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) v J.H., 2022 NSSC 282 Date: 20220711 Docket: SFHCFSA , No. 120115 Registry: Halifax Between: Nova Scotia (Minister of Community Services) Applicant v. J.H., G.T. Respondents Judge: The Honourable Justice Cindy G. Cormier Heard: April 5, 2022, and May 3 & 5, 2022 in Halifax, Nova Scotia Counsel: Jean Webb, counsel for the Applicant, Minister of Community Services Linda Tippett-Leary, counsel for the Respondent, J.H. Noel Fellows, counsel for the Respondent, G.O.

Restriction on Publication: 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: [ 1 ] Together J.H, and G.T., have two children, EI and EO. G.T. was served with notice of this proceeding but he has not participated. [ 2 ] The Minister seeks an Order pursuant to s. 42(1) (

f) of the Children and Family Services Act , that the children, EI, born in November 2017, and EO, born in March 2019, shall be placed in the permanent care and custody of the Minister of Community Services – Child Welfare (hereinafter the Minister). [ 3 ] The Respondent, J.H., proposes that the children be returned to her care. [ 4 ] J.H. and G.O. have one child together: EE, born October 2020, who is no longer a subject in this proceeding. J.H. is prohibited from having contact with G.O. pursuant to a criminal court order.

J.H. was scheduled to attend domestic violence court in June 2022. 1 Termination of all disposition orders related to EE [ 5 ] The Minister took the position that G.O. had consistently acted in EE’s best interests, adopting G.O.’s plan for EE.

The Minister found G.O. was very attentive to EE’s medical needs, including when EE had heart surgery to repair two holes in his heart on January 14, 2021, and when EE was scheduled be seen by a pediatrician every two weeks thereafter. [ 6 ] On May 5, 2022, the parties consented to terminate all disposition orders in relation to EE under the Children and Family Services Act , upon EE being placed in the interim primary care of his father, G.O., pursuant to the Parenting and Support Act , file number 125367. [ 7 ] J.H. and G.O. have agreed that J.H. will have fully supervised access with EE, to be supervised by a third party approved by G.O. (not supervised by G.O.) and/or parenting time supervised at Veith House (12 visits).

Other parenting terms to be included are that: J.H. shall have access to all third-party information related to EE; both parties are prohibited from allowing J.H.’s mother, EH or J.H.’s brother, J.H. from having contact with EE, under any circumstances; and a notification clause regarding any changes (formal or not) will be added to the Interim Order for the Minister. [ 8 ] The parties are expected to take steps to formalize a final order which will include clauses specifying holiday parenting time. G.O.’s legal counsel will draft the Interim Order and the Veith House Order.

The Minister’s counsel will draft the Termination Order. The matter is adjourned to October 4, 2022.

2 The Minister is seeking permanent care and custody of EI and EO [ 9 ] Over the course of the proceeding, the Minister continued to identify the need for J.H. to work on the following issues: 1. substance abuse; 2. concerns regarding food, clothing, and shelter; 3. medical neglect; and additionally 4. “home instability.” [ 10 ] As noted by the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal in A.B . v.

Nova Scotia ( Community Services ), 2022 NSCA 24 , at paragraph 18 : two of the key issues at the final disposition hearing are to determine whether the children remain children in need of protective services and what order is required in the children’s best interests. [ 11 ] J.H. argued that no concerns were raised about her supervised parenting time with the children after her parenting returned to the Agency offices in October 2021, and yet she was not given an opportunity to exercise unsupervised parenting time to thereby prove she had made the necessary changes. [ 12 ] J.H. suggested that she did not have a current substance abuse problem; she had completed the services requested of her; she had not experienced trauma in her family of origin and therefore the issue was not relevant; she had arranged for appropriate housing; and she could not control the behaviours of her mother or her brother. [ 13 ] At paragraph 58, in A .

B ., v. Nova Scotia ( Community Services ), 2022 NSCA 24 , the Court of Appeal stated: History can preface a current finding of a need for protective services. But it is not a substitute for a current finding of such a need Nova Scotia ( Community Services ) v. S . E . L ., 2005 NSCA 55 at paragraph 20 . [ 14 ] The Court went on to find that in A . B . supra at paragraph 61 : There was no evidentiary basis for the judge to question the enduring character of A.B.’s improvements … that no inappropriate interactions were observed between A.B. and G.B. during visits.

As discussed further below, A.B. was not given any reasonable opportunity to parent G.B. It is simply wrong to assume she could not do so. 3 Evidence [ 15 ] Evidence at trial in this matter includes entries or reports forming part of business records entered as exhibits by consent of all parties. In addition, I have considered all other admissible evidence including the testimony of witnesses entered by way of report, affidavit, or on cross-examination.

I have made determinations of credibility when necessary. [ 16 ] The respondents were given an opportunity to, and they were expected to, advise the Minister if they required any of the authors of any entries or authors of any reports contained in the business records, or affiants for cross examination.

No concerns were raised by the parties regarding their right to cross examine any witnesses. 4 Arguments 4.1 J.H. [ 17 ] J.H.’s counsel argued that J.H. is “alone in the world” and that she may “only be coming to realize that her family is not as positive as she thought.” Pointing out that her client had “an emotional reaction” when being cross-examined by the Minister’s counsel, she suggested that “when it’s held in front of you,” as it was for J.H., that “it’s a wakeup call.” [ 18 ] Counsel suggested that J.H. had made tremendous progress with respect to the issue of substance abuse: J.H. had acknowledged using medication inappropriately; she had cooperated completely with urinalysis testing which ended in June 2021; and she had learned what her triggers were. [ 19 ] In addition, counsel suggested that J.H. did good work with her first therapist Breana Lane following an assault by an intimate partner, M.K. in 2019, and J.H. had had an opportunity to address issues such as anxiety, stress-management, and coping; and that in November 2021, J.H. had started working with a new therapist Meghan Scott MA, RCT-C, CCC, who was qualified as an expert in the proceeding, who stated that J.H. had achieved her goals. [ 20 ] Counsel emphasized the work J.H. had done with the family support workers, first Susan Belliveau, then Amanda Peers.

Peers later described J.H.’s interactions with her children very positively, including noting that J.H.: was affectionate with the children, giving

them hugs and kisses, telling them she loved them; that she arrived with healthy snacks, games, and books; that she enforced the rules by encouraging them to stop running, to be gentle, to slow down, to take a break; and she praised them for listening. [ 21 ] Counsel argued it was unfair that J.H.’s parenting time was never expanded. Counsel questioned why the Minister had never expanded J.H.’s parenting time beyond fully supervised parenting in the Agency offices.

She argued that the Minister should not be able to rely on the argument that they had not had an adequate opportunity to properly assess J.H.’s gains by relying on their failure to expand her parenting time. [ 22 ] Counsel asked that the children be returned to J.H.’s care, arguing that: community-based services were in place; that J.H. should be given an opportunity to parent the children after working so hard to address the substance abuse issue; and after doing so well in counselling, in family skills, and in supervised parenting – claiming that that J.H. had done all she could do. 4.2 The Minister [ 23 ] Counsel for the Minister acknowledged J.H.’s love for her children and how emotionally driven permanent care and custody trials are; however, the Minister took the position that parenting and keeping children safe from risks “takes more than love and caring.” While recognizing the things that J.H. had done since the children were taken into care, the Minister reviewed the reasons why the children came into care in the first place and took the position that the children continued to be at substantial risk of harm if returned to J.H.’s care. [ 24 ] Pointing out the coloured pictures of the interior of J.H.’s mother’s, EH’s home, the Minister suggested EH’s home was in a “deplorable state.” Counsel pointed out how cluttered it was, how unclean it was, and that three little children had been living in the midst “of that.” [ 25 ] Counsel reminded the Court that when the children were taken from J.H.’s care, that she was found to be under the influence of substances (several types of prescription medication not prescribed to her) which did interfere with her ability to care for the children.

J.H. had acknowledged the medication she was taking was not hers, and further she had acknowledged the text messages sent by her to G.O. asking G.O. to bring her medication to help her sleep and threatening not to hold, feed, nor change EE if G.O. did not do what she asked. [ 26 ] The Court was reminded that if the Minister had not intervened when they did, it is much more probable than not that EE would have died from medical neglect.

On balance of probabilities, J.H. had failed to update medical professionals in a timely way about EE’s lack of progress and significant deterioration. [ 27 ] Of note was that there were at least three adults living in EH’s home with J.H. when EE was in crisis (and at times four people), and they did not respond to EE’s distress.

In response to J.H.’s concern that the Minister appeared to be blaming her for EE’s “holes in his heart,” the Minister acknowledged J.H. was of course not responsible for a condition EE was born with but argued that she was responsible for, and expected to, proactively seek out appropriate medical attention for his condition.

As his mother, J.H. was entrusted to provide all necessary updates those who could assist EE and to seek out help if EE was not thriving. [ 28 ] The Minister acknowledged that it was possible J.H.’s failure to identify her childhood as “traumatic” or that she had lived her life in chaos, may simply be because J.H. has nothing else to compare her life to; however, the Minister argued that J.H.’s “inability to recognize that her family of origin was (and continues to be) ‘toxic’ for her has prevented her from recognizing the need to work on her past childhood trauma.” Counsel argued that J.H. needs to stop shifting the blame to others and stop assuming people just have a “grudge against her or her family,” and she needs to make some significant long-lasting changes. [ 29 ] The Minister argued that J.H. has been negatively impacted by her mother EH’s: lack of impulse control; tendency to incite conflict; and the level of anger EH demonstrates.

Counsel drew a parallel between some her mother’s, EE’s and J.H.’s behaviours. [ 30 ] The Minister also noted a concern that: J.H. has not been forthcoming with information that does not support her position. The Minister does not believe J.H. would reach out to the Minister for assistance if necessary.

The Minister suggested “there was no piece of paper, no intervention order, no peace bond which would keep EH away from the children.” [ 31 ] The Minister took exception to the argument J.H. made suggesting arrangements should have been made to move her parenting time with the children to a different office because J.H. could not use a bus pass or conversely that the Minister of Community Services – Child Protection should have provided J.H. with a bus pass, although J.H. should have been able to acquire one through her financial assistance worker. [ 32 ] The Minister objected to J.H.’s argument that she was forced to rely on her mother for transportation, suggesting that if J.H. could not find her way to the Minister’s office for her parenting time when a bus pass should have been available to her through her income assistance worker, that it would be difficult for the Minister to conclude that J.H. could manage without her mother if the Minister was no longer involved. [ 33 ] When considering whether services have been attempted and failed, the Minister acknowledged an oversight in relation to updating their position in regarding services provided by the Chebucto Family Recourse Centre.

Their Revised Plans of Care should have reported a lack of progress.

In addition, the Minister reported that: J.H.: had repeatedly breached no contact orders put in place to reduce conflict with G.O; she had refused to apply for supportive housing and failed to secure her own lease; she was partly responsible for the breakdown in EI’s and EO’s placement with their aunt, J (for instance threatening to contact her sister’s employer); and despite the therapy and support put in place for J.H., she refused to explore any possibility of trauma related issues and continued to support contact between her mother and the children. [ 34 ] The Minister noted that it would explore the possibility that any adoptive home would agree to allow the children, EI and EO to continue to have contact with their younger sibling EE.

5 Medical neglect (MSI records) [35] J.H. did not dispute that EE suffered from a serious medical condition and he underwent life-saving surgery. J.H. suggestedshe was not responsible for EE’s condition and that she should not be blamed for failing to recognize EE’s medical condition hadworsened as medical professionals had failed to diagnose and provide appropriate treatment for EE in a timely way. [36] The business records of the Nova Scotia Medical Services Insurance (MSI) for J.H. and for all three of the children was enteredas an exhibit at trial.

Although J.H.’s mother, EH and her brother, JH lived with J.H. and her children, they were not parties to thisproceeding, and they did not testify. Their MSI records were not available to the Court. [37] At trial, J.H. struggled to respond to questions about her family of origin prior to 2017, including questions about any healthdifficulties which may have prevented her from attending school, and questions about her mother, EH’s, mental health and involvementin any violent incidents.

J.H. took the position that her life with her mother, EH, had not been chaotic, she had not experienced anytrauma which could impact on her parenting, and her family of origin history should be of no concern to the Court. [38] The information contained in business records filed with the Court did assist in corroborating some information in someinstances, and in others, the information raised more concerns and more questions regarding issues including but not limited to: medicalneglect; EH’s mental health; and J.H.’s history of illnesses and lack of school attendance. [39] With respect to more recent history and EE’s health, the MSI business records support the conclusion that the medicalprofessionals involved with EE at birth and before, did raise concerns about EE’s weight and they also raised concerns about his heart.

Ihave no reason to believe they did not share those concerns with J.H. I conclude J.H. should have known she needed to monitor EE’ssituation very carefully. Certainly, she should have known EE and his brothers needed a sober and vigilant caregiver. [40] Whether G.O. was aware of the concerns expressed by EE’s health care providers is less clear. However, G.O. did knowsomething was wrong and he did report his concerns – thereby likely saving EE’s life in the process. [41] The MSI business records also clarify that J.H.’s mother, EH, attended the IWK Health Centre with J.H. as a child.

EHreported to health professionals that she had lost an infant daughter, at about 9 months, to a condition that can present with symptomswhich are often present with a diagnosis of failure to thrive. In response, the attending physician advised that the condition referenced byEH was not hereditary. [42] Based on J.H.’s MSI records, historically, someone booked frequent appointments for J.H. with multiple physicians. J.H. wasseen frequently by multiple physicians for what appeared to be somewhat mundane or everyday health complaints not necessarilyrequiring a visit to a doctor.

It is unclear to me whether the doctors involved in J.H.’s care were aware of the extent of the services beingprovided to J.H. by other physicians at around the same time they provided them to her. My review of J.H.’s MSI records raisedhistorical concerns about J.H.’s emotional and/or physical health status generally. 6 Legislation [43] In any proceeding under the Children and Family Services Act, S.N.S.1990 c.5 (CFSA), the Court must give priority to the bestinterests of the child in accordance with s. 2(2).

The factors to be considered in determining a child’s best interests are set out in s.3(2) of the CFSA, which I have considered and applied. [44] Before a court can grant an order removing a child from the care of a parent, the CFSA requires the circumstances enumeratedin s. 42(2)-(4) must be met. [45] The Court must complete the final review hearing within the legislative time periods, absent exceptional circumstances (A.M. vNova Scotia (Community Services), 2020 NSCA 29).

The time limits are supposed to reflect a child’s sense of time (P.H. v Nova Scotia(Community Services), 2013 NSCA 83). [46] This proceeding is just over 2 months past the final deadline legislated under the CFSA.

I agreed to extend the deadline forcompletion of the hearing in the best interests of the children, to ensure that all viable plans for their futures were thoroughly considered,and sufficient reasons were provided to the parties. [47] When a child protection proceeding is past the legislated time limit, the Court has only two options: 1) issue an order grantingpermanent care of the children to the Minister; or 2) dismiss the proceeding (which would result in the children’s return to the care of herparent(s)). 7 Onus [48] The Minister must prove its case on a balance of probabilities.

I find that they have done so. [49] Section 22(2) of the CFSA defines a child in need of protective services. I made a finding that EI and EO were children in needof protective services under s. 22(2)(

b) on October 13, 2020. That finding was confirmed at each stage of the proceeding thereafter. Forpurposes of this final disposition review, I must determine whether EI and EO are still children in need of protective services (CatholicChildren’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto v. CM, (SCC), [1994] SCJ No. 37 (SCC)). I am not limited toconsidering only the risks enumerated in the Minister’s plan, if there are other risks from circumstances “… which have arisen since thattime” (CM, supra.).

8 Factual background 8.1 2017 (age 20) [ 50 ] On January 18, 2017, J.H. was 20 years old and living with her mother EH, and her brother JH. On that date, the Minister requested a wellbeing check on EH, as EH had contacted the Minister’s offices (financial) and stated that “she felt like ending her life,” as she was upset over the amount of financial assistance that she was receiving to pay her rent. J.H. explained to the police that EH was experiencing financial difficulties and had difficulties providing for both J.H. and her brother JH.

J.H. advised that EH was prescribed medication for depression. [ 51 ] According to MSI records in 2017, the year J.H.’s first child, EI, was born, J.H. attended Dr. Buckley’s office in February to address issues related to hypertension and services related to cellulitis. Dr. Buckley prescribed Pen VK Tab (an antibiotic for bacterial infection) and Tylenol No.3 Tab (an opioid pain reliever). [ 52 ] On June 22, 2017, J.H. saw Dr. Buckley and suspected she was pregnant. Thereafter, J.H. met with Dr. Buckley fifteen (15) times in total. In November of 2017, Dr.

Buckley prescribed Amoxicillin (for bacterial infections). In 2017, J.H. was also seen by Dr. Mohsin (radiology); Dr. Vandenhof (gynecology); Dr. Rittenberg 5 times (obstetrics); Dr. Ahmad (radiology); Dr. Scott (OBGY); Dr. Prasad-B (anesthetist); Dr. Merrick (OBGY); Dr. McCarthy (OBGY); and Dr. Coolen (OBGY) twice in February 2017. [ 53 ] In September 2017, J.H. was referred for pre-natal follow up at the IWK Grace Maternity Hospital.

J.H.’s due date was in December 2017. [ 54 ] In early November 2017, J.H. refused to be admitted through the admitting department “for personal reasons” related to her relationship with the admitting clerk, and therefore she presented at another desk and was admitted at 18:30. The file reflects that when the clerk went to check on J.H. at 20:43, she was gone from her room. “There was no sign of the patient in ELAU. J.H. had left without being assessed.” 8.2 EI was born in November 2017 [ 55 ] In November 2017, J.H.’s postpartum

summary report indicated that J.H. “declined skin to skin (with EI) even though benefits of skin to skin explained by writer, babe held by family members.” On November 26, 2017, J.H. remained in hospital following the birth. The interdisciplinary progress notes state “no concerns from J.H. but her mother out to desk, upset with being in ‘wardroom’, asked to be moved. Baby’s bloodwork due in 2 hours. Concerns heard but she became verbally abusive with charge nurse… Security called and patients’ mother escorted out of hospital. Patient very quiet. Moved to room 510 to wait for bloodwork for baby.

Support given.” [ 56 ] Following his birth in November 2017, EI was seen by Dr. Bebbington twice (unspecified), and he was also seen by Dr. Buckley for one routine check up and for a complaint of dermatitis. 8.3 2018 (age 21) [ 57 ] According to MSI records for 2018, the year J.H. turned 21, she attended a doctor’s office for her own health needs approximately eight times. She was seen by Dr. Buckley three times (dermatitis in January), (twice for a headache in March and July); Dr. Marshall (virus in February); Dr.

Stender (dermatitis in April) prescribed Teva-Cephalexin on April 14, 2018, which was filled on that day; Dr. Tilly (dermatitis in June); and by Dr. Purdy (dermatitis in June) she was prescribed Betaderm (steroid medication) and Hydroval (skin irritations), and she filled the prescription on June 13, 2018. [ 58 ] According to MSI records, EI was seen by doctors approximately 9 times in 2018. EI was seen by Dr. Buckley four times (two routine checkups in January and March), (chronic gingivitis in March); (acute pharyngitis in October); Dr. Marshall (virus in February); Dr.

Subhani (candidiasis of mouth in May); Dr. Stender (rash in May); Dr. Tilly (open wound in June); and Dr. Marsh (erythematous, rash redness usually from injury, infection, or inflammation, August 29). [ 59 ] The parties did not call an expert medical professional to provide an opinion and upon review of the MSI records for J.H. and EI for 2018.

I was unable to identify a clear concern related to the medical care sought by J.H. for herself or for EI in 2017 or 2018. [ 60 ] J.H. started dating M.K. in the summer of 2018 — a relationship were MK later assaulted J.H. 8.4 2019 (22) [ 61 ] According to MSI records for 2019, J.H. attended a doctor’s office for her own health needs as follows: Dr. Stender (vomiting related to pregnancy in January); Dr. Buckley (twice in January and February); Dr. Mawdsley (OBGY in February); Dr. Khan (radiology in February); Dr. Glazebrook( seven times for pregnancy in February, March, and April); Dr.

Conter (pregnancy in February); Dr. Neumann (threatened labour in February); Dr. Abidali (threatened labour in February); Dr Sjaus (abdominal pain in March); Dr. MacDonald (headache on April 29); Dr. Filter (radiology pathology

interpretation in May); and Dr. Subhani (viral on August 29). 8.5 2019 (EI) [ 62 ] According to MSI records for 2019, EI was seen by doctors approximately 9 times. EI was seen by Dr. Kitamura (balanoposthistis, infectious/irritant/traumatic?, January); Dr. Buckley (diaper or napkin rash, April) and prescribed Clotrimaderm and

Hyderm which was filled September 17; Dr. Marsh (viral in June); Dr. Minodin (infestation in July); Dr. Subhani (urinary in August), (skin erupt in September), (cellulitis on October 15), prescribed Fucidin, filled Sept; Dr. Yazer (cellulitis, on October 3), prescribed Amoxicillin Granules and Apo-Amoxi filled October; pediatrician Dr. Rose (contusion face, scalp, neck, exc eye). [ 63 ] Again, I was unable to identify a clear concern related to the medical care sought by J.H. for herself or for EI in 2019. [ 64 ] On January 31, 2019, J.H. was referred for obstetric care.

The Consultation Report stated “21-year-old … late to prenatal care…uncertain dates.” [ 65 ] On February 2, 2019, J.H. attended for a pre-admission maternity assessment. J.H. reported that: she had not menstruated since giving birth to her first child; she had never had a pap test; and she had not yet had any pre-natal care for her second pregnancy. J.H. left the appointment before seeing a doctor.

The record reflects that a nurse noted that she tried to stop J.H. [ 66 ] The nurse reported that she asked J.H. “what was going on,” but J.H. “ignored her” (the R.N.) but J.H. “seemed unhappy about the wait, but would not discuss or wait any longer.” Remarks included on the record were, “Patient left ambulatory. Writer asked patient if she was leaving without being seen by the doctor, she ignored the writer.

Writer asked again if they were leaving without being seen and the woman who was with the patient aggressively banged the button for the automatic door and continued to ignore writer and left.” 8.6 EO who was born in March 2019 [ 67 ] EO was born in March 2019, and according to MSI records he was seen by Dr. Glazebrook (routine health check March 1 and 2 and, in relation to concerns about nutrition/development on March 7); Dr. Tilley (urinary on March 9); Dr Kolla (candidiasis in March); Dr. Buckley (routine checkup in April); Dr. Subhani (urinary in August); Dr. Farhat (radiology in October); Dr.

Yazer (pyrexia in November). [ 68 ] Of note was the issue of nutrition and development were apparently raised in relation to EO at or near the time of his birth in March 2019. 8.7 J.H.’s involvement with MK – categorized as high risk [ 69 ] On November 15, 2019, J.H. stated that she had been dating MK since August 2018, and that MK had assaulted her by pushing, shoving, and shaking her, and then taking her telephone from her. J.H. indicated that her brother JH attempted to defend her, and MK went to his car to get a bat and began swinging the bat at her brother JH as JH yelled at him to leave.

Then, MK grabbed a knife from his vehicle and continued to threaten JH with the knife and bat. The incident was classified as High Risk. [ 70 ] On November 21, 2019, J.H. reported that she was being harassed by her ex-boyfriend MK. J.H. reported that on January 7 and 9, 2020, her ex-boyfriend had contacted her. [ 71 ] On November 21, 2019, Victim Services provided information related to J.H.’s involvement with MK, who allegedly assaulted her.

J.H. indicated that she did not intend to pursue the relationship with MK and the Minister did not pursue the matter. [ 72 ] After separating from MK (reportedly in the summer of 2019), J.H. began a relationship with G.O., EE’s father. 8.8 2020 (age 23) [ 73 ] According to MSI records for 2020, J.H. attended a doctor’s office for her own health needs as follows: Dr. Rittenberg (complication of pregnancy, May); Dr.

Buckley (supervise pregnancy in May), (urinary in June), (anxiety state on November 12 and 27), (urinary on December 2) - prescribed Apo Alprazolam benzodiazepine for anxiety and 20 Amoxicillin/Apo-Alprazolam); Dr. Glazebrook (11 times in May, June, and July – prescribed Amoxicillin bacterial infection, August, September, October (6), October 16 acute reaction to stress); Dr. Fortuna (radiology); Dr. Mata Mbemba (radiology in June); Dr. Newmann (abdominal pain in June); Dr. Coolen (OBGY July, September 21, September 28, October 5, poor fetal growth); Dr. McLeod (OBGY pregnancy poor obst in August); Dr.

Abel (supervise pregnancy in September); Dr. Lorenz (abdominal pain in October); Dr. Premach (abuse of drugs, December 20). [ 74 ] In 2020, MSI records indicate EI was seen by doctors’ approximately 5 times. EI was seen by Dr. Buckley (insomnia in February, infantile autism in August); by pediatrician Dr. Szudek (behavioural in April); Dr. Moulton (dental caries/anesthetist in September). [ 75 ] The MSI records cover the period up to March 31, 2021, and the records indicate that in 2020 EO was seen by a doctor 4 times. Dr. Buckley (routine general medical exam in January); Dr.

Killorn (poisoning/drug on January 22); Dr. Rideout (respiratory on February 19); and Dr. Quigley (cough on March 2). [ 76 ] Of note is the suggestion that as early as February 2020, Dr. Buckley was exploring concerns about EI related to “insomnia” and “infantile autism” and “behaviour” and “carries”; and that EO was seen by Dr.

Killorn in relation to “poisoning/drug” in January 2020 when EO would have been approximately 10 months old. [ 77 ] On April 29, 2020, police records reflect that G.O. reported J.H. had “ran into the front of his Subaru and drove off.” He reported she had agreed to drive his car a couple of blocks to her home for him but then took off. He reported that J.H. only had a learners permit and that she was taking “prescription pills that don’t belong to her.” Police noted: G.O. had a dash camera that recorded the event. J.H. can be seen leaving the Irving and accelerating quickly away, closely followed by G.O.

J.H. can be seen crossing the white and yellow lines, she makes several wide turns where she entered the oncoming lanes, failing to

stop at stop signs, swaying within the lane and almost hitting a curb, driving on the wrong side of the travel lanes in a residential area, and turning left from the through lane across the left through lane. J.H. finally turns onto Janis Ann Dr which is a dead-end road. J.H. comes to the end and G.O. pulls his Subaru across the roadway to prevent J.H. from leaving the vehicle. J.H is off camera when she first bumps into the Subaru after turning around. G.O. backs up and pulls ahead so his front bumper is facing G.O.’s front bumper. J.H. can be seen on the video ramming the Subaru as she tries to move around G.O.

J.H. leaves the scene of the accident without stopped to ensure G.O. was not injured. Police determine that it appears J.H. was using the car as a weapon against G.O. Police observed that when J.H. was placed under arrest she was “falling asleep standing, had slurred speech, droopy eyes and was unsteady on her feet.” She was placed under arrest for dangerous driving and leaving the scene of an accident. [ 78 ] On April 29, 2020, J.H, and G.O. ended their relationship. G.O. attended J.H.’s home to ask J.H. to give him the key to his second car. (

a) When J.H. refused to provide him with the key, the police responded and attempted to engage J.H.’s brother and her mother to assist them as J.H. was not responding. (

b) The police described J.H.’s brother, JH, as “initially hostile towards police” but noted that he calmed down, but he was not able to assist. (

c) Police noted that J.H.’s mother EH “showed up and was very irate and began yelling at Cst. Varin as she pulled up.” Police observed that EH “initially motioned as if she was going to drive very closely to Cst. Varin but stopped.” EH was told she would be arrested without questions should she attempt to use her vehicle against police cars or officers. She parked legally on the street after apologizing. She walked in the house and spoke with J.H. where she obtained the key.

The parties (J.H. and G.O.) were directed not to have any contact. [ 79 ] J.H. was later charged with driving while under the influence, domestic violence, and dangerous driving of a motor vehicle.

J.H. was then subject to a no contact order prohibiting her from having contact with G.O. [ 80 ] On April 30, 2020, EH contacted the police and was described as “ranting and raving, demanding to know when her daughter was going to be released and the names of the officers who were on scene, yet would not leave her name or number to be called back.” [ 81 ] On April 30, 2020, J.H. was released on an Undertaking not to have contact with G.O. J.H. was subsequently charged with several breaches of the no contact provision and several failures to appear.

J.H.’s charges were scheduled to be dealt with in domestic violence court on June 15, 2022. [ 82 ] There was a report of J.H.’s brother behaving in a threatening manner toward G.O., suggesting he will not see his child again, that he should “never want to come to this house again,” and he stated to G.O. “hopefully that ugly little blind bastard of yours dies from a brain tumour soon,” referring to G.O.’s child from another relationship. As noted previously, J.H.’s brother did not testify at trial. 8.9 Ongoing contact with G.O. [ 83 ] On May 4, 2020, J.H. was charged with a breach of the no-contact provision.

J.H. was reportedly transported “to her father’s home on Drumdonald St. Halifax.” [ 84 ] On June 21, 2020, EH reported that her neighbours were “yelling and mouthing off to her son in law, G.O., who was outside cleaning his car and that the exchange had “escalated to a yelling match.” [ 85 ] On June 29, 2020, J.H. reported that the neighbours were continuing to yell at her boyfriend G.O.

Police responded directing G.O. not to engage in disputes with the neighbours. [ 86 ] On July 1, 2020, EH reported that there were several females in her yard and a male had “just broken her door.” The neighbours reported that G.O. had driven down the street “and nearly struck them” while they were riding their bicycles.

The neighbour’s parent admitted to “pounding” on EH’s door. [ 87 ] The neighbour reported that G.O. had responded, and they had a conversation and “all was good.” The neighbour alleged that EH then “came outside with a broomstick and started swinging and shouting for them to leave and J.H.’s brother, JH, called the police”.

The neighbours stated that they were not struck, and they left without further incident. [ 88 ] EH provided a video of the neighbour “pounding on her door” and she showed the police a “3-inch crack in the bottom panel on the right-hand side of the door.” EH denied going outside with a broom handle. Police cautioned G.O. regarding his driving. [ 89 ] On August 15, 2020, J.H. reported that her neighbours had “threatened to shoot her boyfriend’s head off.” Witnesses reported that G.O. had arrived at J.H.’s home and he immediately began yelling at the neighbours.

They could hear G.O. yelling “fucking niggers” out the windows from the house. They did not mention any weapons. G.O. stated that the neighbour “appeared to be grabbing for something in his car.” The neighbour reported that G.O. started yelling at them about their music, and so he started yelling back. He stated that G.O. started yelling racist comments at him, so he went to the end of the driveway and started challenging G.O. to a fight. [ 90 ] Clearly the family were no strangers to conflict.

Despite the no contact order, both J.H. and G.O. were having ongoing contact, and both EH and J.H. were getting involved in conflict related to G.O. and their neighbours. It is of concern to me that both EI and EO were likely present each time there was a “commotion” in the home.

8.10 EE was born in October 2020. [ 91 ] The MSI record reflects that EE was seen by Dr. Glazebrook (on October 10, 2020, physical check up; October 11 further assessment; October 16 undiagnosed cardiac murmurs; October 19 and October 23 abnormal weight gain); Dr. Dhillon pediatrician ( October 30 for internal medicine

interpretation/ventricular septal defect, November 12, 13, 14, 15, December 21); Dr. Petrie ( November 9 cachexia or wasting syndrome or anorexia cachexia syndrome); Dr. Quigley (November 10, and 12, nutritional/development); Dr. Ahmad (radiology, November 14); Dr. Abeysekera (November 16, 17, 18, 19, 20); Dr. Maianski (November 17, 19); Dr. Sett (December 9); Dr. Horne (December 9); Dr. Hilliard (December 11); Dr. Wilson (December 15); Dr. Bolivar (December 15,16,17, 18, 19); and Dr.

Nash (December 28). [ 92 ] It appears from the MSI record that as early as October 16, 2020, health care providers identified EE with “undiagnosed cardiac murmurs” and then they expressed concern about “abnormal weight gain” on October 19 and on October 23, 2020 (4 days).

EE was not seen by a medical practitioner between October 23 and October 30 (7 days), and he was not seen again between October 30 and November 9 (10 days). [ 93 ] Despite EE presenting with several medical concerns as early as October 16, 2020, and despite EE continuing to lose weight up until the Minister intervened on November 9, 2020, J.H. and the others in EE’s home failed to ring the alarm bell – G.O. did.

The health care providers could not help EE if they were unaware that EE was not improving or growing and that EE was in fact losing weight and appeared unwell. [ 94 ] On October 14, 2020, G.O. expressed concern about J.H.’s ability to care for EE. He expressed concern about J.H.’s drug use.

G.O. reported that J.H. had been “arrested” for driving under the influence while she was pregnant with EE. [ 95 ] G.O. reported that even after the incident in April 2020, he had tried to offer support to J.H.; however, she had refused to care for their infant unless he delivered drugs to her, and she was refusing to change the child, or pick the child up when he cried. G.O. described EE as malnourished, dehydrated, and jaundiced.

He alleged that J.H. threatened to make a referral regarding his girlfriend’s children if he reported his concerns to the Minister. [ 96 ] He explained that at the time he “was working a back-shift and J.H. was texting him and telling him to come back to take care of EE, and she was refusing to feed him or pick him up if he cried.” He stated that when he expressed concern that EE would “die if he cried too long,” J.H. reportedly responded “that’s your problem.” [ 97 ] On October 15, 2020, G.O. reported that J.H. was in breach of the no-contact provision as she had called him multiple times that day.

G.O. reported that J.H. was “heavily intoxicated on some kind of depressant and totally incoherent.” G.O. expressed concern about the children, suggesting he was not worried about J.H. as “being intoxicated is her baseline.” [ 98 ] Police noted that J.H and her “very irate mother” contacted one of their police officers accusing him of being racist when he explained he would need to complete a wellbeing check. EH stated that she would not allow the police to check on J.H. as J.H. has “native blood,” and EH was afraid she would be shot.

EH claimed that J.H. was “safe and sound.” 8.11 Intervention by Minister [ 99 ] On November 9, 2020, the Minister reviewed the history of the file and determined that J.H.’s children were at substantial risk of harm and required child protective services. J.H.’s children were taken into the temporary care and custody of the Minister. This proceeding began by way of Notice of Child Protection Application dated November 12, 2020.

All three children EI, EO, and EE, were initially placed in the temporary care of the Minister. [ 100 ] The evidence supports the conclusion that on November 9, 2020, EE was taken to see a doctor and was found to be dehydrated and malnourished. He had dropped from the 30 th percentile to the 3 rd percentile and it was determined he was “failing to thrive.” In January 2021, EE underwent life-saving heart surgery to repair two holes in his heart. 8.12 Misuse of substances [ 101 ] Upon investigation into J.H.’s alleged misuse of substances the Minister determined: (

a) Toxicology reports, taken at the time of the Minister’s initial involvement, found that J.H. was positive for the following substances “Ethanol, Nordazepam, Oxazepam, Tamozepan, Lorazipam, and Delta-9 THC.” (

b) J.H. missed the first urine analysis collections despite what the Minister considered “clear directions given.” (

c) Seven reports received between May 15, 2021 and June 7, 2021 indicated positive results for prescribed medications only. (

d) J.H. argued there is no evidence of continued use and the Minister agreed. J.H. has acknowledged that some of the medications she had taken were not prescribed to her but easily accessible to her. [ 102 ] Maggie Newcombe suggested that the Minister discontinued random urinalysis testing approximately six months prior to trial, which started in April 2022 and concluded in May 2022 (records reflect testing ended after June 2021). There was no disagreement that all the tests had been coming back containing reference to prescribed medication only. [ 103 ] Ms.

Newcombe noted that although there is no evidence that J.H. continued to misuse substances, it was the Minister’s position that the issue of why J.H. was misusing substances while in a caregiving role had not been adequately addressed through counseling.

The Minister took the position that J.H. has little insight into her past behaviour. There was acknowledgement that J.H. had expressed “great regret” about her use of substances, but Ms. Newcombe was concerned that J.H. had refused to discuss the issue in counseling. 8.13 J.H.’s brother’s fiancé AC as a witness [ 104 ] AC testified on behalf of J.H. On cross-examination, AC confirmed that she was in a relationship and was engaged to marry J.H.’s brother, JH. (

a) AC agreed she was living with J.H.’s mother, J.H.’s brother, and J.H.’s children when the children were taken into care. She reviewed the photographs of the home and acknowledged they were an accurate representation of the condition of the home when she resided there. She indicated that she was not concerned that the condition of the home could affect the children. (

b) AC stated that she had been attending the Nova Scotia Community College during the week and she did not observe any signs that EE required immediate medical attention due to his low weight, lethargy, or risk of congestive heart failure. She stated that she did not observe J.H. abuse any prescription drugs and she was not aware that when J.H. was tested for drugs in her system, that J.H. had several prescribed drugs in her system, in addition to alcohol and marijuana. (

c) AC denied any knowledge of ongoing conflict in the home, or incidents with the police attending the home due to EH’s conflicts with her neighbours. She denied observing EH “yelling, cursing, or making fun of people,” or using the “n word” on multiple occasions when referring to Black Nova Scotian police officers who attended at their home. AC denied that her fiancé, JH (who is J.H.’s brother), tried to kick anyone in the stomach when they were pregnant. She also denied having knowledge of the text messages her fiancé, J.H.’s brother, had sent to G.O., including a text suggesting “he was a useless piece of shit and would never see his kids again as he had ratted them out.” (

d) AC denied any knowledge of an incident when J.H. allegedly lashed out at G.O. in or around May 2020. She denied knowledge of an incident when J.H. reportedly “rammed” G.O.’s vehicle while “heavily intoxicated.” She denied having any knowledge of pending criminal charges against J.H. or that J.H. is subject to an order not to have contact with G.O. and that J.H. has been charged with breaches of that order. (

e) AC stated that she was unaware of J.H.’s issues or her situation. AC became emotional during her testimony, and she then refused to return to conclude the cross-examination. After AC was given a short break from testifying, she did not return. J.H. stated that AC did not wish to continue. I directed she be contacted and though efforts were made, AC did not return. [ 105 ] Other witnesses for J.H. filed affidavits, including her cousin RH and a friend of hers, MM. They were not called for cross- examination and their affidavits were marked as exhibits and admitted into evidence.

Both witnesses had very positive things to say about J.H. and her mother’s relationship. [ 106 ] Although I do not doubt that J.H. can at times provide appropriate care for her children, I am satisfied that there have also been many times when J.H.’s behaviour and her choices have seriously endangered the wellbeing of her children and others.

The question as of the date of trial is had J.H. alleviated the risk of harm posed to her children, and if it is in their best interests of the children to be returned to her care. 8.14 2021 (24) [ 107 ] On January 7, 2021, J.H. reported to police that a friend of their neighbour was threatening to burn their home down.

EH presented to police as “very emotional” and police reported that EH would “not listen to officers as they tried to talk with her.” J.H. reported that she, her mother, and her brother JH, had been driving into the city on Magazine Hill when a friend of their neighbours began tailgating them and giving them the finger. J.H. stated that when they arrived home, the neighbours’ friend was already at their home and he began yelling at them, cursing and swearing.

The friend of their neighbour reported that EH had picked up a rock from the driveway and “was going to throw it at his vehicle,” and that it was EH who had tailgated him and had given him the finger. [ 108 ] EE underwent surgery in early January 2021.

Tina Wells, the casework supervisor, observed that following EE’s surgery, when J.H. was unable to attend the foster home to see EE due to Covid 19 related concerns, that J.H. was very understanding. [ 109 ] At a Protection Hearing held on February 5, 2021, the children EI, EO, and EE were found to be children in need of protective services pursuant to section 22(2) (

g) of the Children and Family Services Act , reserving the right of the Applicant, the Minister, to lead evidence and seek a finding with respect to the allegations pursuant to sections 22(2) (

b) and (

k) of the Children and Family Services Act , and reserving the right of the Respondents, J.H. and G.O, to cross-examine on the affidavit evidence and all other evidence filed with the Court.

As noted in C.M., supra, I am not limited to considering only the risks enumerated in the Minister’s plan; if there are other risks from circumstances which have arisen since that time, I may consider them as well. [ 110 ] On February 12, 2021, J.H. reported to police that G.O. had been “messaging her friends and coming around her house.” G.O stated that he had not been attending at J.H.’s home or contacting her. 9 Least intrusive measures [ 111 ] In the Minister’s initial Plan of Care dated February 18, 2021, the Minister identified 1. Substance abuse; 2.

Physical neglect – unfit living conditions; and 3. medical neglect, as issues needing to be addressed by J.H. The Minister’s Plan of Care supported EI and EO, being placed with J.H.’s sister, J.

10 Minister’s expectations at 1 st disposition 10.1 Misuse of recreational or prescribed medications [ 112 ] The Minister initially took the position that J.H. should be able to prove that she would not abuse or misuse any recreational or prescribed medications (hers or anyone else’s medication); and she would not abuse or misuse alcohol while in a child caring role. [ 113 ] I conclude that J.H. was misusing substances when the children were taken into care in November 2020.

J.H. participated in urinalysis testing and by the summer of 2021 there was no further evidence that J.H. was continuing to misuse substances. I do agree it is highly unlikely that J.H. has addressed the underlying issues leading to her misuse of substances and her neglect of the children in the first place. [ 114 ] I agree there is no evidence that J.H. had a long-standing problem with substances; however, I do find there is evidence that J.H. struggled with maintaining regular sleep patterns and it is likely she began misusing sleep aids when she became a parent.

It is unclear how she is now managing her sleep hygiene. 10.2 Stable and safe environment, clean well fed, and healthy [ 115 ] The Minister expected J.H. to ensure the children were in a stable and safe environment, that the environment was free of hazards that may pose a risk to the children, and that the children were clean, well fed, and healthy while in her care. [ 116 ] J.H.’s mother provided her with a significant amount of day-to-day practical support in caring for her children. I understand EI slept with his grandmother.

Parenting or caring for a special needs toddler or preschooler takes a tremendous amount of energy. Based on the photographs of EH’s home, energy was not directed toward maintaining a house which was free of hazards. [ 117 ] The family was often in a state of chaos and the usual routines one often expects to have in place with young children did not exist. I come to that conclusion based on my review of the MSI records which provided me with a historical perspective regarding the level of care provided by EH to J.H. Historically, EH did not prioritize J.H.’s attendance at school.

J.H. often presented as sick and some of the health concerns noted in the MSI records suggested a lack of cleanliness in the home (insect infestation etc..) may have been a factor in her ongoing illnesses. [ 118 ] The suggestion that J.H. was not always a hands-on mother who demonstrated a significant amount of energy was supported by evidence from J.H.’s sister J, who suggested that J.H. had failed to take full advantage of opportunities to parent the children while they were placed in her home, by evidence of J.H.’s use of medication to assist her with sleep and her attempts to persuade G.O. by any means necessary to come care for EE. 10.3 Medical attention - accountability [ 119 ] The Minister sought to have J.H. demonstrate accountability related to her role in failing to recognize EE’s poor health, including her failure to seek emergency medical attention, and demonstrate insight into the need to ensure that any person living with the children should show a positive interest in the children’s safety and well-being. [ 120 ] At trial, J.H. continued to ask why people did not look at the doctors “who had missed” it or failed to diagnose EE.

J.H.’s theory is not supported by the evidence. The MSI records clearly indicate the doctors knew, and therefore I find they told J.H. about their concerns for EE.

I find J.H. was unable to recognize or chose to ignore the EE’s signs of distress because she was misusing medication at the time in question. 10.4 Prevent her mother from having contact with the children [ 121 ] In addition to the expectation that J.H. participate in various services and ongoing risk assessment in relation to the above noted issues, the Minister expected J.H. not to threaten to refuse to provide care for the children in order to obtain goods and services from the children’s fathers or others and not to permit her mother or her brother to have contact with any of the children, requiring her to move out of her mother’s home. [ 122 ] I am disappointed by J.H.’s choice not to take advantage of assisted living housing which may have been available to her had she applied in a timely way and asked her various support providers to advocate for her.

A placement in a supported living environment would have reassured the Court that she had services in place and a plan to control her mother’s and her brother’s access to her children in a manner which may have satisfied the Court. J.H.’s refusal to pursue the options most likely to result in her children being returned to her was not encouraging. 11 Breaches of Court Orders [ 123 ] On March 10, 2021, G.O. reported that J.H. had texted him on February 14, 2021, and on March 7, 2021, contrary to the no- contact provisions in force at that time. [ 124 ] J.H. has lack of restraint and is impulsive.

She lacks the ability, or the inclination, to plan-ahead. These traits are impediments to her ability to provide the children with a safe and predictable home. J.H. reacts first and begs forgiveness afterwards. J.H. behaves in a manner which suggests she is used to getting her own way and she does not worry particularly about consequences when she has her eye

on her goal. There is evidence to suggest that both EH and J.H. have often used bullying tactics and threats to achieve a desired result. [ 125 ] I have no confidence that J.H. would abide by direction from this Court not to allow her mother to see her children. 12 Community support services [ 126 ] In or around March 2021, J.H. attended the Chebucto Family Resource Centre. Nicole Clarke reported to the Minister that J.H. was difficult to contact. [ 127 ] Taylor Chinerere from the Chebucto Family Centre was initially involved with J.H. in March 2021.

She reported that J.H. arranged to receive personal supplies and food but she had not booked follow up sessions. [ 128 ] J.H.’s failure to follow up with staff at the Chebucto Family Resource Centre is indicative of her general approach to the Minister’s intervention. She was reportedly happy to take advantage of supplies they were able to provide but unwilling to return telephone calls and engage in programming because she did not feel she needed assistance. She believed the Minister was acting on a “grudge” against her family.

J.H. had smashed into her ex-boyfriend’s car after driving around erratically throughout the city, and she had then failed to recognize her newborn’s signs of distress while taking someone else’s prescription medication, yet she believed the Minister was acting against her maliciously. It is often difficult to comprehend or follow J.H.’s line of reasoning. [ 129 ] Maggie Newcombe, social worker with the Minister, suggested that family skills through Chebucto Connections did not go well.

I accept the Minister’s position with regard to services offered through the community-based service. 13 Family support services through the Minister [ 130 ] Approximately five months later, in August 2021, family support worker Amanda Peers became involved with J.H. At trial, Ms. Peers indicated she spent the first couple of months getting to know J.H. Ms. Peers stated that when she met with J.H., she was “open, friendly, and open to the service.” [ 131 ] Ms. Peers indicated that she met with J.H. approximately four times per month, except “snow days and any misses due to Covid.” Ms.

Peers noted that when J.H. attended her parenting time with the children she was punctual, and she presented as “prepared, attentive and compliant.” Ms. Peers also observed that J.H. presented as “loving, hands on, and she had healthy snacks.” Ms. Peers indicated that she attended access visits between J.H. and the children approximately two or three times per month (J.H.’s parenting time returned to the agency offices in October 2021). [ 132 ] Ms.

Peers indicated that the goals she started out with included but were not limited to the following: positive discipline, behaviour management, child development, stress management, household management, safety, nutrition, self care, feelings and emotions, and communication with others. Ms. Peers described her interactions with J.H. as “crisis driven,” and she stated that she mostly worked with J.H. to help her become more independent. [ 133 ] When the Minister’s counsel inquired, Ms.

Peers was unclear whether they had covered “stress management,” and she noted that they likely did not cover the issue of stress as she would have had concerns about a duplication of services being provided by J.H.’s therapist. [ 134 ] Again, J.H. focussed on her immediate crisis driven needs. She was unable to listen to the options and put the children’s needs ahead of her own. Her time with Ms.

Peers should have been spent making arranging for a safe place for her and for her children which offered longer term services and security – not arranging to stay in someone else’s apartment in the hopes of getting in under the wire so to speak. 14 Incident involving J.H. and her sister’s, J’s, ex-boyfriend [ 135 ] On September 7, 2021, J.H. contacted the police to report a dispute related to her niece, JP, which she reported had started the previous Friday on September 3, 2021.

She stated that her sisters’ ex-boyfriend RP had become angry with her after she told her niece not to give him any money and she told her sister J that JP had given him money. J.H. reported feeling threatened by RP. [ 136 ] It is quite astonishing to me how J.H. would continue to place herself in situations which could place her children at risk of harm or would jeopardize the return of her children to her care. In this case I believe her behaviour contributed to the conflict which resulted in the children leaving their aunt’s home.

J.H. has not been able to remain child focussed and think strategically to place herself in the best position to be able to protect her children. 15 GT, biological father (not participating in proceeding) [ 137 ] On October 7, 2021, GT reported to the police that his “ex-girlfriend from four years ago,” J.H., was dropped off at his home by her mother EH on October 6, 2021 and that J.H. refused to leave when he requested that she leave, even after he offered her a ride home. GT indicated: (

a) that J.H. did not wish to leave on October 6, 2021, and he allowed her to stay the night in his bedroom while he slept on the couch.

(

b) that in the morning on October 7, 2021, he offered to drive her home again, but J.H. stated that she wanted to stay. GT explained that he worked on his patio and did yard work, and when he came in the house, he offered to drive J.H. home again, but J.H. stated that she was going to “lay down for awhile and she refused to leave” his home. (

c) that he grew tired of J.H. “lounging around in his bed and told her that she had to go.” J.H. refused and GT, stated that he “put her things outside on the step” and told J.H. that he would call the police if she did not leave his home. GT stated that J.H. began yelling at him and she took his telephone off the counter. (

d) that he then got her out the back door and he closed the door behind her, then he realized she had taken his cellular telephone. He stated to her that he would use his landline to contact the police if she did not return his cellular telephone. GT reported that J.H. began yelling at him once again and he closed the door on her. (

e) that when he went to use his landline, the line was dead and that his internet service and cable were also not working. GT indicated that J.H.’s mother picked her up approximately an hour later. He then went outside and noted that the fiber op cable to his house had been cut. He believed J.H. had cut the wire when he was threatening to call the police. He requested a Protection of Property Act Order against J.H. [ 138 ] I find J.H.’s apparently almost on-again off-again relationship with GT to be confusing and troubling.

J.H. does not appear to even recognize why the Court might be concerned about the potential effect on the children. [ 139 ] I would not want to hazard a guess why GT would agree to drive J.H. to her parenting time with the boys, but he has failed to arrange to see them himself. I am mystified about why he has not agreed to participate in the proceeding or at least made his views known to the Court. I believe J.H. suggested he was shy? [ 140 ] I was troubled by J.H.’s choice to have her mother drop her off at GT’s home, then refuse to leave his home when asked and refuse to allow him to drive her home.

I believe GT’s version of events: that J.H. held his cellular telephone hostage, and she contacted her family to pick her up. [ 141 ] For J.H. to then suggest she did not or does not know how G.T.’s cable and telephone lines were cut that day is not believable. Then several months after that incident, to suggest they might reconcile?

This defies explanation. [ 142 ] The choices J.H. continues to make with respect to her intimate relationships (including failing to abide by no contact provisions with G.O. and failing to leave GT’s home when requested) could place her children at risk of harm, both physical and emotional. 16 G.O.’s plan for EE [ 143 ] On September 28, 2021, G.O. filed a plan of care for EE.

G.O. claimed that throughout the proceeding he had developed a strong working relationship with EE’s foster mother, and he had exercised access with EE some distance from the city every weekend. 17 G.O. reports property damage shortly after filing his Plan [ 144 ] A week after filing his plan of care, on October 14, 2021, G.O. reported damage to his vehicle and requested police assistance reviewing video surveillance. The police were unable to identify the suspect responsible for the damage. [ 145 ] I am not a big believer in coincidences.

On the heels of having filed a plan for primary care of EE and shortly after GT’s home sustained property damage, G.O. reported damage to his property. Does J.H. think that she and her family would not be the prime suspects in that incident? What did she hope to gain? 18 Meghan Scott, registered counseling therapist [ 146 ] Ms. Scott MA, RCT-C, CCC, began working with J.H. as of November 1, 2021. In her counseling report dated January 7, 2022, she had been tasked with accomplishing the following goals: • Explore Ms. Hubley’s past and childhood trauma and understand its present day implications; • Explore Ms.

Hubley’s substance abuse and work on preventing future slips; • Aid Ms. Hubley in developing coping mechanisms for stressful events; • Help Ms. Hubley gain insight on how her mental state impacts her parenting abilities; • Explore healthy and abusive relationships both romantically, and within the familial framework; and • Explore and understand the impact of trauma on childhood development.

At the outset of their therapeutic relationship, J.H. expressed that she experienced very little trauma in her life, although “she was in abusive relationships in the past.” J.H. described her involvement with the agency as being the biproduct of the agency’s “grudge against her family.” [ 147 ] At trial, Meghan Scott, registered counseling therapist for J.H. (qualified as an expert witness in the field of clinical therapy),

confirmed she began working with J.H. in November 2021 and that her involvement with J.H. ended in April 2022. She confirmed they completed twelve sessions with one “no show.” Ms. Scott stated that she did have difficulty contacting J.H. on a couple of occasions and at times J.H. “sounded fatigued while on the telephone.” [ 148 ] Ms. Scott confirmed that the goals identified by J.H. were achieved. She agreed that J.H. did not acknowledge that her living situation with her mother EH and brother JH was unhealthy. Ms.

Scott also confirmed that she and J.H. did not discuss her mother’s mental health and that J.H. did not acknowledge “childhood trauma” was something she needed to address. Ms. Scott expressed that with more work she felt J.H. could make more progress. [ 149 ] Maggie Newcombe acknowledged that J.H. presented as open to therapy. That the transition between J.H.’s first therapist, Breanna Lane and Meghan Scott went smoothly.

Although J.H.’s attendance was “off and on,” and she was sometimes difficult to contact, the contract was renewed. [ 150 ] I agree that J.H. has not addressed the underlying issues which resulted in her children being placed in the Minister’s care. Although I have pieced together the MSI records and other records to see what the cause of J.H.’s suspected “trauma” might be, I am not entirely sure J.H. has been traumatized.

It is unclear to me whether J.H. was not more of a catalyst – perhaps learning early and quickly how to manipulate her mother to avoid doing things she did not want to do or to gain privileges or get what she wanted. 19 Family placement breakdown, alleging harassment by J.H. and EH [ 151 ] Ms.

Newcombe noted that for various reasons, but also because J.H.’s and her sister J’s relationship was difficult and they were experiencing ongoing conflict, in October 2021, J.H.’s sister J reported that J.H. and her mother EH were harassing her. [ 152 ] More specifically, the concerns raised by J.H.’s sister J to the Minister included a concern that when J.H. was permitted to attend J’s home to have parenting time with the children, J.H. was not attending her home regularly, and when J.H. visited J’s home, J.H. did not “parent” the children.

J also observed that the children did “not know how to play with toys.” [ 153 ] The children were placed in the temporary care of the Minister at the end of December 2021. The Minister filed a Plan of Care dated January 6, 2022 seeking to have the children, EO and EI, placed in the temporary care and custody of the Minister. EI and EO were placed back into the temporary care and custody of the Minister on December 30, 2021 in the same foster home, and they were having regular access with EE who was placed in G.O.’s care in late 2021. [ 154 ] Ms.

Newcombe stated that it was hard to assess J.H.’s progress in a “fully supervised environment” and that the Minister remained concerned about J.H.’s ability to care for EI and EO due to: 1. Past substance abuse (past issues unresolved to their satisfaction); 2. Lack of food, clothing, and shelter; 3. Medical neglect; and they had an additional concern of 4. Home instability. [ 155 ] J.H. and her mother could not resist letting J.H.’s sister know how they felt.

The fact that the children would be moved from a relatives’ home was not enough to encourage them to contain their feelings and put the children’s needs ahead of their own. Coupled with J.H.’s choice to continue to rely on her mother for transportation to her parenting time with the children, this shows that J.H. has not been able to grasp that the children need to be her priority.

A period of discomfort should have been tolerable to ensure the children were safe and with family, and then to ensure the Minister and the Court were both reassured about J.H.’s intention to protect them from their grandmother’s overreactions and often violent outbursts. 20 Housing [ 156 ] After refusing to apply to any assisted living programs, after efforts to live with her grandparents failed, and after efforts to reconcile with GT failed, J.H. reported that she had moved into a one-bedroom apartment. Her name is not on the lease for the apartment. (

a) On October 14, 2020, G.O. reported unfit living conditions in J.H.’s mother’s home where J.H. was residing with EI, EO, and with EE. G.O. described J.H.’s residence as “rundown, cluttered and dirty.” G.O. also observed that EI and EO presented as dirty and unkempt. (

b) At trial, Ms. Peers noted that J.H. was not interested in suggested supportive housing, Adsum House (as she thought she would not qualify), or SHYM (she wanted her own apartment), or Alice Housing (she was concerned about the rules), but J.H. did consider living with her grandparents in Spryfield until the arrangement fell through. Ms. Peers also noted that in January 2022, J.H. was talking about reconciliation with GT, EO and EI’s father, and living with him. (

c) Ms. Peers described J.H. as reluctant to leave her mother’s home but reported that at the end of February 2022, J.H. did secure a one bedroom apartment. Ms. Peers indicated that J.H. took advantage of services offered through the food bank and the furniture bank. Ms. Peers noted that J.H. took the initiative and she made the decision. Ms. Peers described J.H. as “very engaged and prepared” when working on finding a home of her own. Ms. Peers observed that finding a home of her own appeared to be a high

priority for J.H. and she was really happy to finally secure her own apartment. Ms. Peers noted that J.H. experienced some stress related to getting a copy of her lease to her income assistance worker. (

d) At trial, Maggie Newcombe confirmed that J.H.’s previous lack of a separate residence was a “stumbling block,” but she had moved into her own residence on March 1, 2022 (with the Minister later qualifying that the lease was not in J.H.’s name). (

e) Maggie Newcombe acknowledged that J.H. had found a suitable home and that she had all the necessary items to care for the children. [ 157 ] As I have said previously, the obvious and safe choice would have been assisted living.

I am not convinced J.H.’s friend’s new apartment is a long-term safe solution for the children. 21 Mitigation of circumstances? [ 158 ] The Minister expressed concern due to their perception that J.H. was “late to begin participating in ‘pivotal’ services,” such as family support services, and in any event J.H. had not satisfied the Minister that her past substance abuse issues, her parenting skills, her conflict management skills, her ability to engage in unhealthy relationships, her housing situation, and the risk of the children’s exposure to her mother and brother had been mitigated.

The Minister believed the children remained at substantial risk of harm. 22 Permanent Care - Revised Plan of Care [ 159 ] The Minister filed a revised Plan of Care for EI and EO dated January 24, 2022, requesting that the children be placed in the permanent care and custody of the Minister.

The Minister noted that J.H.: Has engaged in services requested by the Department; however, she has refused to address some of the goals identified by the Department such as; failed to acknowledge that she has struggled with substance abuse: failed to acknowledge the role that her mother’s influence has played (and arguably continues to play) in the ongoing child protection concerns: and refused to acknowledge how her mother’s struggle with her mental health impacted J.H.’s life as a child. [ 160 ] The Minister went on to note: EH (J.H.’s mother) had identified herself as a possible placement for the children, however, the Department is not supportive of this placement for several reasons, first being that EH, has significant mental health concerns, second being that EH, has behaved inappropriately several times with Department staff such as yelling out of her car at case aides, calling protection supervisors with non- sensical remarks and that lastly, EH, was residing in the home when EE was observed to be severely malnourished and subsequently hospitalized for neglect and failure to thrive. [ 161 ] The Minister listed the following ongoing concerns: 1.

J.H. had not found appropriate housing for herself and the children; 2. J.H. had shown “no insight into the concerns pertaining to her mother’s home and her mother’s mental health”; 3. The Minister does not believe J.H. will protect the children from harm if they return to her care; 4. J.H.’s parenting time with the children “remains supervised due to concerns that J.H. was harassing her sister J, who had care of EI and EO”; 5. J.H. has “not been able to demonstrate that she has the parenting skills or insight into the concerns to allow for her to have any unsupervised contact with the children”; and 6.

J.H. continued to have “inappropriate contact with J and with G.O.” 23 The children’s special needs [ 162 ] The Minister determined that both EI and EO may have special needs.

Arrangements were made for both children to attend full- time day care which provides structure, routine, and socialization for the children. [ 163 ] The Minister took the position that: “the children are considered good candidates for adoption given their young ages and the care they are receiving from their current foster home.” [ 164 ] The Minister stated that they would support ongoing access between the children EI and EO, and J.H.; however, if permanent care and custody is granted, the agency does not support access being stated in a Permanent Care and Custody Order.

Should permanent care and custody be granted, the agency would provide for a final visit between the respondent and their children. 24 Children’s child in care worker [ 165 ] Beverly Brewer, child in care worker for EI and EO, met them when they initially came into care in November 2020, but did not

have contact with the children while they were placed with their aunt J. She was reassigned to their file in January 2022. [ 166 ] Ms. Brewer explained that EI was four and a half years old and attending daycare daily. She stated that in January 2022, he was exhibiting “challenges with his behaviours,” with his caregivers, suggesting they could not anticipate when he would respond in a negative way or what would “set him off.” The Minister now pays for a staff person to assist EI at day care. [ 167 ] Ms.

Brewer explained that EI was beings assessed by the IWK Autism Team and that he also has a private speech language therapist. Another issue which arose was with respect to EI’s teeth. EI had to have some dental work done, with some teeth being removed and some being filled. EI is scheduled to see a dentist every six months. The Minister had also determined that EI’s vaccinations were not up to date. [ 168 ] Ms. Brewer stated that EO had turned three in March 2022. She noted that EO was experiencing problems with tantrums and had been referred to the early intervention program.

EO’s vaccinations were not up to date. 25 Assessment reports [ 169 ] I have had the opportunity to review the Pediatric Medical Assessment Form for EI from the autism clinic, his dental examination report; the IWK Autism Team Assessment Report completed by Erica Brady PhD, R, Psych, Psychologist dated March 14, 2022; the Pediatric Medical Assessment form for EO and his Dental Examination Report; and the Pediatric Medial Assessment form for EE. None of the professionals involved in the assessments were subpoenaed to testify. The reports were entered as exhibits by consent of the parties. [ 170 ] Dr.

Brady found that EI’s “profile meets criteria for a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). I would note that at page 18 of the IWK Autism Team Assessment Report, dated March 4, 2022, that Erica Brady, PhD, R, Psych, described EI: as a sweet affectional boy who can be attuned to other’s emotions at times. Dr. Brady reported in part that EI: did not engage in imaginative play; sometimes echoes other and repeats scripts from shows or books; has difficulty with transitions at daycare; shows strong interest in letters and numbers, and books and reading. [ 171 ] Dr.

Brady explained that the: overall quality of his initiation of social overtures was unusual for his age at times (e.g., lacked integration of eye contact, took things from her hand without other attempts to communicate, occasionally made a comment that did not fit the context); that he sometimes had difficulty understanding or complying with tasks; his performance on a visual spatial puzzle assembly task was above average and an area of personal strength (95 th percentile). [ 172 ] She reported that EI: rated as showing strength with his gross motor skills.

His self help-behaviour, speech/language skills, fine motor skills, cognitive skills and person / social skills were rather as areas of weakness…concerns were noted with lack of fear, difficulty adapting to change, and frequent temper tantrums daily 26 Present and ongoing substantial risk [ 173 ] Maggie Newcombe submitted that “despite some progress,” there remains a risk that the children will be harmed.

The major concern was whether J.H. could commit to leave her conflict laden world (and the people in it) behind and develop a new support system with the goal of giving her children a safe and stable home. [ 174 ] There is clear evidence that J.H. has not left that life behind her.

J.H. is getting dropped off at the Minister’s office by either her mother, (one of the Minister’s primary concerns is J.H.’s reliance on her mother and all the upheaval that comes with that choice), or at times she is getting dropped off by the children’s father (when it is unclear if at any point the children’s father had regular parenting time with the children and what the potential is for his appearance in and out of the children’s lives to cause harm).

Contrary to J.H.’s position, I find that her parenting time at the Minister’s office has not been without concern, including the potential for conflict and confusion with the involvement of EH and/or GT. [ 175 ] J.H. has shown no insight into how her choice to continue to rely on her mother, and at times the children’s father, might affect the children.

At all times during this proceeding, J.H.’s mother’s presence could be felt, omnipresent, and the children’s father’s involvement, or lack thereof, has only raised unanswered questions and concerns. [ 176 ] There is very little question in my mind that if given a choice, J.H. will choose to have her mother in her and in her children’s lives. For example, the day before the hearing started, April 4, 2022, EH filed an application under the Parenting and Support Act for contact with the children.

J.H. stated she was unaware her mother was filing an application, but that she supported her mother having contact with the children. Another example is the audiotaped telephone calls to various politicians’ offices. J.H. and EH made many of those calls together. Their approach to solving problems in these instances suggests a significant tendency to try to force an issue through threats rather than any attempt to understand and resolve and/or do the work to properly address an issue. [ 177 ] I do not believe J.H. was unaware of her mother’s intentions.

I also do not accept that J.H. is “alone” but I conclude EH is part of every decision J.H. makes. J.H.’s sister, J, was not raised by her mother. J appears to have identified a need and made a choice not to associate with EH. The police have reported ongoing conflict between J.H. and her mother, EH on the one hand, and J.H.’s sister, J and

EH’s mother, SH on the other hand. Police confirmed they have directed the two sides to keep their distance. What is clear is that the conflict is ongoing. 27 Lack of insight into trauma related to family of origin [ 178 ] As noted above, at paragraph 58 in A . B ., supra the Court of Appeal states: History can preface a current finding of a need for protective services. But it is not a substitute for a current finding of such a need Nova Scotia ( Community

[…]